We,
human beings, have inherited a unique trait: “ability to express feelings by
using appropriate words, voice, body and face”. It is by using this trait, that
great leaders, as observed by Daniel Goleman, et al. (2003),[1]
ignite our passion and inspire the best in us. Great leaders are often found to
operate through ‘emotions’. It is indeed their emotional skills rather than the
traditional IQ that have proved to be the hallmark of successful leaders.
“Emotional leadership is a spark that ignites an organization’s performance,
creating a bonfire of success or a landscape of ashes,” said Goleman.
Successful leaders always ensure that an optimum level of excitement is
maintained among the followers in the organization and this is possible only
through “expressiveness”.
Expressiveness
involves expression of an authentic emotion about a passionate purpose and, to
excite people with such purposes, the leader should ensure congruence between
his voice and his body. Oftentimes, it is observed that the words spoken by a
leader sound exciting while the body communicates a different meaning – no
wonder, sometimes, the body language of the speaker dampens the excitement sparked
by his words. The sure way to communicate effectively, therefore, is to use all
these expressions, congruently. Otherwise, the leader may have to pay a heavy
penalty in terms of loss of credibility. Mahadevi Varma[2]
– a noted literary figure, and a Jnanpith
awardee, known more as a modern Meera–
narrated an incident in her life, which confirms what damage the incongruence
between words and body language could do: After passing B.A. she, being
influenced by Buddha’s Karuna Bhavana
– passion for kindness – went to a Bhikshu – a Buddhist Monk – to take
‘initiation’ into Buddhism. It seems the monk spoke to her, hiding his face
behind a “hand-fan”, so that he could avoid staring into her face. Looking at
his anxiety to protect himself from the possible distraction that watching a
young lady’s face may cause, she questioned herself. “If this monk had no
control over his own senses, what initiation would he give to me?” This made
her give up the idea of joining Buddhism. It is the incongruence between the spoken
words and the body language of the monk that made him lose his credibility as a
monk in the eyes of the young lady who called on him for ‘initiation’ into
Buddhism.
Effective
leaders are known to begin their articulation by arousing the listeners’ attention,
using quotes, presenting a big picture, etc. and sustain it till their
presentation is over, by building up excellent rapport between the audience and
themselves, using pitch, pauses, vocal variety, posture, facial expression,
gestures, eye contact, etc. in varied fashions. They bring life into their
expressions. For instance, Martin Luther King in his 1963 “I have a dream”
speech used poetic imagery
and metaphors to convey his powerful ideas on apartheid and thus got the
audience glued to his speech: “I have a dream that one day on the Red Hills of
Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be
able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” The same could have
been said in this way: I hope one day the children of slaves and those of the
owners will sit together and play. But that would have been a drab and lifeless
statement. But if the same, when said, using expressions such as: “sons of
former slaves”; “sons of former slave owners”; “on the Red Hills”; “on the
table of brotherhood”, etc. is sure to bring life into the expressions. It
arouses and holds the attention of the audience, excites them, and simply gets
the ideas implanted in their brains and thus, certainly brings the desired
change in the target audience. That is “expressiveness” and those are the
“leaders!”
One
of the most important ingredients of effective expressiveness is empathy: it is
the ability to put oneself in another’s position, understand the other’s
perspective and then proceed to interact, that makes communication effective.
What is being assumed here is that, unless one is capable of understanding and
looking at things from various perspectives, one would not be able to interact
effectively. To better appreciate this concept, let us take a look at Act three,
scene II of Julius Caesar where
Shakespeare exhibits his hold over and insight into human sensitivities. Here,
Mark Antony enters the marketplace and, as permitted by the Brutus, begins his
speech after Brutus departs.
He
senses that people were, by then, made to believe that “Caesar was a tyrant” by
Brutus et al. He guesses the state of
mind of the audience well. He realizes that people would not let him speak if
he contradicts what the rest have already said. As he keenly felt the pulse of
the audience, Antony begins his speech with his famous words: “Friends, Romans,
and country men!” He thus, at once, identifies himself with the mob. To gain
further acceptance, Antony assures the audience that he has not come to praise
Caesar but to bury him. He goes on to say, “The evil that men do lives after
them; / The good is oft interred with their bones; / So let it be with Caesar.”
Having sensed that the audience are with him now, Antony wisely goes on
questioning the credibility of the conspirators’ allegations, instead of
attacking Brutus et al., and succeeds in making the citizens think afresh. It
is Antony’s respect for the audiences’ mood and his sheer time sense that won
him the day. And that is the importance of ‘empathy’ in making communication
effective.
Having
made the audience willing listeners to his speech, and having realized that it
was time to project Caesar in the rightful perspective, Antony continues:
……..The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Antony,
intelligently, repeats what Brutus has already said but very subtly plants a
doubt and makes the audiences’ hearts and minds quiver with a question: “Is
there any shady deal behind it?” Having thus created a right platform, he
reminds the audience that Caesar “hath brought many captives home to Rome, / Whose
ransoms did the general coffers fill”. Having stirred up their minds and hearts
enough, he shoots out the first arrow: “Is making Rome rich ambitious?” He
won’t stop there; he pounds their hearts by saying “When that the poor have
cried, Caesar hath wept; / Ambition should be made of sterner stuff”. Having
won their hearts, now, Antony makes an attempt to turn their ire against the
conspirators by taunting their nobility: “Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; /
And Brutus is an honorable man”. To further consolidate his gains, he draws the
audiences’ attention to the fact of his presenting Caesar the crown thrice and
Caesar refusing it all the three times, for which the same audience were the
witnesses, and questions them at point blank range: “Was this ambition?” That
is the expressiveness which appeals to the core of heart and that alone can
move “the stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.”
True,
only the likes of Shakespeare could weave the words so ingeniously but nothing
prevents us from being more careful in appreciating these subtleties in being
expressive and practice it with greater concern and grace. Leaders in
organizations have to pay greater attention to the ‘package’ as well as the
‘content’ of their message. They can as well use stories, colorful language,
analogies, metaphors, etc., to make their expressiveness effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment