The leader’s verbal discipline and communication power is hinged on the efficiency of their language and how to use the right combination of words.
Leaders select their words for every occasion. In choosing the suitable word or phrase, the leader is careful about the context and content of the message and its delivery.
The words employed by a leader should convey clarity and a specific meaning (not compound or complex): simple in understanding to the hearers and the pitch of delivery must send the intended meanings, without creating doubts and confusion in the mind of the hearers.
The speech should scan every sphere of events, what has been done, what is yet to be done and the promise of a great future for everyone to look up to.
Leaders do not often talk to themselves but they frequently talk to others. They talk to both leaders and followers alike. To these key groups, the words used in communicating their message should therefore be those that give maximum meaning to the hearers, than the speakers themselves.
The language of any leader is the first identifiable sign of their leadership style and it says many things which may be difficult to reverse afterwards.
A leader must learn how to couch their message by identifying the context, the audience and the best fit message, tailor-made to address immediate and foreseeable challenges of the organization and it’s employees.
I was once in a gathering where a newly appointed CEO was being introduced to take over from another CEO. In his inaugural speech, which lasted for barely 20 minutes, the new CEO never acknowledged the efforts of his predecessor neither did he see any good achievement on ground to build upon.
Rather, his speech/lecture note was full of several employee dos and don’ts, laced with several ‘I’s which indicated the programs he has drawn up to implement and points to a solo problem solving approach to company issues.
Predictably, his tenure was woeful, he couldn’t hold and run successful executive meetings. He believed that he came to implement his ideas which he had agreed with the board and requiring no input and support of others. He eventually lost touch with majority of people in the organization and crashed out.