A “Conversational” Leadership Style

From the Marshall Memo #438

“Smart leaders today, we have found, engage with employees in a way that resembles an ordinary person-to-person conversation more than it does a series of commands from on high,” say Boris Groysberg (Harvard Business School) and Michael Slind (author and communications consultant) in this Harvard Business Review article. They go on to describe four key elements of these conversations:

• Intimacy: getting close – To be effective, institutional conversations should minimize distances – institutional, attitudinal, and spatial – that separate the boss from subordinates. Closeness “shifts the focus from top-down distribution of information to a bottom-up exchange of ideas,” say Groysberg and Slind. It depends, of course, on leaders building trust by being straightforward and authentic; listening well, with curiosity and humility; and regularly getting anonymous feedback on performance.

• Interactivity: promoting dialogue – This means getting past monologues (in person or in print) and “embracing the unpredictable vitality of dialogue,” say the authors. They also recommend using social media, which allow for the kind of two-way communication that’s impossible with traditional media. 

• Inclusion: expanding employees’ roles – These conversations and social-media dialogues allow employees to be content providers, contributing ideas and insights to the general good. If this is working well, employees are “brand ambassadors”, thought leaders, and storytellers. “When employees speak from their own experience, unedited, the message comes to life,” say Groysberg and Slind. 

• Intentionality: pursuing an agenda – Without a clear purpose, conversations can meander and waste time, say the authors. Leaders should do a good job explaining vision, strategy, and the logic behind decisions so employees are conversant with them and can contribute – or push back – with knowledge of the big picture.

“Leadership Is a Conversation” by Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind in Harvard Business Review, June 2012 (Vol. 90, #6, p. 76-84), no e-link