John Renesch, noted futurist and writer on social and organizational change, wrote a foreword to  Liberty’s book.  Renesch  quotes part of  it  in the May issue of  his newsletter,  FutureShapers Monthly.  ( The entire essay,   entitled Women at Work: Employing the Powerful Feminine is well worth a read;  its primary theme doesn’t concern us directly here but is a fascinating one. )

“Organizations, particularly business organizations,”  wrote Renesch, ” have unparalleled influence on our society today.  The business sector, and the economic system which fuels it, is the de facto leader of the industrialized world. This dramatic shift in global power away from traditional institutions like government has important implications. Never in human history has there been such a universal need for organizational leadership that acts responsibly for the good of all people. The hierarchical, top-down rule that dominated the Cold War era and the benevolent dictator models of some of today’s republics are equally unacceptable. A new, more mature leadership is needed — no, absolutely necessary — to assure that our children and grandchildren live in a time of greater civility, less apprehension about the survivability of the human race and greater compassion for all people on Earth.”

On somewhat similar lines,  management consultant Myra White,  in a recent article entitled  Seeking Competent Leaders,  poses a question that must  be  on the minds of many following  last year’s financial  debacle.  How did it happen that “may of the business leaders in whom we placed our faith, our trust and even our money” turned out to be ” incompetent or (in some cases) out-and-out charlatans”?

Part of the explanation,  asserts  White,  lies “with the fact that we often are more concerned with social skills, likeability and charisma in choosing our leaders than we are with their ability to be effective leaders.”

White identifies several leadership types prevalent in the business world today, all of which fall short of the ideal: the servant leader  who serves the people he or she serves rather than controlling them;  the emotionally intelligent leader  who has social charm , empathy,  self-awareness and self-control;   the transformational leader who provides people with a vision of a better world and motivates them to transcend their self-interest; and finally the charismatic leader – who emotionally energizes followers with an inspiring vision of the future and convinces them that he or she is the heroic figure who can make this vision real.

But even though many of these characteristics may be cause for admiration,  they do not necessarily mean that the leader we have chosen will deliver results.  “Research has not found that leaders who are socially adept or liked or admired are more effective.”

White acknowledges that likeability and charisma are desirable qualities.  They have value in energizing and  motivating followers to achieve a leader’s goals. But in a complex world where countries and businesses  are globally intertwined, can charisma be enough?

As White aptly puts it:  “Sport teams  pick people based on their competence and ability, not their social skills and charisma . Why shouldn’t  businesses and organizations follow suit?”

Unfortunately, to put it bluntly, most of these self-serving and heavily promotional e-publications fail to deliver the goods.

One of the relatively few  exceptions is  written by trainer Shaun Belding.   Shaun’s  regular Winning at Work mailings – as brief as they are – do deliver the goods. His publication offers “techniques and tools for dealing Coworkers, Bosses, Callers, Customers and Clients” and excels in showing us how to handle difficult people in each of these categories.

Disagreements  among colleagues in the workplace are the subject of the latest  issue.  Differences of  opinion among people working towards a common goal are not only inevitable but healthy.  After all,  sharing and examining different ideas and contrasting viewpoints leads to progress and growth. What is certainly not desirable is the unnecessary acrimony and conflict that is often an offshoot of such debates.

As Shaun Belding points out, what creates the conflict has less to do with the idea and more with the way it is presented.  He presents us with two  useful techniques for minimizing the potential for conflict when offering a different opinion:

I think in this case…

This technique involves first validating the premise behind the other person’s assertion, then offering a new or different perspective that leads to a different conclusion.  For example:

Sally: I think we need to have a full team meeting for an hour every Monday and Wednesday morning.

Bob: (validating) That makes sense. The more frequently we communicate, the less likely we’ll have issues like  the ones that cropped up in the last  project. (new perspective) I think in this case we have a challenge with availability.  Not everyone is in the office every Monday and Wednesday.  Perhaps we should just say we’ll meet twice a week, and on the Friday before set mutually convenient meeting times.

