Innovación por pensamiento critico y acciónes practicas
(en una verdadera perspectiva global) |
|||||||||
|
Leaders as Strategic Communicators
Every Leader Communicates, but few do it Strategically
Exhorting leaders to communicate more will not guarantee that they will be effective. Yet the popular press routinely admonishes leaders to “communicate, communicate, communicate!” as if the added emphases improves the likelihood of success. Our research suggests that leaders are more than willing to communicate but they often approach the task on a tactical rather than strategic level. Indeed, they may give stirring speeches, write inspiring newsletter columns, or develop clever slogans. How do these communicative activities translate into meaningful coordinated strategy? We answer this question by discussing a model that can guide leaders’ communicative efforts (See Figure 1). It starts with properly assessing the context. ASSESS THE CONTEXT
Effective leaders
assess those they seek to influence. A proper assessment allows leader’s to
discern the group’s limits and possibilities. Push too slow and key
initiatives never get traction. Push too fast and they falter through sheer
exhaustion. We highlight below two specific activities that can help leaders
find just the right rhythm to exert influence. Survey
the cognitive, emotional, and volitional landscape of the stakeholders.
Leaders operate in a multi-dimensional landscape populated by various
groups with different beliefs, values, emotions and desires.
Leaders, like road builders, need to thoroughly understand their
territory before proceeding. In
particular, they need to identify the major interest groups and ask the
following questions about each group:
By answering these
questions, leaders can ascertain important commonalities and differences between
various stakeholders. These insights prove crucial in formulating strategy. In
one case, the leaders at a manufacturing company thought they were doing their
employees a favor by offering direct deposit of their payroll checks.
Therefore, they were totally unprepared for the resistance that resulted.
Employees knew, logically, that this was a great convenience, but emotionally,
it was a different matter. The labor
force was fiercely traditional and they didn’t like their spouse knowing how
much money they were making or having immediate access to the funds.
As a result, this “benefit” was quickly withdrawn.
Such examples merely echo a trend noted by Professors Beer and Nohria
that “the brutal fact is that 70% of
all change initiatives fail” (“Cracking the Code of Change”, Harvard
Business Review, May-June 2000, p. 133). We
are not arguing that leaders should simply acquiesce to pre-existing beliefs,
emotions, and desires. Rather, we are suggesting that wise leaders consider
which battles are worth fighting and then position proper messages accordingly.
The difficulty of this task is compounded by the fact that
stakeholders’ beliefs, emotions, and desires are constantly evolving. For
instance, one can hardly conceive of President Bush leading a galvanizing war on
terrorism before September 11. The events of that day permanently changed the
cognitive, emotional, and volitional landscape of most people.
Describe
and evaluate the existing communication system.
All communication systems present opportunities and constraints. Some
excel at the rapid transmission of information while inhibiting deep
understanding of organizational issues. Others focus on the production of
elaborate oral presentations that discourage meaningful dialogue. Consequently,
leaders need to discern the impact of the existing communication system on
organizational life and accomplishments by first answering these base-line
questions:
Two
even more difficult questions emerge during the evaluation phase. First, are
the channels compatible with the communicative goals?
For example, some organizations have constructed elaborate
electronic databases in an effort to better manage employee knowledge.
They often discover that employees are disinclined to share their ideas
in such an impersonal forum. Effective
“knowledge management” requires a more intimate face-to-face channel.
Second, is the organization communicating about the right issues? Answering
this question encourages leaders to think about the link between the content of
typical messages and organizational goals. The question also invites to leaders
to ponder the concerns of employees. Determining
“the right issues” provides the starting point for crafting the leadership
strategy. CRAFT
THE STRATEGY
The context provides
the backdrop for developing the strategy. Making the right tradeoffs while
formulating a strategy involves a three-step process. Select
communicative goals that link to the organizational goals.
Executives
perform a complex organizational role requiring them to think long-term,
synthesize massive amounts information, institute broad policies, and establish
corporate objectives. Unfortunately once
these priorities are articulated, many executives simply assume that employees
will understand them. Broadcasting the corporate objectives and priorities
through existing channels may help. But when questioned about these objectives,
employees typically respond by saying, “I’m not sure if I completely
understand them.” That
means executives must develop a set of strategic communication goals that
correspond to organizational goals (see
Table 1). An executive who wants employees to understand the basic business
climate might develop a communicative goal of educating employees about the
state of the business. The word “education” suggests something deeper than
merely providing information. Any serious
discussion of communicative goals naturally leads to considering sequencing
issues. For instance, in one Fortune 500 company we crafted the objective around
“instilling a sense of the vision and organizational priorities” but we
realized from the contextual analysis that many employees felt that the
communication system lacked credibility. Therefore, we decided the first
priority was to “cultivate trust in a new communication system”. Underscore
and explore a few key themes.
We have discussed elsewhere that executives generally choose one of five
basic communication strategies (see
Figure 2) : ·
Spray & Pray:
Executives shower employees with all kinds of information, hoping that
employees will be able to sort out the significant from insignificant; ·
Tell & Sell:
Executives communicate a more limited set of messages, first telling
employees about the key issues, then selling them on the wisdom of their
approach; ·
Underscore & Explore:
Executives focus on developing a few core messages clearly linked to
organizational success, while actively listening for potential misunderstandings
and unrecognized obstacles. ·
Identify & Reply:
Executives identify key employee concerns and then reply to them.
