Leadership Communication

December 3, 2013

“We’ve got the weather,” the man said. And for years, my wife and I have wondered what he meant.

We had been walking in Dublin, Ireland and paused to photograph the huge wooden doors of an aging church building, when an elderly man on the sidewalk greeted us with those few words.

Did he mean the weather was bad because it was raining? Or, as we think more likely, was he saying the weather was good because it was a mild day with a gentle breeze and only a light rain?

My wife and I still recall that day in Dublin, that brief encounter, whenever we hear people make statements that could be interpreted in exactly opposite ways.

Speakers often say one thing and mean another, sometimes intentionally, sometimes innocently. Listeners often misinterpret what was stated because they had something different on their minds or expected something different to be said.

All of this and more adds to the difficulty of communicating effectively, whether between two people or within a team or organization.

Leadership communication attempts to minimize these misunderstandings; and an effective tactic for doing so is to have listeners restate what they believe they heard the leader say.

Communicating messages clearly and repetitiously is a leadership essential; but so is providing opportunities for others to repeat those messages. This leads not only to more precise communication, but also to more pervasive and powerful messages.

Improving Concussion Data

August 18, 2017

The Michigan High School Athletic Association’s 750 member high schools reported nearly 500 fewer concussions for the 2016-17 school year than the year before – 11 percent fewer.

That’s good news, but it’s not a trend we can bank on. It’s too soon to do that. There are too many variables that might explain or contribute to the decline from 4,452 to 3,958 concussions.

Related Story | 2016-17 Summary Report

But of this we are certain: Schools are taking head injuries seriously. It is not a lack of concern or a lack of care in reporting that has led to the 11 percent decline.

It’s more likely the second year’s data is just better than the first year. The process was better understood. The numbers are more accurate.

Our data will become most reliable and useful when we have several years to compare and analyze. Only then will we really know where the trouble spots remain; and only then can those areas be most effectively addressed.