Communication isn’t the issue. . .understanding people’s needs is

District 303 in St. Charles Illinois needs to hire a communication specialist. This is according to results of a communication audit reported in the May 29 Daily Herald Newspaper.

I’m not surprised. Communication issues seem to come up in nearly every organization or leadership assessment I perform. I can’t think of an organization where I’ve worked (as an employee or volunteer) where leadership determined that their communication didn’t need to be improved.

The general consensus often is that people need more communication and information. In some cases that is the problem. There are certainly organizations out there in which information does not readily flow.

Yet, in general, I don’t think the issue really is in the amount of communication that people receive. In the book, The Experience Economy, Joe Pines and James Gilmore make an interesting point about consumer choice; “Customers don’t want choice, they want exactly what they want.” In other words, people don’t care if you have twenty toasters to choose from, they’d be happy with just one if it happened to be what they are looking for. I think the same is true for communication, people aren’t looking for more, they just want their specific questions answered.

Unfortunately, the response to “communication issues” is often to start sending more communication rather than to better match people’s information needs with communication. It is certainly easier to send a small number of large messages out. It is “scalable” which is a popular business term. Yet, scalability doesn’t always ensure effectiveness. Often to make something scalable, you have to boil it down to its least common denominator.

An alternative to solving the communication problem is to stop thinking about communication. Instead, pay more attention to what’s on people’s minds. This is clearly not a scalable approach when looked at from a communication standpoint. However, it is very scalable when looked at from a leadership standpoint.

Good leaders should take individual responsibility to understand the needs of their customers, employees, business partners, and anyone else who is involved with the organization. Teaching leaders to be better listeners and questioners will increase their ability to deliver the specific information that people need. It might take a bit more time than blasting a generic memo from the corporate office or from the President of the organization but it will improve “communication”. It will also improve relationships.

People are bombarded with information and messages. They don’t want more. They actually want less – they want to know what they need to know.

Tips for improving communication

Talk with people – Don’t use polls or the opinions of others to determine what people need. Talk with them directly.

Listen – Forget about what you want to say and focus on what others want to hear.

Use user-centric communication assessment and planning tools – These tools focus on answering questions such as “what do my users already know”, “what do they agree with”, “what do they disagree with”, “what is confusing”, “what else do they need to know”, etc.

Segment based on context and information needs rather than demographics – People within the same demographic group can have vastly different information needs. Some people are more familiar with what you are doing, some are supportive, some are rebelling. Base your messages on what they need rather than what category they fit within.

Make understanding and communicating everybody’s job – Don’t make it a top down activity. Everybody has a role in helping to
improve communication within an organization.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments

  1. Your tips are useful, I will follow them. Thanks!

  2. I have a question.

    There is an article in the February 2006 issue of HBR entitled, “The Great Intimidators.” The title caught my attention. When, if at all, do you think that leader intimidation has a use in transforming an organization? Two points are made that I’m struggling with.

    First, that “it may be premature to announce the extinction of the effectiveness of this approach.”

    Second, that “while social intelligence assesses people’s strengths and how to use them, those with political intelligence explots people’s weaknesses and insecurities.”

    What I find really scary in the article is a statement that despite the drawbacks of working under them, “great intimidators often attract the best and brightest.”

    I’d like your perspective. I do so poorly in the face of leaders like this.

    Thanks.

  3. Hey Rhonda,

    Good questions. There was another more recent HBR article (in the last few months although I can’t seem to find it) that revisited this question.

    The first thing that I’d consider is whether the leaders that you’ve encountered are true “intimidators” or just bullies. As the article points out, there is a difference. As the article says, intimidators play upon your weaknesses to drive your performance. On the other hand, bullies PREY upon your weaknesses.

    Having said that, I don’t think that intimidation should be a part of a person’s leadership toolbox. Of course, that could just be because I am bad at it. Perhaps if I were more intimidating I’d have greater successes and a different opinion!

    As with any leadership style, there certainly can be benefits to this. One of my mentors recommends that “nice” leaders read Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. It’s not that he wants them to become overly Machiavellian, but, there is some validity to his strategies if used in balance.

    I do think that these type of people can attract the best and brightest although I’d qualify that a bit. They will attract from among the best and brightest those people who self select and can thrive under such an environment. Some of them self select because they too are intimidators and actually have learned (in a healthy way) not to take the tactics personally. There is actually something useful to be learned from this. A lot of us (myself included) take feedback from leaders very personally and don’t differentiate the feedback on our work from feedback about us as people.

    For those who do take it personally, some find strength and motivation in showing their boss what they are made of. But, there are also a lot of people who will opt for a different environment all together.

    So, it’s really no different from any leadership style in that those people who resonate with a certain style will flourish and others won’t.

    I suppose the good leaders are the ones who can recognize who can perform best under their style and shape their organizations with those type of people. The trick is to find people who can work within that style but are still divergent in their thinking.