get what you want • find purpose • design your life

Leadership:
The Management of Meaning

Jim Accetta, MS, CH, CT

There are many critical issues facing leaders in the 21st century. Global economy, technological advancement, terrorism, economic decline, virtual corporations, distrust in corporate leadership, political unrest, leadership credibility, lack of direction or mission, the literature is full of areas of focus. A common characteristic among all the content levels is the process of communication of the leader. The leader’s ability to effectively communicate and lead people is critical, at all levels, whether it be local, state, country, family, small group, small and large businesses and worldwide. A leader’s credibility is central to their effectiveness. To be credible, the leader must be credible to those in their charge, those they are leading. Only through social processes, vis-à-vis communication can their credibility be perceived, earned and utilized in meeting group goals. This article will addresses the vital role of how being a professional communicator is essential in leadership effectiveness and how this is the most critical issue facing leaders the 21st century.

As a leader, one has the role of leading others. By leading, I am referring to all those activities that contribute to the leader inspiring, motivating, guiding, directing, and all behaviors that lead to one “following” the leader. The leader does so through planning, organizing, mobilizing of resources, problem solving, informing, motivating, inspiring, and a variety of other actions. Whatever the leader does communicates what is of value to the leader at that particular time; in other words, the leader’s focus of attention and/or focus of behavior is a message, a communication of what is important to the leader. Such communication is interpreted by those in their charge as to what is and is not important. Such actions include but are not limited to whom they talk with, frequency of action, what they act on, etc… exhibits what is important to the leader at that time. Thus, a leader is always communicating. Through this communication, they create meaning, they show those in their charge what is important, what to focus on, what demands attention. In order to be effective, this creation of shared meaning, this mobilization of people through communication will only occur through the relationship of the leader and those in their charge. Thus, it is the follower’s perception of the leader’s ability; which is meaningful as the competence of the leader created through their ability to communicate to those in their charge. Issues such as world peace, net profit for a small or large business, marketplace changes and the need for corporate shifts to meet market demands, all require the leader to be effective through others, if they are to effect change. In short, all leaders need to know what they want, how to make it happen, and to be able to lead others through their words and actions toward meeting whatever goals they have.

My position is based on premises that I hold to be true in all my interactions, that is “one cannot, not communicate” and that it is the role and the responsibility of the leader to lead others. The leader in fact, has either the informal or the formal role of leading others. Thus, the leader in all of their actions must keep in mind that all their behavior is communication and that all their communication has the inherent ability to create meaning. The leader must always work to be intentional in what they want to communicate through their words and their actions.

The presupposition that one cannot not communicate has been documented in several sources: (Bandler & Grinder 1975, Bateson 1972, Watzalwick, et al.1967, Dilts, et. al. 1980 & Deering, et. al. 2002) in the classroom setting, the teacher is the “assigned” leader. The teachers’ focus of discussion communicates what is valuable to them. The syllabus designed by the teacher outlines the goals of the class and again defines what is valuable. The teacher starting and ending on time communicates a commitment to time. It is important to note, that these are the writers interpretations of the meaning of the teachers communications. The meaning of the communication can vary from person to person. The messages interpreted by others of the teacher or “leaders” behaviors determine to some extent how the students or those in the leaders charge will act. It is up to the teacher or the leader to monitor their effect on their students or the “followers” and adjust their behavior accordingly to achieve the results they want. If the teacher starts class promptly at 6:00pm, the message can be interpreted as “we start on time”, thus students will follow this lead. If the teacher, or leader in an organizational setting starts “late”, a message could be that the sense of urgency of starting on time does not exist, and that it is “ok” to start late or perhaps even arrive late! In other words, it is up to the leader to monitor the effects of their communication, and keep in mind that the meaning of the communication is the response it elicits. If the teacher, manager, leader is not getting the results they want, they must change their behavior / communication to get the results the want.

In an organizational setting, if the CEO states that the main priority of the company is to take care of customers, that customers are number one, but pays people for number of customers seen, amount of sales per customer and spends little time their self on customer issues, what are the messages? It appears that what is important is how many customers one can service (quantity, not quality); how much is sold (short-term gains possibly at the cost of long-term satisfaction), and there are many other things that are more important than customer issues. Thus, those in the company are left to interpret the verbal communication, the pay plan (and what it communicates), and the behavior of the leader. In this case, the messages appear to be incongruent and likely to lead to confusion, with some question of leadership credibility. In this scenario, I would question at minimum if the leader really knows what they want, and if they do, it appears to me that they do not know how to clearly communicate this throughout the company.

