Managing Leadership^®

Earlier this week, the late-night comedian David Letterman was discussing a meeting of one of the major US political parties. “The theme of this year’s convention is unity,” he noted, adding, “Unfortunately they can’t agree on how it works.”

That’s not so unusual, is it? Whether we are talking about unity or leadership, or any buzzword in between, we are all our own experts, after all. Our own experiences are the ones that are relevant. Our own judgments are those that capture the essence of the matter.

As you speak to a group – whether informally to your team or formally to a large audience – have you ever been encouraged by the signs of agreement you observe, the nodding heads, the smiles acknowledging your key points? But then have you noticed later, as people comment to you or each other on your talk, that they seem to be approving of something just a little different than what you actually meant?

It may happen that they even interpreted your points so differently that you actually disagree – if you only knew! Or, perhaps, they automatically applied your thoughts to contexts you had not anticipated, and which you find wholly inappropriate. How is it that everyone thinks they are all in concord with you – and with each other?

Often people with specific agendas – representing ideological sub-themes or political cliques within the larger group – will seize on what they believe supports their motives. Sometimes those on both sides of whatever divide is at issue will inadvertently do this, fully unaware of how differently they and their nominal opponents are interpreting the same information.

Just as frequently, the misunderstandings will simply seem to occur of their own accord, as your words attach themselves to particular experiences or thoughts in the various pasts of diverse individuals, or as they appear to speak to the perhaps very different problems particular listeners currently face.

Whether these diverging, and even incompatible, views of what everyone thinks they agree with arise from personal inclinations or group/sub-group dynamics, they will out. Then you’ve got yourself a real mess – one that is only funny later, much later, in the telling.

So, it is worth setting the stage. Tell the back-story. Explain each issue together with its trajectory and momentum. Describe as clearly as possible your aim.

Present the back and front, the context and desired conclusion, followed by the factors playing on the matter at hand. When you see heads nodding in agreement to all of that – or, at least, understanding – then it’s time to move on to the body of your talk: making your argument.

You may not get your audience’s unity behind your proposal, but at least you’ll get their agreement about what you mean. That’s progress all of you can build on.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of growing real unity, please be sure to see this must-read post by Wally Bock, at Three Star Leadership, about the real meaning of trust at work.

—

Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!

And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!

Technorati Tags: David Letterman, US, unity, leadership, expert, experience, judgment, context, Wally Bock, Three Star Leadership, trust, work