Leadership Communication

Abstract

We have made great strides in leadership communication research and practice. We need only look to International Journal of Business Communication’s history to realize this progress. In 1972, a Journal of Business Communication article detailed the communication challenges of professional secretaries because they were vital channels for leader communication (Treece, 1972). This observation is not a criticism of the author or the journal. Instead, the article captured the reality of that time. That time has passed as demonstrated by the articles in this two-part special issue about leadership communication. These articles explore leadership communication in contemporary settings through multiple lenses and research methodologies.

We introduce this collection of promising scholarship by defining leadership communication (reflecting), and then sharing our vision for these special issues (engaging)—including how the articles in the first issue fulfill it (innovating). We also integrate previous research with these studies. To begin, there are many definitions for leadership communication and its roots. And the field of business communication enriches these diverse viewpoints since it is multidisciplinary with multicultural participants. Case in point, some disciplines such as management tend to promote the psychological perspective of leadership with individually centered communication, often with formal position power and research goals that emphasize adding organizational value (Fairhurst, 2001; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2013; French, Raven, & Cartwright, 2015; Walker, 2014; Walker & Aritz, 2014). In comparison, other disciplines emphasize discursive leadership, where leaders emerge through socially constructed reality. The latter perspective underscores shared, fluid leadership communication processes and highlights their discovery and impact on participants (Fairhurst, 2001, 2009; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2013; Walker, 2014; Walker & Aritz, 2014). Furthermore, scholars have shown cultural biases in perceived leadership, including its communication. For example, disparate rule sets guide turn taking in conversational decision making, depending on cultural context (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Inglehart, 1997; Walker & Aritz, 2014).

Yet there is convergence within this diversity. First, regardless of perspective or culture, most scholars agree that leadership creates and manages meaning (Conger, 1991; Fairhurst, 2009; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Second, communication is integral to meaning creation and its management. At the very least, leadership communication interprets reality and, according to many scholars, forms its shared perception (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2013; Putnam, 1983; Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Walker & Aritz, 2014). Our definition of leadership communication incorporates these considerations. We follow Fairhurst (2009) to adopt Robinson’s broad interpretation of leadership. “Leadership is exercised when thoughts expressed in talk or action are recognized by others as capable of progressing tasks or problems which are important to them” (Robinson, 2001, p. 93). Thus, leadership communication is perceived articulation of such talk or actions. Note the emphasis is on perceived, and articulation includes many channels, ranging from listening to social media and other electronic formats. In addition, our definition does not differentiate between leaders and managers. In short, anyone recognized by others as a leader and engaged in message sending that is linked to this role performs leadership communication.

Our vision for these special issues is to engage you the reader in a wide conceptual range of leadership communication studies that advance research and practice of leadership communication in unique ways. Also important to our vision, each article contributes insights on how to make leadership communication better. Sometimes, these scholars suggest investigations and behaviors. At all times, the authors offer deeper understanding of leadership communication choices and processes. Overall, the articles in this collection forge pathways to enhance leadership communication, a goal reflected in the work of Philippe Breton (1997), who described communication’s potential to elevate our life experiences.

Our vision is captured by the dimensions of leadership communication perspective (ranging from psychological to discursive) and level of analysis (ranging from societal to dyadic). These two anchors are filtered through a contextual lens, namely, the cultural attributes of collectivism (the welfare of the group is more important than that of an individual) and individualism (the welfare of the individual supersedes that of a group; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2002, House et al., 2004). Significantly, the perspectives, levels of analyses, and contextual lenses are ranges—not pure dichotomies. Figure 1 incorporates these dimensions. They intersect in some of these articles to combine perspectives, use cross levels of analysis, and comparatively mix or extend beyond one cultural reality. This intermingling is encouraging since the scope of leadership communication can be sharpened and enriched by its multidisciplinary roots.

Figure 1.

Dimensions of leadership communication.

This issue’s introductory article, “Communication: Sine Qua Non of Organizational Leadership Theory and Practice” by Ruben and Gigliotti fully captures our model. These authors discuss a panorama of leadership communication perceptions that align with Hackman and Johnson’s (2013) and Fairhurst’s (2001) broad conceptual maps. Based on the title’s premise, sine qua non—without which there is nothing—this article draws on past scholarship to conclude that communication is the material that constructs leadership, but only after reviewing the multiple and dichotomous viewpoints of what actually constitutes leadership and its expression. The authors evoke both the psychological and discursive lenses by examining four principle dichotomies of leadership: managers versus leaders, the blurry distinctions between leadership and followership (or the romance of leadership), formal versus co-constructed leadership, and science versus art. Furthermore, the three aligned communication models cover the full spectrum of the framework in Figure 1.