·
Withhold & Uphold:
Executives withhold information until necessary. Secrecy and control are
the implicit values of this strategy (See Clampitt, DeKoch, & Cashman, “A
Strategy for Communicating about Uncertainty”, Academy of Management
Executive, Winter 2000, 41- 57). Many organizational
leaders gravitate toward the “Spray and Pray” and “Tell & Sell”
strategies for admirable reasons. The “Spray and Pray” strategy creates the
illusion that everyone is informed. Some executives will go to meetings armed
with their “deck” of 100 PowerPoint slides, delivering the message in
rapid-fire fashion. Employees often have difficulty interpreting or making sense
out of the information thrust at them. The “Tell & Sell” strategy
demonstrates the (cheer)leader’s enthusiastic endorsement of an initiative.
Yet, no one ever asks for employee feedback or checks to see if the message was
understood. The
“Underscore & Explore” strategy resolves that problem by addressing
fewer issues and then exploring employee interpretations. It has the added
benefit of creating dialogue around a few core concepts that have the greatest
potential to transform the organization. The
Boldt Company President, Robert DeKoch, successfully used this strategy to
create understanding of the organizational theme of “profitably growing” the
company. At a strategic planning meeting,
he initiated a conversation about how all employees needed to “find themselves
in the financial levers”. He weaved this theme into his communications on
every possible occasion. For example, as
part of the “exploring” strategy, employees were invited on a rotating basis
to ask questions of the executive team. Whenever someone asked about why the
company chose to pursue or not pursue a particular project, the executives
linked their answer back to the “financial lever” notion.
Translate
corporate objectives and priorities. Underscoring
a theme is not enough. To be effective, executives must play an active role in
translating the theme into corporate priorities and objectives at each level of
the organization. To do this, executives
need to first understand that the words and phrases in the organizational
objectives may have little meaning for non-managerial employees.
And forcing them to carry around a card containing the objectives or
memorize the words may not help.
One
useful strategy is for managers at every level to reword the corporate
priorities in language that would be appropriate for their division.
For example, if the core theme revolves around “efficiency”, the
corporate objective might be to cut $10 million of costs this year. Managers and
employees need to translate that number into specific action and priorities such
as “decrease my machine’s down-time by 10%”. IMPLEMENT
THE STRATEGY
Great strategy cannot
overcome poor execution. Executing a
communication strategy requires skill, tenacity, and insight that leaders can
glean from the following tactics. Use
repetition and redundancy.
Advertisers have long known the value of repetition and redundancy.
Redundant messages replicate a central idea but vary the mode of expression,
such as the “Avis, We Try Harder” advertising campaign.
Their commercials showed numerous situations in which the company was
“trying harder”. Likewise, successful leaders learn that repeating a slogan
while varying the examples increases the likelihood that various stakeholders
will hear a similar message, remember it and act on it. Reiterating key messages
signals that the leaders are serious about the idea; it serves a legitimizing
function. Listeners often have clever
ways of discounting messages that conflict with their preconceived notions.
Repetition helps break through those psychological resistance points, increasing
the likelihood that the message will reach listeners at a time when they are
most open. Leaders
at Appleton Papers, like Dave Spencer, use repetition and redundancy to
communicate about the importance of a key organizational value, “Customer
Focused Quality”. They fund CFQ
employee conferences, publish a CFQ newsletter, and even encourage employees to
buy specialized CFQ car license tags. They redundantly underscore this key value
by seeking out and retelling stories about employees who have lived by the CFQ
creed. Does it work? Ask any employee and he/she will probably relate several
recent examples of what the acronym means. Most employees want to know the
“big picture” and feel part of something bigger than themselves; CFQ
provides the perfect rhetorical tool to meet that need. Identify
and utilize opinion leaders.
Non-managerial opinion leaders are an often overlooked yet influential
force in organizations. All groups have
at least one informal leader who serves a vital role in the social structure of
employees. Leaders can identify these
individuals by asking the group, “Who do you typically talk to when you have a
question about what you should do?” Opinion
leaders are respected for their insight and expertise, are typically more
outgoing, and are good at expressing their opinions as well as clarifying those
of others. They help members of the group
make sense of organizational life, and they set the norms for acceptable and
unacceptable behavior. If executives want
their initiatives to be implemented, they must garner the support of opinion
leaders throughout the organization. This
involves identifying key opinion leaders, determining their understanding of
organizational priorities, seeking their input, and assessing their degree of
support. If opinion leaders express
resistance, management needs to address how to gain their endorsement. In many
respects, the “buy-in” of the opinion leaders is the most important
determinant of whether programs succeed or fail. Select
the right channels.
