(Implicit) Messages and Leadership: A Dangerous Liaison

This is an addendum to last month’s blog entry ‘Sarah’s Symbolism: a lesson in distant leadership’ as I found more examples for reckless communication that sends implicit messages to others. In the previous post I argued that Sarah Palin’s aggressive ways of communicating her political message can provoke her less critically inclined supporters to action, such as happened in the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Now, it is happening again and again when some extreme Republicans try to communicate their political agenda. I’m surprised and shocked at  how some people abuse the freedom of speech for the purpose of political warfare.

Death by Words: or, when leaders talk recklessly

Example 1:

When political leaders communicate with their constituents they sometimes do so in an intentionally ambiguous manner. This is meant to reach as wide an audience as possible and to leave room for personal interpretations. Everybody wants a say after all, and if politicians tie themselves down too much on one issue, some potential voters might feel repelled. What happened at a town hall meeting in Georgia, though, was a really bad example for non-committing to a position by the republican politician Broun: When asked by an attendee "Who's going to shoot Obama?" , he laughed it off and took up the thread by expressing his wish for a different President after the next elections.

Why I think this response was totally unacceptable?

Because by not challenging such a statement immediately, which as the ‘thought leader’ at that meeting he should have done, he implicitly agreed that this might not be such a bad thing after all (= getting rid of the president). And what happens if a leader sends a message – clearly or implicitly? It might find executors quicker than anyone could wish for. More importantly: he set the stage by permitting this statement to remain unchallenged, therefore creating and encouraging an aggressive stance, a violent political culture amongst the far right.

Example 2:

The most distasteful and insulting remark came from Kansas state lawmaker Peck, who  implicitly suggested to shoot immigrants like feral hogs:

"Looks like to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a (solution) to our illegal immigration problem"

It's hard to find anything implicit about this message, as it seems clear and unmistakeably hostile towards immigrants. What some politicians do to conceal this explicitness, however, it render the statement a "joke" or, as dishonestly as possible, apologize for it. They seem to know that, no matter what is said afterward, the words have been said and heard, the message conveyed to those who are willing recipients.

Example 3:

Not that I expect any intelligent message to come from Glenn Beck at all, but this one is a master piece: Recently he picked upon a scientist who (40 years ago) wrote a paper on outlining a plan to help the poor of New York and other big cities to get on welfare. Beck, probably in an attempt to sound sophisticated by knowing about research altogether called the retired scientist “one of the most dangerous people in the word” because "she was trying to instigate a vast conspiracy to overthrow the American financial system."

Yes, I would laugh, too, if it wasn’t so damn dumb. The woman received hundreds of death threats, an unsettling experience that I wouldn’t wish on anyone (not even Glenn Beck).

Again: it’s true that Beck did not explicitly wish her death, but the consequences of his mindless attack on her work led to others execute his implicit message of trying to get rid of someone like her to pursue his political agenda.

Implicit Messages by Leaders

The challenge for people in leadership positions (formal or informal leadership positions) is that they communicate with every word, gesture, appearance, intentionally or not. Hence, they are indeed co-accountable for actions that follow their messages, implicitly or explicitly.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term 'implicit' as something that is “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed”. This is the problem and the potential of implicit messages by leaders: they might or might not be understood in the way they were meant to be understood and room for interpretation includes room for action. Leaders who do not want to appear like the three examples above might want to make sure that they:

1)    Try to communicate their messages explicitly
2)   Be aware that they communicate no matter whether they mean to or not
3)   Align their intentions and explicitly communicated messages

Only so can they approach the objective of communicating authentically and utilize their leader potential, instead of using their leader power like Broun, Peck and Beck.