There are many possible consequences of incongruent communication. First, if the leader is not perceived as credible, those in their charge may not and will not likely follow their lead. This follower behavior may occur short term or long term. They may look to others in the organization, make decisions themselves about the “best” or most appropriate courses of action; they may begin to have little confidence in the organization and its ability to succeed in the marketplace; possible interpretations of the leaders communication or lack of credibility and the subsequent actions of those in the organization are endless. In both of my specific examples, lower moral, lower production and/or service levels are a few of the likely consequences.

The notion of the leaders values being communicated through their behavior has been documented in two other sources. In Deering et. al. (2002), they discuss how leader’s activities consistently demonstrate what is important:

“Time allocation is where the rubber meets the road with respect to values. In a very real way, what a person spends his or her time doing is the most direct expression of his or her values (even if the person in not consciously aware of those values). How you choose to allocate your time transmits strong messages about what matters to you” (p 156).

In other words, a person’s behavior is a direct expression of what is important to them. As a leader, people in your charge are aware of your actions, and follow your lead if either it is what they believe in, or they do not, in which case you are no longer leading them!

Smircich and Morgan (2003) have discussed the role of the leader to create meaning. In their article, Smirich and Morgan discuss how it is the role of the leader to frame and define the reality of others. They support the premise of the social nature of leadership, and how meaning is defined and constructed through social interaction. (p.22).

“Effective leadership depends upon the extent to which the leader’s definition of the situation (e.g., People in this office are not working hard enough) serves as a basis for action by others. It is in this sense that effective leadership rests heavily on the framing of the experience of others, so that action can be guided by common conceptions as to what should occur. The key challenge for a leader is to manage meaning in such a way that individuals orient themselves to the achievement of desirable ends.” (p. 24).

Schein (1995) discusses the role of the leader in creating meaning through understanding and shaping culture. (p278-281). He discusses how the leader must understand “culture”, that such understanding is a prerequisite to being able to shape culture. “Cultural understanding …. is essential to leaders if they are to lead”. (p. 281) Deal and Kennedy (1995) support the fact of the role of the leader in creating meaning in their discussion of early successes in businesses. They discuss the role of creating vision and support the premise and belief that strong cultures have been behind success in business. Referring to their work and studies at McKinsey and Company as well as at Harvard Graduate school of Education, they sight that successful companies they studied all had “...clearly articulated qualitative or value laden beliefs..” (p. 284-286)

Are effectiveness and communication skills the most critical issues facing leaders in the 21st century? Having a personal belief system guided by a sense of mission that is congruent with moral principles cannot be overlooked. (Covey 1989, Kidder, 1995 & Deering, et. al., 2002). Having certain beliefs and acting in accordance with these beliefs is what I refer to as congruence in communication. It has also been referred to as being in alignment, and is paramount in leadership effectiveness. There are several presuppositions inherent in the idea of alignment. Covey (1989), Deering (2002), Dilts (1980) and others have discussed the importance of the leader knowing “thyself”; know ones own values, beliefs, attitudes and being in alignment with such attitudes. Such alignment will be part of the core credibility of the leader. In order for the leader to be congruent, in words, actions, rituals, ideologies, they must operate from a certain belief or set of beliefs; inherent again in what is valuable and who the leader perceives themselves to be as well who they want to be.

In a recent class movie entitled “Credibility” (shown 11/2002, NLU, MGT 542), four primary leadership characteristics were identified in effective leadership. According to the movie, effective leaders need to be honest, competent, inspiring and forward looking. Not only must leaders have these qualities, but also in order for the leader to be recognized as credible, those in the organization must effectively perceive these qualities. The movie goes on to describe the ways that leaders build credibility through: clarifying values, knowing what constituents want, building consensus, and communicating shared values with enthusiasm, standing up for their beliefs, and leading by example.

