“Signaling” has become a new management watchword. It means consistency with a brand image or a value system by being ever mindful of unintended messages. These signals include official statements, types of sponsored events, hiring, and even office attire.
Communication can be indirect. What is not said is as important as what is. Spokesmen explaining what goodwill from an intruder means (there will be no new incursions) is signaling that the status quo of the already occupied and built-on areas are just fine — is that clear?
Leaders (whose behavior consumes us) can signal preferred directions, even by expressing contrary thoughts. The talent of “reading between the lines” is prized in a subordinate. The public pronouncements of transparency and integrity need to be outwardly practiced. And yet, certain decisions need to be made which require some bending of the rules. A leader would rather delegate this downwards, but not too explicitly.
Reading between the lines and deciphering the meaning of blank spaces separating words require a subtle reading of signals. The trick of actually seeming to contradict the boss in an independent move but actually furthering his hidden agenda is a delicate undertaking. Isn’t a subordinate who truly understands what the boss wants someone to be prized?
When a CEO receives an unsolicited proposal, say involving a relative in a transaction to provide services to a non-family corporation, he will publicly instruct the subordinate in charge of the bid process to avoid the accusation of nepotism and instead independently decide on the strict merits of the case. (I’ve not made any commitments to my relatives on this bid.) This overly emphasized pronouncement provides a clue for the faithful vassal to connect the dots. The decision is packaged as an independent judgment against the boss’s explicit (but disregarded) orders not to favor a relative. She is not really related by blood, but merely a town mate. And although she does not offer the lowest cost, she dresses well, and is very persuasive.
CEOs, no matter how loudly they profess welcoming criticism, independent thinking, and vigorous dissent even in meetings, can privately admit to a close circle of intimates (including the one serving coffee) that the personality fitting this description really pisses him off. (I get a headache when he talks to me.) Such a signal reaches the corporate hit man who takes his cue and proceeds to implement the unordered but devoutly wished outcome. Soon, the fall of the pain-in-the-ass is greeted a little sadly by the boss — it’s too bad that we are now deprived of such an independent point of view. But it’s surely a lot quieter in the office — can I have more coffee?
Still, history records the possibility of mixed signals. The 12th Century tale of Thomas Beckett and his king, Henry II is the classic case of vassals trying too hard to please their master. A close friend of Henry, Beckett was first appointed Chancellor and then, even not a priest, Archbishop of Canterbury. In many cases of conflict with the King, including whether clerics should be tried in ecclesiastical or civil courts and the excommunication of supporters, Henry despaired of the independence of his friend and appointee. Offhandedly, he declared, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Seeming to have been given the signal, some nobles kill Beckett in his own cathedral. Henry is remorseful at this turn of events and makes a pilgrimage to Rome to beg forgiveness from the Pope himself. Beckett was later canonized as a martyr and became the symbol of religious resistance to worldly power.
It is the fate of overeager subordinates who on their own implement an unexpressed order (maybe even a contrary one) to deal with the consequences. In case their action turns sour, the next victim could be the over-eager interpreter of messages from above.
What refuge is there for the subordinate who seems to go against the publicly expressed wishes of his boss? The defense that one has unfortunately misread the signals is the fate of a bumbler who has to justify actions that seem to have been independently taken on behalf of the boss.
Getting the message across should be straightforward. Unfortunately, what the boss says publicly is not always what he really believes. But telling the difference between pronouncements and real wishes can be a hazardous undertaking… but not for the misunderstood boss.
A. R. Samson is chair and CEO of Touch DDB.