The three communication models with their implications for conceptualizing leadership also lend an emergent theme to “Communication: Sine Qua Non of Organizational Leadership Theory and Practice.” Communication intertwines with the practice of leadership (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011; Putnam & Nicotera, 2009), and this link should be more explicit in research and practice. Too often, communication is the elephant in the room of leadership—which is either ignored or hand waved away. By promoting a strategic and systematic approach to leadership communication, in asserting that “leaders ‘cannot not communicate’” (Watzlawick, Bavelas, Jackson, & O’Hanlon, 2011, p. 49), and by giving the choice of a systems model for leadership communication, the authors bring our special issues’ topic to light. In doing so, they take positive steps forward in advancing leadership communication.

The next article in this issue, “Leading by Tweeting: Are Dean’s Doing It? An Exploratory Analysis of Tweets by SEC Business School Deans,” by Naidoo and Dulek, also contributes to better leadership communication through clarifying Twitter practices and their effectiveness. Advancing the research stream of social media (Cardon, 2015; Gruber, Smerek, Thomas-Hunt, & James, 2015; Malhotra & Malhotra, 2016; Stephens & Barrett, 2016), the authors investigate SEC business school deans’ Twitter engagement along with its relationship to business school rankings over a 4-year time period. This study is psychological in perspective, with a divisional level of analysis and an individualistic cultural lens. Yet the methodology mixes quantitative and qualitative approaches, with the technique of Sentiment Analysis (Nasukawa & Yi, 2003) being more typical of the discursive perspective (Fairhurst, 2001, 2009; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2013).

This article provides surprising and original insights. We learn that most deans do not have a high level of Twitter engagement. Nor does high Twitter engagement always improve school rankings over time. Through Sentiment Analysis, the authors construct a set of Twitter leadership communication attributes, the Perceived Leader Communication Trait, to find unexpected results. In addition, Naidoo and Dulek employ text interpretation to closely examine linguistic clues, all pieces that fit into their conclusion’s bigger picture, one that raises fundamental questions about leadership communication authenticity and its connection with stakeholders.

On the subject of stakeholders, how many of us have ever struggled to understand or buy-in to a strategic vision or goals? Much of this process depends on leadership communication, and the message comprehension, acceptance, and support that are so critical to successful strategy implementation (Barnard, 1968; Bennett & Olney, 1986; Hrebiniak, 2006; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Mintzberg, 1973). This link is the theme for the next article, “Senders’ Bias: How Can Top Managers’ Communication Improve or Not Improve Strategy Implementation?” by Shimizu. The article highlights top leadership communication’s role in effective strategy execution through theory building. By exploring top managers’ bounded assessments of their own communication initiatives, it advances previous strategic leadership communication scholarship (Aten & Thomas, 2016; Kopaneva, 2016; Larwood, Falbe, Miesing, & Kriger, 1995; Thomas & Stephens, 2015; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). This research falls in the psychological perspective, organizational level of analysis, and the global dimension of our model.

“Senders’ Bias: How Can Top Managers’ Communication Improve or Not Improve Strategy Implementation?” frames the perception gap that arises from top leader (sender) overconfidence when articulating strategic vision and goals to stakeholders (receivers). The focus is on three key factors: types of communication, the selected communication channel, and top leader openness to stakeholder voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 2003; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Morrison, 2014). The last factor, voice, refers to employee upward communication of work-related suggestions, ideas, and problems—all of which are vital for organizational health and performance (Morrison, 2014). Shimizu models all three factors to advocate for higher quality top leader communication of strategic vision and goals that incorporates employee feedback. The title clearly embodies the author’s ultimate objective: mindful, top leadership communication that facilitates successful strategy implementation.

Mindful leadership communication reappears as a major theme in the next article, “Empirically Testing Behavioral Integrity and Credibility as Antecedents for Effective Implementation of Motivating Language.” The authors, Holmes and Parker, significantly extend motivating language theory (MLT), which seeks to align organizational vision with follower aspirations through strategic leader talk (Madlock & Sexton, 2015; Mayfield, Mayfield, & Kopf, 1995; Mayfield, Mayfield, & Sharbrough, 2015; Sharbrough, Simmons, & Cantrill, 2006; Sullivan, 1988). In brief, MLT draws on conscious leader application of linguistic speech acts and motivation theory to improve employee and organizational welfare (Mayfield et al., 2015; Sullivan, 1988). Some of these improvements have emerged in previous studies as higher employee job satisfaction, performance, innovation, organizational commitment, retention, perceived leader competence, and lower intent to turnover (Holmes, 2012; Madlock & Sexton, 2015; Mayfield et al., 2015; Sharbrough et al., 2006).

