Power & Communication: Joined at the Hip

Power and communication is a twosome I have been giving much thought to lately because of their fundamental intersection. If power is the ability to influence, then effective communication is the primary tool for making that happen. Throughout history, there have been great leaders; that is, individuals who have wielded much influence. Every single one, I would argue, has been an effective communicator or, at the very least, had a strong communication operation behind them. History shows that the leader's power begins to crumble when flaws in their communication machine are exposed or begin to break down.

What could cause such a breakdown? Often, one simple answer is found in the leader's message. Either it is found to be bogus or weak, it is no longer timely or relevant to the public, or the manner in which has been delivered is not viable. One need only look at the politics of our times to see examples of this. Many people initially supported our country's invasion of Iraq because citizens were told that country was an imminent threat to the U.S. Coming on the heels of 9/11, people were nervous and inclined to believe what they were being told by our government leaders. We now know the claims made by the Bush administration were either intentionally false or good faith projections that proved to be inaccurate. The result was two-fold: a sharp decline in the credibility of Bush and his administrative team and a rejection of their message.

The message, as has been said many times before, is the key. It must remain as credible and pertinent as the messenger him or herself. The two, in essence, rise and fall together because they are joined at the hip. Often times individuals in leadership positions lose sight of this and believe they can say most anything because they foolishly start believing it is they to which their public responds. This reality only goes so far. Inevitably, their success and level of influence lies in what they say and in how they say it. This holds true for public leaders with many followers jut as much as it does for persons involved in a one-on-one relationship.