Yes, and…

To consultant Dianna Booher, this is a scenario that’s all too familiar, as she points out in her Communication Tip of the Month e-newsletter:  ” People always assume the confusion happens on the other end of the communication–that what they themselves say is perfectly clear and that the other person just missed it somehow.”

Very nice – at least for your ego.  But in business communication, you may be asking for trouble if you assume too much.  Wise communicators never take their skills for granted.

Want a good gauge of your own clarity, or lack of it?  Beware the blank stare!

Need additional signs that your message just might not be getting through? Booher offers the following:

Lack of questions. (You call for questions at the end of a presentation, and there are none. Or, you bring up an idea in a meeting and you’re greeted with only polite smiles.)

Unexpected responses. (People respond irrationally to what you say, such as with anger, withdrawal, silence, or denial.)

Lack of coordination. Things “fall between the cracks” in coordinating projects.)

Low morale. (People feel discouraged that they can never “get it right” when, in fact, projects are frequently delegated without essential elements for successful completion.)

Rework. (Projects have to be redone because the instructions weren’t clear the first time. Or, extra work was completed “just in case” to “cover all the bases” because somebody wasn’t sure what was needed.)

Bottom line remains as always: fuzzy words lead – at very best – to fuzzy action. Only with clear words canyou expect clear action.

A woman tried to buy a Coke from a vending machine, but it malfunctioned and swallowed some of her money. By a happy coincidence, the worker from Coca-Cola who refills the machines showed up at that moment. Hearing her story, he apologized, returned her money and offered her a Coke for free. Praiseworthy in itself, but there’s more.

The woman insisted on paying for her drink,  but took the opportunity to express her shock at how much one had to pay for a bottle of Coke nowadays. The worker commiserated with her about how high prices were, but explained in the nicest way just how much the higher price of oil affected the cost of his product, from the oil used to make the plastic bottle to transportation costs. He mentioned specific percentages and dollar figures. He quoted how low Coke’s profit margin actually was on that bottle she’d just purchased.

A good ending, but how did he know so much?

So how did that potentially negative encounter with the Coca-Cola brand end?  The customer didn’t walk away believing that tomorrow she would be paying less for Coke than she did today, but she certainly left with a far more positive feeling both for the brand and for the way her concerns had been addressed. And that, after all, is what good customer service is all about!

But  how did the vendor maintenance man,  who presumably  ranked pretty low in the corporate pecking order, happen to be so knowledgeable on the intricacies of product costing?  One must assume, points out Ms. Sinickas, that he was appropriately briefed , whether on a formal or informal basis, by someone inthe company who served as an internal communicator. And the successful imparting of that knowledge requires a careful definition of goals followed by meticulous planning and preparation.

In Sinickas’ words:  “Especially in difficult financial times, the more we communicators can do to help our employees learn what they need to know in order to interact more positively with customers, the more we demonstrate our own value to the bottom line. Let’s be sure we actually measure that ultimate behavioral impact we have, not just whether our employees heard our messages.”

In all probability, they  are picking up a very big portion of your message (and all of the emotional nuance behind the words) from your nonverbal signals. Do the way you are standing or sitting,  your facial expressions, gestures, touch and use of space express enthusiasm, confidence and warmth, or arrogance, indifference and displeasure?

One thing is clear. Understanding body language is critical whether you are a chief executive officer, a first-line supervisor, or a candidate for president of the United States.

But unlike political candidates, most business and other people are oblivious to the impact of the nonverbal signals they send.

The first step to gaining a nonverbal advantage is awareness – and one way to increase awareness is to learn from experience. The good news is that it doesn’t always have to be your own experience!

In this regard, the recent TV debates in the USA between the candidates for president were, like most such encounters, especially enlightening. Learn here some powerful lessons – positive and negative – from the way Obama and McCain presented themselves, and how you can apply the lessons in your own professional or personal life.