Comments on: Tone Deaf Leadership

By: Mae Pawai

Mae Pawai — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:36:00 +0000

Now someone is speaking! You put into English words my style of leadership. Thank you….

By: dewey

dewey — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:05:00 +0000

Hello! I agree that communication nowadays plays a very significant role and various aspects should be taken into consideration. For instance, the tone of your voice, the speaking situation, the behavior of the listener and so on. In this case your message will reach its aim. Dora Dewey, user of image editor free

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:48:00 +0000

Communication is a two-way process. It should always be that way. One should remember that you have effectively conveyed your thoughts and ideas if people interact and participate in the discussion and soon as they leave, they are able to recall what you have discussed and put it into action.

By: Briankibby

Briankibby — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:52:00 +0000

You’re on point. In addition to the issues surrounding tone-deafness, many senior leaders communicate much less once they land the top jobs — has, in part, due to perceived risk, which is crazy. Risker, of course, not to communicate.

By: Fiaz

Fiaz — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:52:00 +0000

Excellent explaination

By: Greg Blencoe

Greg Blencoe — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:35:00 +0000

Mike,

I loved this sentence from your post:

“The big miss for most leaders is that they fail to understand that the purpose of communication is not to message, but to engage.”

This reminds me of the basic mindset that I believe managers/leaders should have:

It’s not about you, it’s about them.

If you think being a leader is all about you, then you are probably going to spend a lot more time, as you basically said, speaking TO employees and not communicating WITH them.

Leaders should have more of an inverted pyramid organizational structure mentality where the lowest-level employees are on top and they are on the bottom.

I think leaders with this mentality are much more likely to communicate effectively, because they will have the mindset that these employees are extremely important.

By: Mike Myatt

Mike Myatt — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:51:00 +0000

In reply to Dan Rockwell. Hi Dan: Not to skirt the issue, but in a perfect world I would choose neither. Rather than over or under communicate the goal should be to appropriately communicate. That said, the world is not perfect, and it is sometimes necessary to utilize the subtleties of under communication to effectively engage, while at other times it is necessary to over communicate an issue to make sure that it gets traction. Style, context, and degree of importance will dictate what method to use. Thanks for expanding the topic Dan.

By: Dan Rockwell

Dan Rockwell — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:44:00 +0000

Mike,

Thanks for your post. What are your thoughts on it’s better to over-communicate vs. under-communicate?

Best,

Dan

By: Mike Myatt

Mike Myatt — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:34:00 +0000

In reply to William Powell.

Hi William:

Thanks for stopping by. Our conversation here takes my post, a one-way or broadcast message, and turns it into a two-way conversation – proof of concept. Thanks William.

By: William Powell

William Powell — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:06:00 +0000

I love that you point out the need for communication to be 2-way and more about the listener than the speaker. So many folks leave this out of their communications. Great post Mike, as always!