Communication

Leadership as Social Influence

In our past writing on the subject (Ruben et al., 2016; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016), we discuss the evolution of leadership theory that ranges from classical, contemporary, competency, and communication approaches. These various approaches focus on specific aspects of leadership, the leadership context, and the leader-follower relationship. Our research in this area and our applied work in the area of leadership development have led us to understand the phenomenon as a process of social influence that is very much informed by and shaped by communication. The process involves both verbal and nonverbal communication and is defined by followers as much as by leaders. Communication theory allows us to broaden our understanding of leadership to consider those moments that are formal and informal, planned and unplanned, intentional and unintentional.

This way of understanding leadership challenges us to consider past and present conceptualizations of communication. Fully understanding the nature and significance of communication requires that many of the assumptions made based on our everyday experience need to be examined more carefully. In much the same way that the dynamics of breathing can be easily taken for granted, so too, it is very easy to assume we understand the nature of communication because we are so complexly enmeshed in the process. But as Lee Thayer (1968) aptly noted in his foundational work in this area,

We can’t afford to assume we understand all there is to be known about even the most elementary and obvious aspects of human communication. . . . If we do, there is no way for us to communicate very successfully about communication. (p. 5)

In everyday ways of thinking about communication, it is quite natural to assume that the process involves the creation and transmission of verbal messages to intended receivers, thereby bringing about shared understanding. However, as Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) noted, “One cannot not communicate” (p. 49), which indicates that the study and practice of communication extends beyond talk-in-interaction and must also take account of that which is not said. A more expansive, complex, and nuanced understanding of communication considers the complex arrangement of verbal and nonverbal messages, intentional and unintentional messages, planned and unplanned messages—all of which influence the ways that leadership is constituted in a variety of settings.

As highlighted at the outset of this article, business communication is often cast as a limited, one-way, cause-and-effect phenomenon. In many instances, however, the message sent tends to not equal the message received, which presents a cascading set of challenges for leaders attempting to influence others within the business environment. What follows is a brief summary of past and present conceptualizations of communication and the value of these perspectives in more fully understanding the dynamics of leadership (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016). Building upon the insights to emerge from these three models, we will outline several principles for leadership communication thinking that can enhance and improve the role of business communication. The notion of leadership as a process of social influence that is planned and unplanned, formal and informal, and defined as much by the leader as the follower (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2016) is an outcome of the systems model, the third approach presented below.

Classical Linear Model

In classical and many contemporary popular writings on the subject, leadership is thought about and described in terms of the intentional creation of messages with particular influence outcomes in mind. As portrayed in Figure 1, this view suggests that if a leader intends to accomplish a particular goal or communicate a specific message, he or she can do so by creating and transmitting a message, and assuming the message reaches the receiver, the process seemingly plays out in a very linear and predictable manner.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The classical linear perspective.

Essentially, such a view reflects a one-way, cause-and-effect-oriented characterization of the communication and influence process that has been pervasive through much of the history of communication thought. According to Hackman and Johnson (2013), for example, leadership may be considered a special form of communication—it reflects who you are, how you act, what you do, and how you work with others. Their synthesis of the literature leads the authors to define leadership accordingly: “Leadership is human (symbolic) communication that modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others in order to meet shared group goals and needs” (p. 11). Based on this understanding of leadership, successful leadership is a consequence of effective communication—where the implication is that communication is a linear process in which a source/leader, if successful, brings about intended attitudes and behaviors in receivers/followers. From this perspective, a failure in communication may ultimately lead to a failure in leadership itself. Clearly, the concept of “communication failures”—defined as a mismatch between the communication and behavior outcomes and communication inputs—is a logical extension of the linear way of thinking about how the process works. Consistent with this claim are the numerous training programs, curricula, and workshop requirements that increasingly emphasize communication as a critical competency for leadership itself—by following a prescriptive recipe for “effective communication,” one may achieve intended influence outcomes as a leader. This approach to communication is intuitively attractive. It is easy to understand and appealing in its simplicity, and even the most accomplished scholars in our field find themselves periodically slipping into this paradigm in their efforts to describe, explain, predict, and control everyday communication situations.