Channels of communication, and the way they are used, greatly influence
how messages are interpreted. Some
organizations fall into an event-based communication system that only kicks into
action when some major announcement needs to be made, signaling that something
“big” is going to happen. Bill
Journey of PepsiCo Business Solutions aptly describes the consequences of such
systems when he remarked: “Employees know that the organization only gathers
for ‘weddings and ‘funerals’. So once ‘the big meeting’ is announced
everyone starts speculating about who ‘died’. The channel choice symbolizes
‘importance’ and the rumor mill starts cranking out stories about whose
division is going to be downsized.” Such systems restrict leaders’ ability
to build their credibility, foster employee commitment, and provide an enduring
sense of purpose. So their first order of
business might be to build new channels into the system to allow for the routine
and systematic discussion of key issues. Even
if the existing communication has all the right mechanisms, leaders still must
make the choices about what channels to use. For instance, when announcing major
changes, leaders should use multiple channels because it increases the
probability employees will hear key messages. Some
employees ignore print media or e-mail and only respond to oral messages. For
others, it’s the reverse. Leaders
should also use “rich” channels, such as face-to-face meetings, to allow for
rapid feedback and quick adaptation to employee concerns.
The very expense of a dynamic channel sends a powerful symbolic message
that leaders care about effectively communicating with employees. If new
initiatives are only announced via corporate memorandum, then it is very
difficult to 1) ascertain how employees are responding to the changes, and 2)
make the necessary mid-course corrections.
Provoke Dialogue. Some
leaders are effective at persuasively presenting information. Dialogue goes
further, encouraging give-and-take, and allowing everyone to influence outcomes.
Many people fear this kind of interchange, wrongly thinking that it undermines
their credibility and diminishes their influence. To be sure, it is a messier
affair than a flashy speech, but in the long run, meaningful dialogue promotes
deeper commitment to the leader’s ideas, purpose or mission. The following
methods have proven helpful in provoking meaningful dialogue. Attack
“thought-terminating clichés”. Robert
Clifton used this wonderful phrase to highlight how people can use language to
stop further thought, discussion and action (Reform and the Psychology of
Totalism: A Study of ‘Brainwashing’ in China, New York, Norton, 1961).
Once someone invokes a thought-terminating cliché it becomes difficult to probe
much further. In politics, for example, once an initiative has been successfully
labeled as “racist”, it becomes difficult to have further dialogue. Every
organizational culture creates these kinds of labels and phrases. In one Fortune
500 Company, the cliché was “here we go again”. By linking new initiatives
to this phrase, employees subtly resisted change, disengaged from the process,
and stopped further discussion, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Successful
leaders identify these clichés, expose them, and trigger more thoughtful
discussions about their proposals. In the case above, leaders directly attacked
the cliché by proactively presenting a direct counterargument--“This
initiative is NOT one of these ‘here-we-go-again’ ideas and here’s
why…”. Then they invited employees to
discuss the differences between this initiative and others. Clarify
confusing events by selecting the right frames. Message-rich
environments present employees with an informational Rorschach test. Employees
are exposed to so much information from so many different sources that they can
interpret events in almost any way possible. One
of the leader’s most important skills is to make sense out of this confusing
mush of information, motives, and interpretations. Why, for instance, does a
company on a cost-cutting binge build an employee gym? These are exactly the
kinds of questions that skilled leaders can field and help employees understand.
If they don’t, others will and the leader cedes the conceptual ground to
others. Selecting the
right frame helps employees make sense out of the conflicting morass of
information (see Fairhurst & Sarr, The art of framing: Managing
the language of leadership, 1996). The
frame acts as a lens through which the other issues are viewed, highlighting
certain images and refracting others. For
example, many Appleton Papers employees were confused about why cost-cutting was
emphasized for some initiatives and not for others. One organizational leader,
Tom Cashman, deftly explained the situation by invoking the “three world”
frame and discussing the typical product lifecycle (Launch, Growth, and
Decline). He noted that there were
different funding rules for new products in the “Launch” world than there
were for existing products in the “Decline” world. In fact, each of these
“three worlds” had a different set of priorities and decision-making rules.
Repeatedly using this frame not only helped employees make sense of seemingly
contradictory mandates; it also encouraged employees to “work smarter”.
Check
the pulse. It’s
hard to provoke the right kind of dialogue if leaders don’t know what
employees are thinking. We designed a process, called the Pulse, to gather and
provide feedback in a time-sensitive way. At
the heart of this process are three items:
Originally we thought
the value of the process would be that it demonstrates that management is
listening to employee concerns and responding to them in a timely manner. That
proved accurate. We also discovered some unforeseen benefits: the process acts
as an early warning device enabling the organization to address issues that
emerge. It also helps focus communication
efforts and teaches employees how management thinks about issues through the
Talking Points document. Most surprisingly, over time, it changes the way
executives think and communicate by forcing them to articulate their
decision-making criteria and consistently apply it. Conclusion
Communicating
strategically requires a special set of skills. Leaders need to think like an
analyst to assess the context, visualize like a craftsman to fashion strategy,
perform like an elite commando to implement strategy, and agitate like a
talk-show host to provoke dialogue. Few people possess all these skills.
That may explain why effective leaders are so rare. Para suscribirse y recibir automáticamente actualizaciones periódicas sobre nuevos artículos y reseñas >> Editado y gestionado por Professione Lavoro® |