Here, Holmes and Parker empirically test a key motivating language (ML) assumption, high ML leaders must walk the talk. Put simply, a leader’s actions must be congruent with her or his spoken words in order for followers to perceive effective motivating language. This psychological, multilevel analysis, and culturally individualistic article is rooted with business communication research streams that transcend motivating language theory. The article’s central roles of behavioral integrity and credibility draw from leadership communication competence (Flauto, 1999; Jablin & Sias, 2001; Madlock, 2008) and trust as reflected in speech acts (Kodish, 2016). The authors interweave these themes with MLT to uncover powerful behavioral predictions of when motivating language actually happens. This discovery moves beyond behavioral forecasting. It also gives us a sharper awareness about how to successfully select and train leaders who help employees and organizations benefit from motivating language.

Then again, leaders are not always chosen and formally trained. Rather, they can emerge through discursive practices. This intriguing view is central in the final article of this issue, “Leadership Construction in Intra-Asian English as Lingua Franca Decision-Making Meetings” by Du-Babcock and Tanaka. The authors adopt a discursive perspective to illuminate the co-construction in leadership decision making at the group level of analysis. This article encompasses previous scholarship that refutes classical theories about decision making being calibrated from logic (Simon, 1997) and the anchored presence of leadership in just one person (Aritz & Walker, 2014; Baxter, 2015; Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003). The cultural lens is collectivist (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) and it grafts well with earlier studies about intercultural leadership communication (Aritz & Walker, 2014; Fine, 1991; Krone, Garrett, & Chen, 1992; Madlock, 2012). Also important, Du-Babcock and Tanaka hone in on linguistic facility as a tool to influence and, at times, exercise power over others.

More specifically, these authors use qualitative and quantitative methods to identify Discourse and its impact on group decisions. Discourse is differentiated from discourse since the former represents the co-construction of meaning through language, and the latter is a path with which to understand this process (Aritz & Walker, 2014; Fairhurst, 2009; Gee, 2015). Leadership communication is not static or originating from a single source in this context. Instead, it is often fluid and dynamically shared among group members, depending on the linguistics that evolve. When such distributed leadership communication arises, decision outcomes strongly diverge from groups where more directive leadership talk dominates (Walker & Aritz, 2014). Thus, the authors bring deeper understanding of socially constructed decision making through leadership communication.

In conclusion, all these innovative articles adeptly reflect the vision for these two special issues. They investigate leadership communication from many different angles and offer keen insights on how to advance leadership communication in research and practice. We hope that they will engage and inspire you.

Finally, these two special issues result from the efforts of valuable contributors. We acknowledge them here. We express our thanks for all the helpful guidance from Dr. Robyn Walker, the ABC Publication Board, Dr. Peter Cardon, and Dr. Gail Fann Thomas. Our hearty appreciation also goes out to the contributing authors who so graciously refined their superb articles. This gratitude is extended to all the reviewers whose feedback was so vital to manuscript development, including the following:

Myria W. Allen

Claudio Baraldi

Joshua Boyd

Janet Brady

Patrice Buzzanell

Phillip Clampitt

Jonathan Clifton

Dale Cyphert

Renee Heath

Daphne Jameson

John Jamison

Jane Johansen

Paula Lentz

John McClellan

Jennifer Scott Mobley

Clive Muir

John Penrose

Irene Pollach

Irv Schenkler

Mary Tucker

Dorien Van De Mieroop

Jasper Vandenberghe

Robyn C. Walker

Anne Witte

Yusun Yung

Jensen Zhao

References

Aritz

Walker

R. C.

(2014). Leadership styles in multicultural groups: Americans and East Asians working together. International Journal of Business Communication, 51, 72-92. doi:10.1177/2329488413516211

Aten

Thomas

G. F.

(2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488415627269

Barnard

C. I.

(1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baxter

(2015). Who wants to be the leader? The linguistic construction of emerging leadership in differently gendered teams. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 427-451. doi:10.1177/2329488414525460

Bennett

J. C.

Olney

R. J.

(1986). Executive priorities for effective communication in an information society. Journal of Business Communication, 23(2), 13-22. doi:10.1177/002194368602300202

Breton

(1997). L’utopie de la communication: Le mythe du village planétaire. [The utopia of communication: The myth of a global village]. Paris, France: La Découverte.

Cardon

(2015). Business communication: Developing leaders for a networked world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Conger

J. A.

(1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Executive, 5(1), 31-45.

Cooren

Kuhn

Cornelissen

J. P.

Clark

(2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32, 1149-1170.

10.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

E. R.

(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.

11.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419-1452.