As much as the “transmission,” “exchange,” or “sharing of information” is a familiar and customary way of describing communication, we know that this portrayal oversimplifies and actually obscures some critical nuances of the process—and leads to an incomplete understanding of the dynamics associated with communication—including the nature and dynamics involved in leadership-followership. The reality is that seldom does message sent equal message received. Seldom does communication operate in such a predictable manner, and neither do the underlying dynamics of leadership-followership and the broader dynamics of social influence. Although this model and the paradigms it reflects have been criticized for their mechanistic characterization (Axley, 1984; Shannon & Weaver, 1949), they continue to provide an apt description of leadership communication practices in many business and organizational settings.

Interactional Model

Unlike the linear model, an interactional perspective, such as that depicted in Figure 2, attempts to capture more of the complexity and two-way influence between a sender and receiver—or, for the purpose of this text on leadership, a leader and follower. The interactional perspective recognizes that communication is not a one-way process, but rather is best understood as “a multidirectional phenomenon with no distinguishable beginning or end” (Ruben, 2003, p. 95). Related to the study of leadership, meaning is not easily controlled by the leader, but rather results from interactions between leaders and followers (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). It also suggests that the greater the extent of mismatch between expectations, attitudes, and values, the less the likelihood that message sent will equal message received (Ruben & Stewart, 2016).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The interactional perspective.

This more contemporary view of communication reminds us that only a fraction of the influence that occurs in communication situations is the result of these kinds of purposeful and intentional acts, as depicted in Figure 2. A multiplicity of factors are at play in even the most basic situation, and the net result is that the communication process associated with influence is far more complex and unpredictable than suggested by one-way models. Indeed, many of the messages that make a difference in communication and influence situations are unplanned and unpredicted, nonverbal as well as very verbal—and the product of ongoing dynamics rather than a single message-sending/message-receiving event. It becomes clear that these key points are not well captured by the linear classic model. Unlike the limited one-way linear model, the interactional model expands the focus to a more complex two-way interchange between sender(s) and receiver(s). Just as the sender communicates with the receiver, the receiver is communicating reciprocally, sometimes simultaneously, with the sender. This transactional communication exchange may include both verbal and nonverbal messages. For example, as a speaker addresses an audience, the messages from members of the audience may be both verbal (including, e.g., nonfluencies, applause, laughter) and nonverbal (including an array of gestures, facial expressions, dress, tears, the nature of the venue, or objects such as signage or displayed artifacts—e.g., weapons or religious objects). Despite the more expansive focus of the interactional model, the emphasis is still primarily on the intentional exchange of messages, and communication continues to be conceptualized in terms of the exchange, sharing, or transmission of information. Even with added nuances of the interactional model, the complexity of communication, and the critical issues for understanding, the dynamics of leadership and influence are often not fully explored. The interactional model is useful in that it helps explain the progression from a linear model to a systems model—one that extends the study of communication and social influence to a more nuanced place.

A systems view of communication, as depicted in Figure 3, overcomes many limitations of earlier conceptualizations and is more useful for capturing the complexity of leadership communication and social influence. This view of communication focuses directly on the way people create, convey, select, and interpret the messages that inform and shape their lives—viewing communication as a basic life process rather than an exchange of information or meaning between people (Ruben & Stewart, 2016). This perspective recognizes that some business messages are intentionally created; others are produced accidentally. Some messages—such as corporate annual reports and individual employee evaluations—are constructed to achieve specific influence goals or intentions; others—such as casual conversation while waiting for a business meeting to start—may be unconsciously or accidentally created by their initiator with no specific purpose in mind. Some messages are constructed to achieve specific influence goals or intentions; others may be unconsciously created by their initiator with no specific purpose in mind. Some messages are created in the moment in face-to-face settings; others occur at remote times and places and are conveyed into a particular setting via print or electronic media (Ruben & Stewart, 2016). And some messages that can be very important to communication outcomes have inanimate sources—a corporate logo, promotional brochures, the menu at a business event, uniforms, or the sound level in an open office.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

A systems perspective on communication and social influence.

