GREAT LEADERS SPEAK ENGLISH: Ch. 6
CHAPTER 6
GREAT LEADERS SPEAK ENGLISH
Leaders are communicators. Good leaders are good communicators. Great leaders are great communicators. I have found that the greatest communicators and the greatest leaders use simple, direct and easy to understand language. A great leader does not need to overwhelm his or her followers with rhetoric that is both time consuming and hollow. In the leadership sprint there is no time for nonsense; there is only time for straightforward and honest communication. In the world of marathons there is ample time to use all the bureaucratic mumble jumble one can muster. The sprinter cannot afford the distraction.
There has been much discussion lately regarding the establishment of English as the official or national language for the United States. Usually, this topic is presented in the form of a debate as to whether or not the country is better served by having a common or uniform language to conduct all of its business in both public and private matters. Proponents of an official language argue that our nation was founded in English and that all of the official founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution etc. were written in English and that all of our official national legislation and official government business is also conducted using the English language. Opponents of establishing an official language counter with the argument of inclusion and multi culturalism and define our nation as a land of many diverse cultures, national origins and languages. Hence, to establish English as an official language, in this view, is to deprive non-English speakers of the use of their native language. This issue is the subject of a much larger debate that touches upon many more far reaching subjects such as immigration, public education and the like, all of which require a detailed discussion which is not our purpose here.
For our purposes here it will be argued that English should indeed be used as the proper language for conducting our public and official business. This is not to say that English should replace Spanish, Vietnamese or Portuguese but that it must replace Jargonise. Great leaders do not speak Jargonise. Consider this composite document being sent to you:
“We absolutely need to bring all the stakeholders to the table to dialogue cutting edge and replicable paradigms to leverage new funding streams and access new monies to craft a tapestry of seamless, strategic, synergistic, systemic, and sustainable modalities of holistic, wrap around services to impact all of our community partners in a proactive, inclusionary and collaborative manner. We must challenge ourselves to think outside the box and keep everyone in the loop; we need to be ahead of the curve and have a short learning curve; we must step up to the plate even though we may have a full plate; we need to hit the ground running and realize that it is marathon and not a sprint; we need to raise the bar but also level the playing field; we must avoid the slippery slope but be incentivized to get out of our functional silos, and we must realize that it is not a slam-dunk but a call to interface and carve out a model of best practices and visionary, state-of-the-art methodologies to go the full nine yards in addressing the huge challenges before us.”
Or:
“We will have a meeting of all interested parties to discuss new ways to increase funding.”
If effective communication is essential to success in the public domain, then the language used should be understood by as many people as possible. Great leaders are great communicators and they know that effective communication is an essential element of their leadership makeup. Most industries and service sectors have their own separate language nuances that are easily understood by the people who work there. However, it appears that more than ever we, in the public sector, the non-profit sector and academic worlds are replacing our use of English with the use of some hybrid form of a new-age American dialect that has only a faint resemblance to the original language. Great leaders do not fall into this easy trap; they distinguish themselves with the proper use of the language. Why not just keep the language, and therefore its meaning, as simple and understandable as possible? When did it become necessary to butcher the language and ignore any pretense to observing the rules of grammar? “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” These famous words may be better suited for America in the 21st century than they were for the nation years ago. In its most simple form, communication is the basic means by which one person makes his thoughts known to others. In a slightly more complicated form it is the means by which great leaders inspire others to follow. Should it not go without saying therefore, that those who follow should understand the meaning of the message from those who lead? I have been asked many times for the one magic elixir or most important rule of effective communication. Invariably, my response is a variation of: Speak English, use proper grammar and avoid jargon; i.e., keep it simple, clear and concise.
Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson writing to the British Parliament and telling them that “actually I’m not wanting to compare apples to oranges but our nations are way different and you guys have done some really mean stuff to us and we are so going to transition to a totally awesome nation with a huge paradigm shift without re-inventing the wheel. We are at the cutting edge of being transparent and after all the stuff that you’ve done we know that there is a disconnect and that you have held our freedom hostage and we are going to push back? Whatever.” (That was painful) Thomas Jefferson was a great leader and a great communicator. The leaders of today can distinguish themselves as different and more credible simply by the proper use of the language.
A good leader would rather invite people to a meeting than incentivize stakeholders to come to the table. However, once a good leader finds that elusive table he or she should ask those in attendance to explain when money became monies, when big and bigger became huge, when something definite became absolutely, when the nouns impact, access and leverage became verbs, and when did all the sports analogies creep into our everyday use? A great leader would then also ask them if they ever thought inside the box, and whether they even know what the box analogy is. (Most do not) I am not sure if I can slam dunk if the bar is raised any higher (unless the playing field is not level); and what if I want to sprint to a quick solution to a problem? Where is that slippery slope, and is it anywhere near the curve I am supposed to be ahead of? These, and many other equally inane, questions may never be answered (and probably never should have been asked.) Thus, I will stay with the recommendation to use clear, concise language and avoid the use of meaningless jargon. We can distinguish ourselves as communicators and, more importantly as great leaders, by employing the simple art of keeping it simple and understandable. After all, when we step up to the plate we want to knock it out of the park. Then again, the British Parliament could have responded to Jefferson by telling him that they could care less and that he and the other guys were a bunch of losers, and after all it is what it is, the King is the man and at the end of the day you’ll all be thrown under the bus.