Recent literature also speaks to issues of effectiveness and the ability to communicate this effectiveness. In their book Execution (Bossidy & Charan, 2002), the authors discuss the importance of bottom line results. They identify many leader characteristics and actions in order to reach this end. They include the need for the leader to be personally involved in the business, utilizing three core processes in being effective: “…picking other leaders, setting the strategic direction, and conducting operations”. (p.25). They go on to support the contention that communication is the key:

“Only the leader can set the tone of the dialogue in the organization. Dialogue is the core of culture and the basic unit of work. How people talk to each other absolutely determines how well the organization will function.” (p 26).

In their book “Alpha Leadership” (Deering, et. al. 2002), the authors also support the notion of ability and effectiveness of communication as being paramount in leadership effectiveness. They identify a primary role of the leader as “… creating cultures that can act in accordance with the goals of the company… in short their job is to get the job done.”(p.123). The authors also identify the vital role of congruence in communication. The need for the leader to first: know who they are (identity); what they want (beliefs); to have the knowledge and skill to perform the varying tasks that need to be performed (capability) and to do so congruently, communicating their vision through words and deeds (behavior).

The notion of the importance of communication, relationships and effective leadership has been documented in research. (Penley & Hawkins, 1985; Holladay & Coombs, 1993). Penley and Hawkins studied communication using five content and behavior scales to measure interpersonal communication of supervisors. These areas were: (1) task communication, (2) performance communication (3) career communication (4) communication responsiveness and (5) personal communication. They drew on other studies and authors separating content and process areas or in other words, verbal and non-verbal aspects. In referencing past work, they refer to findings that state that effective supervisors were more communication oriented, enjoyed speaking up, tended to be receptive and responsive to subordinates inquiries, tended to persuade rather than tell and gave more advance notice of changes along with explaining the why of things. (p. 311). Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967) also reflect this level of concern for others in work, referring to two levels of communication: the content level, that is information or verbal and the relational level, those communication behaviors that define role relationships among the communicants.

Their findings supported their initial hypothesis regarding the difficulties of measuring communication and the inherent content and relational aspects of communication. “That content and relational messages are interrelated has important implications….They must be considered in light of the organization and the relationship between the particular supervisors and subordinates” (p. 322). In addition, that the study points to the multiple dimensions of communication and of leader behavior, and that such relationships are not simple.

In their study titled Communicating visions, Holladay and Coombs (1993) studied the role of communication and delivery of message/s in the creation of leader charisma. In describing charisma, they refer to the ability to inspire others to follow. They go on to document varied sources relating organizational outcomes to charismatic leadership. In defining charisma, they point to those communication styles or attributes that inspire others to follow. Holladay and Coombs as well as Penley and Hawkins differentiate between the content and relational aspects of communications when they refer to the leadership research dividing communication into two areas: content of messages and presentation of messages. (p. 407). They go further and describe the content as “vision”, or the “mental image of the desired future state of the organization” (p. 407).They describe the delivery factors into various behaviors including: eye contact, fluidity, gestures, facial expressiveness, energy, eloquence and voice tone variety” (p. 408). The study discusses how the relational aspects of communication, functions as a frame as to how the content is perceived by the listener.

Knowing, that all behavior, all decisions are communicative actions, what are the implications for our future leaders? As stated previously, effective leaders need to know what they want. They need to be secure in there own sense of what is important, of who they are and what they believe. Such self-knowledge, coupled with actions based on such beliefs, will lead to alignment in action and congruency of communication. However, as we know, communication is a transactional process. The leader must also secure knowledge of the values and beliefs of those in their charge. What is important to those following must be considered if there is to be alignment in mission within the group. Thus, the leader must be able to listen, be attentive to feedback, have a sense of values of the organization or group and be able to communicate a vision in accordance with those in the company. In addition, as discussed herein, the leader often frames and shapes the values of the organization. Such creation of meaning is done within the social context, taking into account those shareholders, employees and customers to whom the vision and mission must effect in order to work.

At times, such leadership seems to occur “naturally” as identified in the article “Defining a Citizen Leader” (Couto, 1995). In the article, he discusses how citizen leaders often do not start out choosing leadership; starting out instead taking action due to their own personal beliefs. Then, through this action, and based on this belief having a commonality among others, the person is then bestowed the gift of trust of others and then looked at as a leader. Other natural tendencies might be when; the leader must shape the mission and vision of the company and those in their charge. When Jack Welsh first took over GE and laid off thousands of people, he did so with vision and a sense of execution without a secure following. (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).