This view of communication takes into account the fact that throughout any message sending/message receiving episode, each party brings his or her own unique “maps” and “personal luggage” to the interaction—each individual’s unique needs, values, attitudes, goals, aspirations, styles, education, cultures, physical and emotional abilities and disabilities, life history, and present life circumstances. These “belongings” travel with an individual and influence every aspect of the way messages are created (or not), made sense of (or not), and reacted to (or not). Thayer (1968) describes these “belongings” as the,

needs, values, expectations, attitudes, and goals that are brought to every communication encounter. These predispositions, susceptibilities, and take-into-account-abilities influence the outcome of the interaction and are equivalent to our individual make-meaningful-abilities. (p. 36)

Carrying forth the metaphor, it is apparent that in some situations, the communication “luggage” of one individual does not necessarily align all that well with the expectations, attributes, outlooks, states, and orientations of others with whom they are engaging. Generally speaking, the greater the extent of mismatch, the less the likelihood that message-sent will equal message received (Ruben, 2014; Ruben & Stewart, 2016).

Some of the recent work in the area of communication as constitutive of organization (or what has become known as CCO perspectives) reflects much of the foundational thinking that is present in the systems model. CCO theorizing has emerged as a useful way of thinking about communication in organizations. If organizations are understood to be communicative accomplishments (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004), CCO offers a way of thinking about the ways that organizational realities are coconstituted in and through communication (Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009; Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011; Putnam & Nicotera, 2009). Communication is understood to be more than something that happens within the walls of an organization. From this perspective, communication is formative of organizing and organizations are best understood as discursive accomplishments. As Cooren et al. (2011) suggest,

The time is now ripe for a constructive dialogue across communication and organizational literatures in order to promote a more integrated understanding of the role that communication plays in creating the meaning, the form, and indeed the very possibility of organizational life. (p. 15)

Building upon a systems model, the CCO literature provides a useful lens for further understanding the constitutive role of leadership communication and social practices of communication in business environments.

A systems approach, along with the more recent work in CCO, underscores the limitations of the linear meaning-transmission or information-exchange views of communication and reminds us that single messages and single message-sending events seldom yield momentous message reception outcomes. Rather, communication and social influence are parts of an ongoing process through which messages wash over individuals—somewhat analogous to waves continually washing upon the shore. While the influence of any single wave is likely to be limited, over time, these messages shape the sensibilities and responses of receivers, much as waves shape a shoreline. The exceptions to this subtle process are those rare, life-changing messages that can have a tsunami-like impact on message reception.

Leadership Communication Strategy Should Be Systematic

Purposeful communication efforts are fundamental to business and organizational leadership strategy and daily practice. Typically, these strategies focus on the creation and dissemination of carefully crafted oral and written messages by leaders in order to inform or influence internal and external constituencies in particular ways. The more expansive view of leadership communication as social influence, as discussed in the previous pages, reminds us that outcomes within an organizational leadership context are often unplanned, unintentional, unpredicted, and unpredictable—nor are these outcomes easily controlled, despite the most skillfully constructed messages may be disseminated by the most adept speaker or writer.

Understanding leadership in terms of this broader perspective of communication and social influence points to the importance of balancing attention to message source, message, and message construction, with a parallel emphasis on the needs, predispositions, and embedded values of intended recipients, and on the broader symbolic environment in which the communication processes will take place. What is it that intended message recipients can hear, need to hear, or are prepared to hear? How may their communicative capabilities and susceptibilities lead them to misunderstand the intended leadership messages? How can the current environmental conditions and culture facilitate or inhibit achieving particular outcomes? How is timing a potentially significant communication variable? In this regard, a leader may find it more useful to envision himself or herself less as the lead performer in a symphony—the individual who controls the musical note and the dissemination of sound, and more like the conductor of the group—the individual who, despite taking primary responsibility for the harmony and progression of the symphony, is very much reliant on the influence of the individual musicians. More broadly, thoughtful leaders must consider how the many factors that affect social influence can best be taken account of in the development of a systematic leadership communication strategy. They also should plan for ample redundancy and repetition as essential to increase the likelihood that the message received will approximate the message sent, and to create mechanisms through which to monitor communication outcomes and adjust strategies as a way of taking account of the inevitable varieties in interpretation that will occur.