GREAT LEADERS SPEAK ENGLISH
Leaders are communicators. Good leaders are good communicators. Great leaders are great communicators. I have found that the greatest communicators and the greatest leaders use simple, direct and easy to understand language. A great leader does not need to overwhelm his or her followers with rhetoric that is both time consuming and hollow. In the leadership sprint there is no time for nonsense; there is only time for straightforward and honest communication. In the world of marathons there is ample time to use all the bureaucratic mumble jumble one can muster. The sprinter cannot afford the distraction.
There has been much discussion lately regarding the establishment of English as the official or national language for the United States. Usually, this topic is presented in the form of a debate as to whether or not the country is better served by having a common or uniform language to conduct all of its business in both public and private matters. Proponents of an official language argue that our nation was founded in English and that all of the official founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution etc. were written in English and that all of our official national legislation and official government business is also conducted using the English language. Opponents of establishing an official language counter with the argument of inclusion and multi culturalism and define our nation as a land of many diverse cultures, national origins and languages. Hence, to establish English as an official language, in this view, is to deprive non-English speakers of the use of their native language. This issue is the subject of a much larger debate that touches upon many more far reaching subjects such as immigration, public education and the like, all of which require a detailed discussion which is not our purpose here.
For our purposes here it will be argued that English should indeed be used as the proper language for conducting our public and official business. This is not to say that English should replace Spanish, Vietnamese or Portuguese but that it must replace Jargonise. Great leaders do not speak Jargonise. Consider this composite document being sent to you:
“We absolutely need to bring all the stakeholders to the table to dialogue cutting edge and replicable paradigms to leverage new funding streams and access new monies to craft a tapestry of seamless, strategic, synergistic, systemic, and sustainable modalities of holistic, wrap around services to impact all of our community partners in a proactive, inclusionary and collaborative manner. We must challenge ourselves to think outside the box and keep everyone in the loop; we need to be ahead of the curve and have a short learning curve; we must step up to the plate even though we may have a full plate; we need to hit the ground running and realize that it is marathon and not a sprint; we need to raise the bar but also level the playing field; we must avoid the slippery slope but be incentivized to get out of our functional silos, and we must realize that it is not a slam-dunk but a call to interface and carve out a model of best practices and visionary, state-of-the-art methodologies to go the full nine yards in addressing the huge challenges before us.”
Or:
“We will have a meeting of all interested parties to discuss new ways to increase funding.”
If effective communication is essential to success in the public domain, then the language used should be understood by as many people as possible. Great leaders are great communicators and they know that effective communication is an essential element of their leadership makeup. Most industries and service sectors have their own separate language nuances that are easily understood by the people who work there. However, it appears that more than ever we, in the public sector, the non-profit sector and academic worlds are replacing our use of English with the use of some hybrid form of a new-age American dialect that has only a faint resemblance to the original language. Great leaders do not fall into this easy trap; they distinguish themselves with the proper use of the language. Why not just keep the language, and therefore its meaning, as simple and understandable as possible? When did it become necessary to butcher the language and ignore any pretense to observing the rules of grammar? “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” These famous words may be better suited for America in the 21st century than they were for the nation years ago. In its most simple form, communication is the basic means by which one person makes his thoughts known to others. In a slightly more complicated form it is the means by which great leaders inspire others to follow. Should it not go without saying therefore, that those who follow should understand the meaning of the message from those who lead? I have been asked many times for the one magic elixir or most important rule of effective communication. Invariably, my response is a variation of: Speak English, use proper grammar and avoid jargon; i.e., keep it simple, clear and concise.
Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson writing to the British Parliament and telling them that “actually I’m not wanting to compare apples to oranges but our nations are way different and you guys have done some really mean stuff to us and we are so going to transition to a totally awesome nation with a huge paradigm shift without re-inventing the wheel. We are at the cutting edge of being transparent and after all the stuff that you’ve done we know that there is a disconnect and that you have held our freedom hostage and we are going to push back? Whatever.” (That was painful) Thomas Jefferson was a great leader and a great communicator. The leaders of today can distinguish themselves as different and more credible simply by the proper use of the language.
A good leader would rather invite people to a meeting than incentivize stakeholders to come to the table. However, once a good leader finds that elusive table he or she should ask those in attendance to explain when money became monies, when big and bigger became huge, when something definite became absolutely, when the nouns impact, access and leverage became verbs, and when did all the sports analogies creep into our everyday use? A great leader would then also ask them if they ever thought inside the box, and whether they even know what the box analogy is. (Most do not) I am not sure if I can slam dunk if the bar is raised any higher (unless the playing field is not level); and what if I want to sprint to a quick solution to a problem? Where is that slippery slope, and is it anywhere near the curve I am supposed to be ahead of? These, and many other equally inane, questions may never be answered (and probably never should have been asked.) Thus, I will stay with the recommendation to use clear, concise language and avoid the use of meaningless jargon. We can distinguish ourselves as communicators and, more importantly as great leaders, by employing the simple art of keeping it simple and understandable. After all, when we step up to the plate we want to knock it out of the park. Then again, the British Parliament could have responded to Jefferson by telling him that they could care less and that he and the other guys were a bunch of losers, and after all it is what it is, the King is the man and at the end of the day you’ll all be thrown under the bus.
