Kristine Bundschuh
ProSem: May 7, 2014
Industry Research Report:
Lending a Linguistic Lens to the Field of Leadership Development
Choosing the Field: My Interests and Experience
My interest in exploring the connections between language and leadership began in
college, where as a House President I interacted with fellow student leaders and realized that
how we communicated was an integral part of what made us leaders. In graduate school, I now
research and analyze how leaders construct their leader identities through their language use. My
current research is giving me an academic knowledge on leadership discourse, and after
graduating I would like to work in a field where I can apply my research skills and knowledge of
the role of language in a leader’s identity.
According to my Strong Interest Inventory profile, my career interests can be best
categorized in three themes: Social, Enterprising, and Artistic. Within those themes are interests
which resonate strongly with me, like the interest in people, helping, business, leadership,
communication, and culture. In searching for an industry to explore, I wanted one which would
not only benefit from someone with my research experience, but also one that would allow me to
help others. Thus, I decided to explore the industry of leadership development.
In working with leadership development teams, I could apply my research to help people
better understand the impact of their language-use as well as teach them how to adapt their
communication in order to reach their leadership goals. Through conducing informational
interviews with people with experience in leadership development, attending local leadershipdevelopment lectures and analyzing the websites of a few local leadership development
consulting companies, I have engaged with the community to learn about the field as a whole as
1
well as the role of language and communication within various programs. As a linguist, I have
experience in discourse analysis and ethnography, which would allow me to analyze leaders’
language-use while considering the social and cultural factors of their companies and industries.
For the purpose of this Industry Research Report, I have detailed my engagement with the field
and my understanding of the role of communication in various types of leadership development
programs. Using this knowledge, I have then offered an example of how I could lend my
linguistic lens to data in the leadership development field.
Leadership Development Approaches
Before discussing the process of exploring the field, I first must explain what the field of
leadership development entails. ‘Leadership development’ is a term used to refer to a program
which is aimed at teaching leaders how to grow and succeed. Leadership development can be
approached from two perspectives—from the company who has the employees for whom they
want to offer leadership development, and from a consulting company that offers leadership
development services. Some larger companies, like Booz Allen Hamilton or Goldman Sachs,
have internal leadership development programs, where they employ people to design group
trainings and coach leaders one-on-one. These companies engage outside experts on certain
topics, often for a lecture or another one-time event, but they develop the rest of their programs
internally. Other companies hire leadership consulting firms to design and customize their
leadership development training programs or to give individual leadership coaching sessions.
Some consulting firms focus solely on individual leadership coaching, while others offer
a variety of services including analyzing and re-developing the entire leadership structure of
companies. Leadership development includes both individual- and organization-based programs,
2
as well as both external consulting programs and internal departments focused on the
development of its company’s employees. For the purpose of exploring this field to the fullest
extent possible, I chose to learn about both internal leadership development programs and
external programs, as well as both one-on-one coaching and larger group trainings.
Engaging with the Field
Throughout this semester I have gained insight into the field of leadership development
through speaking with people in the field, attending events, and conducting research on various
consulting companies. My aim was to better understand the significance of communication and
language-use in leadership development programs, so that I could then consider what I, as a
linguist who researches leadership discourse, can contribute to the field.
Through conducting informational interviews with people affiliated with leadership
consulting in different ways, I learned more about the role of language in leadership
development programs. I first spoke with Sonia Checchia, a former member of the Women’s
Development Initiative team at Booz Allen. She designed the curriculum for webcasts about
various development topics, incorporating outside leadership development experts with highlevel leaders at Booz Allen as the guests for the monthly webcasts. According to Sonia, the
webcasts with topics relating to communication—like talking to a manager about career or
negotiation—always had the most viewers. These employees were clearly interested in
communication issues in leadership development, which suggests that a program with a stronger
emphasis on the nuances of language could be an important addition to this field.
I also spoke with Kim Shepard, who works in a leadership development team at Goldman
Sachs which concentrates specifically on the development of managing directors and partners.
3
From Kim I learned that leadership development programs must consider each leader’s level of
leadership within a company’s hierarchy. Leadership development programs for lower-level
managers should be designed differently from those made for upper-level executives. Her team
hires outside experts to speak to their managing directors and partners at events, but the internal
team has its own leadership coaches for one-on-one training. This interview made me understand
that high-level leaders have likely already participated in both group and individual leadership
development programs as they rose in the ranks in their organizations. Given the multitude of
programs available, I suggest that a program with a unique angle—like learning about leadership
development through language-use—could be a popular alternative for leaders seeking a
program with a new framework.
