“I don’t see why this even needs to be discussed,” the CEO exclaimed, somewhat frustrated, “the answer is obvious.”

We were facilitating the company’s annual strategic retreat, and during the morning break, the senior executives were debriefing an incident at one of their sites.

Something went wrong on a project, and the client needed to be informed. 

The operations manager asked that the customer be called and advised of the incident and the possible delays to their completion timelines.

The state manager, who had worked with the client for over a decade, disagreed and suggested that, given the proximity of their facility, someone should drive over and meet with them to discuss the details and ramifications.

The CEO was appalled. 

“These matters must always be addressed in writing,” he announced. “The client deserves a formal response so they understand we are taking things seriously. It also ensures clarity so there is no miscommunication.”

As the break drew to a close, the leaders were still at odds and turned to us for an objective opinion to end the debate.

Whilst each of these managers thought their’s was the right way to deal with the problem, they were really revealing their own primary communication modality.

We had already established this through their individual Scout Profiles and when we shared this with them they realised how their preferred communication styles were influencing their thinking.

The correct answer to the mid-morning conversation was, of course, to preference the customer’s ideal communication protocols.

Too often managers tend to project their proclivities over their customers, teams and organisations. They assume, often incorrectly, that their way is always right, the best or the only one.

“The responsibility of being understood is primarily yours,” is a challenge we often put to the leaders we work with. For a CEO this applies to the board, the management team, the suppliers and most importantly the customers.

In our work with professional sports, we were confounded by the way in-game tactics were being communicated by a coach in basketball. The traditional methodology of ‘drawing up a play’ on a small whiteboard during a time out, in our minds was inadequate. It was failing those players who were not visual. Sure enough when we encouraged assistant coaches to ‘talk to’ those who were more auditory and ‘walk-through’ plays with those who were more kinaesthetic, we noticed significantly better outcomes.

Players who were previously labeled as having a low basketball IQ were simply less visually inclined.

In these current times when people are highly distracted and low on attention, not only must leaders be succinct, clear and precise in their communication, they must be aware of preferred communication modalities of their constituents and ensure they address them accordingly.

For in the end it is the responsibility of the leader to be understood.