A recent ad by the Organizational Development Network, Chicago Chapter is an excellent reflection of the timeliness of my focus on communication effectiveness of the leader, and the general recognition of such a need for congruent and effective communication from leaders: (e-mail received 11/15/02, ODN)

“Are you being who you need to be in order to produce the results you seek?
What we say and what we do constitutes who we are to most people. Our actions and the way we make requests and "manage" promises generate our identity in the world. We can literally transform who we are to others by shifting the way in which we make requests. How we present ourselves, how we relate to to generating the alignment, commitment and energy of others. Each conversation can be seen as a unit, a building block in the architecture of our relationships. Authentic, thoughtful, respectful, direct conversations
generate one kind of relationship. Abrupt, commanding conversations generate another. Relationships are probably our most important assets-for individuals and organizations. Our businesses and careers thrive or stall as a result of what is happening in our relationships with clients, colleagues, superiors, peers and professional and organizational communities.”

One possible course of action for the critical issue of the role of the leader being an effective communication is the teaching of such information and then the subsequent practice of such skills. Can such leadership excellence or communication excellence be taught? I think so, as does ODN seem to think so; they are offering their November workshop on the issue. It seems that National-Louis University personnel think so as well, in their offering of the MS-ML degree!

Would such teaching include having vision or mission? Alternatively, would such teaching include a calling toward leadership? In a recent class discussion, the question arose, why would anyone want to be a leader? Certainly, leadership abilities, good communications skills, and other “behaviors” can be taught. To have a personal calling, or inherent desire to create change, to make things happen, to have an effect on the world around you... these latter characteristics are more internal, driving forces that come from within the person. They can be and often are ignited by outside forces, yet something inside each leader must be met, in order for a nature-nurture synergy to take effect, and to allow leaders to take a stance, and inspire &/or lead others toward common goals. Just as this spark must be ignited in each leader, it is up to the leader to ignite this spark in each of their followers. Not only to ignite this spark, but to create in each person a burning, a desire to work toward the mission, to work toward the vision, to work toward the goals that the leader and followers have determined as meaningful.

References

Bandler, R., Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic. Palo Alto, CA. Science and
Behavior Books

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to and Ecology of Mind. Canada: Chandler Publishing
Company

Bossidy, L., Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done.
New York, New York. Crown Business

Couto, R. A., (1995) Defining a Citizen Leader. In J. Thomas Wren (Ed.), The Leader’s
Companion (pp. 37-38) New York: The Free Press

Covey, S. R., (1989), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, New
York. Simon and Schuster

Deal, T. E., Kennedy, A. A., (1995) Strong Cultures: A New “Old Rule” for Business
Success. In J. Thomas Wren (Ed.), The Leader’s Companion (pp. 37-38) New York: The Free Press

Deering, A., Dilts, R., Russell, J. (2002). Alpha Leadership: Tools for Business Leaders
Who Want More From Life. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Bandler, R., Bandler, L. C., DeLozier, J. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic
Programming: Volume 1. The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience.
Cupertino, CA. Meta Publications

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communicating Visions: An Exploration of
the Role of Delivery in the Creation of Leader Charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6 (4), 405-427.

Kidder, R. M., (1995) Universal Human Values: Finding an Ethical Common Ground.
In J. Thomas Wren (Ed.), The Leader’s Companion (pp. 271-281) New York: The
Free Press

ODN (2002, November 11). Coming Next Week, ODN November Meetings.
Retrieved via personal e-mail November 15, 2002 from Organizational Development Network, Chicago Chapter, Web site: http://www.odnetwork.org/odnc/

Penley, L. E. & Hawkins, B. (1985). Studying Interpersonal Communication in
Organizations: A Leadership Application. Academy of Management Journal
28 (2), 309-326.

Schein, E. H., (1995) Defining Organizational Culture. In J. Thomas Wren (Ed.), The
Leader’s Companion (pp. 271-281) New York: The Free Press

Smircich, L. Morgan, G. (2003) Leadership: The Management of Meaning. In J. L.
Pierce and J. W. Newstrom (3rd Ed.), Leaders & The Leadership Process: Readings, Self-Assessments & Applications. (pp. 22-27) New York, New York.
McGraw Hill/Irwin

Watzlawick, P. Ph.D., Bavelas, J. B. Ph.D., Jackson, D. D. MD. (1967).
Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional
Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. USA: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.