I overheard a comment recently: “It’s the message that is important, not the messenger.”
While I agree the message is important, the messenger is equally important. In fact, for some situations, the person who delivers the message can change the entire dynamic. Here’s an example:
A company is struggling with their revenues. The sales forecast isn’t good. The organization must do a significant layoff to survive:
Can a representative from an outplacement firm deliver the message? Sure they can. Most people will call the company insensitive for doing such a thing.
Human resources is also capable of delivering the message. Keep in mind they aren’t the employee’s immediate supervisor. It can be perceived by an employee that they are just a number on the list of layoffs.
If the employee’s manager conveys the message, it comes from someone who knew the employee and their work. It’s an opportunity to genuinely recognize them and create a way for them to leave with respect.
The message is still the same. The person who delivers the message changes how that message is received. Don’t get me wrong, even when the manager delivers the layoff message, the employee might be upset. But can you imagine how much more upset they would be if the messenger was someone else?
Okay, so (fortunately) we don’t announce layoffs every week. But there are other instances where the messenger is as critical as the message. Same applies to recognition. While getting praise from people outside your department is delightful, it’s not a substitute for being recognized by your own manager. Again, the message might be the same (i.e. “You’re doing a great job!”) but who says it makes a big difference. Huge!
Part of being a leader is not only knowing what messages need to be delivered but also who the right person is to deliver them. Having the wrong person communicate the message isn’t fair to either the messenger or the receiver.
Image courtesy of blucolt
0
Karla Porter says
Of course the messenger is important in may instances – especially the scenario you laid out. In my experience, leaders who avoid crucial conversations typically are not good leaders in general and the culture of the organization is poorer for it. Unfortunately, it’s all too common.
Sharlyn Lauby says
Hi Karla. Thanks for the comment. I agree – I would have thought everyone knew this by now. But as evidenced by the conversation, not everyone does. What was such a shame is the conversation took place between a well-known leadership institute and a globally recognized leadership consultancy. It just reinforces what we already know – it does matter who says it.
Marlene Chism says
This is a great distinction about the “HOW” of communication, and how companies should think strategically about how they deliver good news or bad news. Thanks for your insights.
Shel Holtz says
Thanks for this. I get weary and frustrated with the conventional wisdom that employees prefer to get company information from their immediate supervisors. This old chestnut comes from a decades-old study that asked employees to state their preferred and actual source of information. The problem with the question is that it didn’t differentiate between types of information. Usually, employees want their supervisors to deliver information related to their day-to-day jobs. Not benefits. Not company performance. Not a host of other topics. If I ask some of my wife’s friends where they like to shop, they may well answer, “Tiffany’s.” Does that mean Tiffany’s should start stocking produce? Had I asked, “Where do you prefer to shop for groceries?” the answer would have been very different.
I’ve been making this argument for years, but the notion of immediate-supervisor-as-communicator has become well-ingrained. Those who know better should do all they can to dispel the myth.
Sharlyn Lauby says
Thanks Marlene and Shel for the comments.
Totally agree with Marlene’s point about communication strategy. It’s often an afterthought – and we see time and time again how much it can impact the outcome.
Shel, I see your point about differentiating between types of information then deciding the right person to deliver the message. I believe employees want to know their supervisors are informed about the company but don’t necessarily expect them to know every little detail. Supervisors should be able to direct employees to the answers when necessary. That being said, I think companies who know the value of strong supervisor-employee relations should do all they can to encourage the kind of communication we’re talking about.