Leaders “Cannot Not Communicate”

Given the broader context discussed in the previous section, another important insight with many implications is the notion that “one cannot not communicate” (Watzlawick et al., 1967). What an organizational leader says can be an important message, but equally and sometimes more important, is what a leader does not say, how a leader responds to what others say, or how he or she fails to respond. Silence, for example, can be an extremely powerful message.

Beyond the oral and written messages, nonverbal and material elements are also potentially significant elements of the communication environment. So it is that what is said and not said, written and not written, responded to and not responded to, done and not done are all potentially important elements. One’s presence/absence or early/late arrival to a meeting can become a most influential message to all in attendance, as can open-door or closed-door office hour policies—each representing a nonverbal message that may speak far more loudly than other more carefully planned and scripted verbal messages. The more successful a leader is in understanding, predicting, and controlling these factors, and the more he or she implements mechanisms for systematically monitoring outcomes and recalibrating communication strategies accordingly, the more strategic control he or she is able to exercise over the symbolic environment in which social influence takes place.

Followers Play an Instrumental Role in Making Leadership Work, So Much So That in Many Respects Leadership and Followership Are Inseparable Concepts

Recognizing that leadership outcomes are defined as much by followers as they are by leaders, reinforces the importance of focusing on those who one wishes to lead. In a very real sense, it is the attention and buy-in of “followers” that empowers an individual to be a leader. As noted earlier, “follower” needs, values, and perspectives are fundamentally important components of the communication environment in which the dynamics of social influence occur. A more expansive approach of communication allows us to better understand the interdependent relationship between leaders and followers and between formal and informal leaders in organizational life. This strategy allows a leader to remind himself and others, that leadership is something “we” do together, not something that “I” do alone.

Leadership Communication Always Has Both Content and Relational Consequences

While most leadership communication efforts seem to emphasize message content and task-related activities, in the longer term, relationship outcomes that are a by-product of communication are often even more critical because they create a foundation for supportive or unsupportive communication. This is especially the case in the contemporary workplace, where mediated interactions are becoming increasing prevalent and important. Although it can be difficult to focus on and succeed in establishing supportive relationships in a face-to-face setting, doing so via e-mail, cell phone, and text messaging is considerably more challenging, and equally important. As the ever-increasing dependency on Internet-based messages is apparent in business communication, reminding oneself of the essential and interdependent role of content and relational dimensions of communication becomes increasingly more critical. Particularly when social influence efforts take place among individuals who may not have a strong face-to-face communication history on which to draw, attention to creating and maintaining relationships on-line is as important—perhaps even more important—than focusing on the content of messages. As in all communication and social influence, relationships provide the context and foundation in terms of which individual messages are interpreted and acted upon.

All Leadership Communication Is Intercultural

Culture and cultural differences are a fundamental and influential element of the symbolic environment in which leadership communication dynamics occur. An understanding of and appreciation for cultural differences is critical in developing, maintaining, and navigating local and more so global business relationships where senders and receivers are not necessarily colocated and where there may be a number of intercultural issues associated with information flow and mutual understanding. The array of challenges present in face-to-face and mediated influence efforts are often elevated in direct proportion to the extent of cultural differences that are involved.

The Focus on Leadership Communication Theory and Practice also Extends into the Realm of Training and Development

Existing approaches to leadership training and development, a popular and expensive focus for a myriad of contemporary organizations (Association for Talent Development, 2015), also vary along a continuum from mechanistic/strategic to organic/systemic. For the same reasons that a one-way, linear perspective is limiting as a way of understanding the dynamics of leadership, so too, this approach is often of limited value as a strategy for leadership and communication training and development. The most successful leadership development programs and outcomes occur within symbolic environments where many elements of effective social influence are present, recognized, valued, and rewarded.