12.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2001). Dualisms in leadership communication research. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379-439). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2009). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Connaughton

S. L.

(2013). Leadership communication. In Putnam

L. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 401-423). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Fine

M. G.

(1991). New voices in the workplace: Research directions in multicultural communication. Journal of Business Communication, 28, 259-275. doi:10.1177/002194369102800305

16.

Flauto

F. J.

(1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 6, 86-97. doi:10.1177/107179199900600106

17.

French

J. R.

Raven

Cartwright

(2015). The bases of social power. In Shafritz

J. M.

Ott

J. S.

Jang

Y. S.

(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (8th ed., pp. 251-260). New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

18.

Gee

(2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York, NY: Routledge.

19.

Gruber

D. A.

Smerek

R. E.

Thomas-Hunt

M. C.

James

E. H.

(2015). The real-time power of Twitter: Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media. Business Horizons, 58, 163-172.

20.

Hackman

M. Z.

Johnson

C. E.

(2013). Leadership: A communication perspective (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

21.

Hofstede

G. H.

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

22.

Holmes

W. T.

(2012). The motivating language of principals: A sequential transformative strategy (Unpublished dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas, TX.

23.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(2004). Leadership, culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

House

R. J.

Javidan

Hanges

Dorfman

P. W.

(2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10.

25.

Hrebiniak

L. G.

(2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12-31.

26.

Inglehart

(1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, MA: Princeton University Press.

27.

Jablin

F. M.

Sias

P. M.

(2001). Communication competence. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 819-864). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

29.

Kodish

(2016). Communicating organizational trust: An exploration of the link between discourse and action. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488414525464

30.

Kopaneva

I. M.

(2016). Left in the dust employee constructions of mission and vision ownership. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488415604457

31.

Krone

Garrett

Chen

(1992). Managerial communication practices in Chinese factories: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 229-252. doi:10.1177/002194369202900303

32.

Larwood

Falbe

C. M.

Miesing

Kriger

M. P.

(1995). Structure and meaning of organizational vision. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 740-769.

33.

Madlock

P. E.

(2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61-78.

34.

Madlock

P. E.

(2012). The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 169-184.

35.

Madlock

P. E.

Sexton

(2015). An application of motivating language theory in Mexican organizations. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 255-272.

36.

Malhotra

C. K.

Malhotra

(2016). How CEOs can leverage Twitter. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(2), 73-80.

37.

Mayfield

Kopf

(1995). Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale development. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 329-344.

38.

Mayfield

Sharbrough

W. C.

(2015). Strategic vision and values in top leaders’ communications: Motivating language at a higher level. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 97-121.

39.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.

40.

Mintzberg

(1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

41.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173-197.

42.

Nasukawa

(2003). Sentiment analysis: Capturing favorability using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Capture (pp. 70-77). New York, NY: ACM.

43.

Putnam

L. L.

(1983). Communication and organizations: An interpretive perspective. In Putnam

L. L.

Pacanowsky

(Eds.), Communication and organizations (pp. 31-45). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

44.

Putnam

L. L.

Nicotera

A. M.

(2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.

45.

Riggio

R. E.

Riggio

H. R.

Salinas

Cole

E. J.

(2003). The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(2), 83-103. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.83

46.

Robinson

V. M.

(2001). Embedding leadership in task performance. In Wong

Evers

C. W.

(Eds.), Leadership for quality schooling (pp. 90-102). New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.

47.

Sharbrough

W. C.

Simmons

S. A.

Cantrill

D. A.

(2006). Motivating language in industry its impact on job satisfaction and perceived supervisor effectiveness. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 322-343. doi:10.1177/0021943606291712

48.

Simon

H. A.

(1997). Administrative behaviour: A study of decision-making process in administrative organizations. New York, NY: Free Press/Simon & Schuster.

49.

Smircich

Morgan

(1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.

50.

Stephens

K. K.

Barrett

A. K.

(2016). Communicating briefly: Technically. International Journal of Business Communication, 53, 398-418. doi:10.1177/2329488414525463

51.

Sullivan

(1988). Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13, 104-115.

52.

Thomas

G. F.

Stephens

K. J.

(2015). An introduction to strategic communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 3-11.

53.

Treece

M. C.

(1972). Business communications practices and problems of professional secretaries. Journal of Business Communication, 9(4), 25-32.

54.

Walker

(2014). Strategic management communication for leaders (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

55.

Walker

Aritz

(2014). Leadership talk: A discourse approach to leader emergence. New York, NY: Business Expert Press.

56.

Watzlawick

Bavelas

J. B.

Jackson

D. D.

O’Hanlon

(2011). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York, NY: WW Norton.

57.

Westley

Mintzberg

(1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 17-32.