In the last several years, society has seen a polarization in leadership communication. On one end, we see leaders who are so conservative in their messaging that any decent LLM could take over for them. On the other end, we see individuals with no filter at all who torpedo their careers and their companies’ fortunes with social media posts and other instances of acting out.
Some describe the divide between the communication we believe is “authentic” and “inauthentic.” I prefer to view it as “effective” versus “ineffective.”
Authenticity is a buzzword; effectiveness is a discipline. To move from the former to the latter requires more than just “being yourself.” It requires calibrating the Leadership Voice Matrix.
In our work with executive clients in the technology and nonprofit sectors, helping leaders find their voice is a daily discipline. The most obvious applications are contributed opinion articles and thought leadership, but finding a compelling leadership voice is critical far beyond the byline. Whether it is for media statements, internal communications or donor/investor relations, the same elements that make an op-ed compelling to an editor are what make a leader compelling to employees, customers, journalists and other stakeholders.
4 T’s are just the start
When we are considering ideas for our clients to write about or to pitch for media interviews, we often talk about the four T’s. Is the “topic” relevant? Is the issue “timely”? Does the individual have the right “title” to speak on it, and finally, do they have “tales” in the form of an anecdote to tell?
However, the four T’s are just the packaging. The Leadership Voice Matrix addresses the core of the leader’s message. It consists of three independent measures that are interconnected and impact one another: Insight Proximity, Risk Relationship and Conviction Level.
An effective leadership voice will have the right dose of all three measures. Too much or too little is poison for the leadership voice.
1. Insight Proximity
Insight Proximity measures how close the leader is to the issue they are addressing.
Having unique insights is about having field experience to understand the underlying mechanics of what is happening. It requires understanding past events to predict or analyze future cycles and developments. Crucially, it is about being “out there” — speaking to people beyond the four walls of the office to understand how others feel, think and act.
We often assume that closer is always better, but proximity is a spectrum, with challenges at both ends.
- Too close: When a leader is too close to an issue, they often struggle to empathize with those affected by it. They may have no original thoughts because their position — or their organization’s position — is already well-known and entrenched. The result is often an author who appears to be merely selling a solution that benefits him or his company rather than offering genuine insight.
- Too far: On the other extreme, we see individuals piping in with underdeveloped opinions. They lack the full picture of the issue or the understanding of the potential impact of their opinions.
A title can be a misleading indicator of Insight Proximity. A CEO who never leaves the fourth floor, except for well-manicured store visits, may not be the best candidate to write about customer experience challenges. Conversely, someone who is too junior may focus only on their specific silo, missing the broader societal or corporate context.
An effective leadership voice requires experience that keeps the leader in touch with the day-to-day mechanisms, successes and failures of the business while maintaining a 20,000-foot overview. This balance allows compelling stories and anecdotes to ground high-level strategy in reality.
2. Risk Relationship
The second factor in the matrix is the leader’s relationship with risk. For almost all of these criteria, it is not a zero-or-one measurement. There is a right amount of tolerance for risk, and then there is spouting irresponsible rhetoric.
We frequently encounter the “risk aversion” trap. This is the leader who is so terrified of saying the wrong thing that they say nothing of substance. They rely on platitudes that vanish into the noise of the market. However, we also see the cost of having no governor on risk — leaders who fail to weigh the cost-benefit of putting their ideas out there, damaging their relationships with the issue and their stakeholders.
A successful thought leader understands that having a voice is an inherent risk. The goal is not to eliminate risk but to manage the relationship between the controversy of the idea and the value of the insight. A full understanding of the consequences of speaking out on a topic and clarity on the nature of media and news cycles can help an executive hone their relationship to risk in a way that will allow them to arrive in the sweet spot of risky enough to be interesting, but safe enough to keep the stock price or donors off the phone lines.
3. Conviction Level
The final piece of the matrix is Conviction Level. This may be the hardest to self-measure, and the element with the least room for error. The line is thin between sincere conviction in ideas and an overconfidence that will turn off the audience. It is hard to measure, and when there is overconfidence, it is often difficult to correct.
Healthy conviction generally comes from one of two places: hard-fought experience or authentic moral and religious grounding.
- Hard-fought experience: This is a conviction earned through the “scars” of life and business. It is the confidence that comes from having navigated the industry’s history and survived its cycles.
- Moral/religious grounding: This is a conviction based on a foundational belief system. The belief system needs to be bigger than ideas that serve the leader’s needs at the moment. If the belief system is rooted in written tradition or a recognition that the executive engaging in communications may not be the final human authority on the issue, that is often a good sign.
When conviction is too low, the language becomes passive and uninspiring. When it is too high — and disconnected from experience or values — it reads as arrogance or blindness.
Diagnosing the mix
If you look at the most successful thought leaders, they possess the right mix of these criteria. If you look at those who struggle, it is likely that something in this mix is askew.
So, what do you do when the mix isn’t right? The solution depends on the leader and those close to the leader. The first step is diagnosing where in the matrix the issue lies.
If a leader lacks Insight Proximity, no amount of editing will fix the piece. The leader needs to get out of the executive suite and touch the work. If the Risk Relationship is off, the leader needs to reassess the cost-benefit of their silence versus potential controversy. If the Conviction Level is weak, they need to return to their foundational experiences or values to find what they truly believe. If this is not possible, it is important for the leader to lean on a single trusted advisor, someone who isn’t a yes-man but is deeply entrenched in similar issues that can provide guidance. Just as importantly, it should not be a group of advisors, because that risks diluting ideas or dangerous groupthink.
To achieve effective leadership voice the goal shouldn’t be “let’s just write better.” Leaders and communications professionals are responsible for addressing the underlying deficits that lead to poor messaging quality. By self-assessing against this matrix, executives can move beyond the buzzwords of authenticity and develop a voice that is truly effective.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
____________________________________
Take advantage of SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletters on leadership and business transformation, among the company’s more than 250 industry-focused newsletters.