In the workplace today skilled workforces around the globe are expected to take the initiative whenever required to ensure best results ensue. Long gone are the days when the boss gave the instructions without listening closely to what his or her team had to say, much in the same way as teachers no longer expect students to merely sit, listen and learn, but actively encourage them to question and think for themselves, as reflected in the following transactional communication model:
How then, in our interactive and dynamic world, may team leaders actively encourage the exchange and development of ideas without losing sight of their own leadership roles?
One way to achieve this is to avoid the use of the semi-modal “have to” – as in “You have to do this by 12 today” – unless the situation is critical, in which case we can use a tone of voice that stresses the matter is one of urgency. This is due to the way “have to” generally refers to an external obligation that is being imposed on a person. The underlying unequal power relationship conveyed often has a negative impact on interpersonal relationships at work, as exemplified by an incident experienced by a client of mine, who I’ll call Jon.
Jon had just come back from one of his frequent trips to Brussels in his role as the representative of his country’s energy sector before the European Commission. Because I could see he was very frustrated by the way he felt his proposal had been completely ignored by his fellow delegates, I asked him how he had presented it.
“I told them we have to do (this) to benefit from ……..”, he said emphatically.
The problem then became clear to me. Although all the participants at the meeting had the same decision making powers, Jon had given the impression he was imposing his own vision on his colleagues without apparently taking into consideration their right to hold differing opinions.
After having pointed this out to him, he agreed to work on those communication strategies that would in future facilitate dialogue. These included the use of the first or second conditionals, the indirect usage of “would”, and the verb “need to” instead of “have to”, as in the following examples:
“The figures show that if we ….. we would increase productivity by 15%. I am sure you would agree that this confirms ……”
“In my view, this strategy would facilitate further investment across the board”.
” In my opinion, we would need to redefine the strategy at a later date”
In the case of a team leader, clear instructions given in a structured manner can also have the desired effect without the speaker sounding autocratic:
“First of all, establish the time-line. After that, choose the suppliers you will need”, and so on.
It must be said that the most conflictive modal verb to give instructions has to be “will”. Conflict is assured when it is used inappropriately to tell people what they have to do. This was the case when a company owner recently received the message “You will do this” from a client whose first language was not English. This was not only taken as an affront by my client, but it triggered the breakdown of a long-standing and very productive professional relationship between their companies.
Top-down leadership and communicative styles will still have their place today, but if we want to forge relationships within today’s skilled workforce, encourage innovation and strengthen personal ties, to “persuade” rather than “tell” people what they “have to do” is key to reaching our goals together.
© 2024 Walwyn Communications