To learn about leadership development from the perspective of an outside consultant, I
talked with Jen Lancaster, a consultant at Gap International. Gap International is hired as a
consulting company to help businesses with management development, and one of their services
offered is leadership development coaching. According to Jen, Gap International’s methodology
has a strong focus on language, and they employ linguists in their research and development
team. Because Gap International’s methodology for leadership development is developed with a
focus on language, their programs are interactive and include simulations and practice
discussions, so that their clients can experience how the way they speak affects how they are
perceived as leaders. This communication-based program shows that some leadership
development companies, especially those rooted in research, understand the role and impact of
language in leaders’ professional development.
While my informational interviews gave me insight into leadership development from the
corporate perspective—both from internal leadership development programs and external
4
consultants—I gained ‘inside’ experience through attending two presentations from current
leadership development consultants. Listening to these two speakers was a similar experience to
that of employees in companies like Goldman Sachs and Booz Allen when attending their
leadership development team’s lecture featuring an outside expert. When listening to these talks,
I considered how I could integrate my linguistic knowledge into their programs.
The first presentation I attended was a talk by Denise Brosseau on her new book, Ready
to be a Thought Leader? Brosseau is the CEO of Though Leadership Lab, and her book teaches
people how to be a ‘thought leader,’ meaning a person with significant social influence. From
both reading her book and attending the event, I discovered that Brosseau offered steps to take
and told stories about successful thought leaders, but she did not emphasize the ways in which
people could implement these steps. I acknowledge that her book and speech were aimed at a
large audience and therefore needed a level of generality, but from my perspective, people need
to consider not only the big picture and the framework they need to become influential leaders,
but they also need guidance on how to carry out the framework—which often is done through
language, like through constructing compelling narratives.
The second talk I attended was Maria Gamb’s session entitled “What Do You Mean You
Can’t Hear Me? Deciphering the Gender Code,” presented at the Women’s Center’s 28th Annual
Leadership Conference. Gamb taught the audience about how men and women speak and listen
differently, specifically using the example of when women nod their heads and say ‘yes’ in a
business meeting to express ‘we are listening’ and men interpret that as ‘we agree.’ Gamb
offered useful take-away messages to be clear in expectations and to understand that people do
not always interpret each other’s communication in the intended manner. Both Brossau and
5
Gamb’s speeches gave me an ethnographic experience from the perspective of a person receiving
leadership development training.
A Linguistic Approach to Leadership Development Data
From engaging with the leadership development industry this semester, I have learned
that many programs lack the nuanced, research-based approach to leaders’ language-use that I
could offer. If I were to join a leadership development department in a large corporate company
or a current leadership development consulting company, I would suggest that they offer more
trainings focused on communication, and I would translate and adapt my scholarly knowledge of
leadership discourse to integrate it into the existing programs. All programs would benefit from a
stronger emphasis on how leaders use language, because language is how they do leadership.
Holmes, Schnurr, Chan and Chiles (2003) define ‘doing leadership’ in terms of how leaders use
language, calling it a “competent communicative performance which, by influencing others,
results in acceptable outcomes for the organisation [sic] (transactional/task-oriented goal), and
which maintains harmony within the team or community of practice (relational/people-oriented
goal)” (p. 32) (my own emphasis). For the purpose of this IRR, I will offer one way in which a
linguistic analysis can contribute to current leadership development programs: through critically
analyzing examples used in leadership trainings. A more nuanced understanding of language
could create a more applicable example, where the leaders could understand not just that an
example is successful, but why it works and how they could apply it to their own situations.
The examples I chose are from the Lynda.com class “Having Difficult Conversations,”
which is taught by a leadership development coach and consultant, Britt Andreatta. Within the
class, Andreatta discusses how to invite someone to have a difficult conversation, which she says
6
should be delivered in “a way that helps the other person to know that your intention is positive.”
Andreatta offers two examples of invitations, but gives no explanation on how they show
‘positive intention.’ For viewers to be able to apply these examples to their own difficult
conversation circumstances, they need to understand how the language used in the invitations
affects their message. Thus, I have analyzed what linguistic features align with Andreatta’s
description of positive intention and also suggest issues with these examples.
During the section on inviting someone to a difficult conversation, Andreatta gives her
viewers two example invitations, which she says could be emailed or said in person. The context
offered is that the sender has an issue with the receiver that is affecting his or her work:
Example Invitation 1:
1
2
3
I really value our professional relationship.
I have something I'd like to discuss with you that I think will help us
work together more effectively.
Example Invitation 2:
4
5
6
I've been reflecting a lot lately on our relationship and I want to genuinely
connect with you about what's been happening. I'd like to set a time where
we can hear each other's experiences and find a way to move forward.”
I suggest that one manner in which the above examples support a ‘positive intention’ as
described by Andreatta is through the positioning done by pronoun use. Earlier in the course,
Andreatta recommended that the viewers use “I” statements rather than placing the responsibility
on the other person. These examples not only use “I” to take more responsibility, but they also
use “we” (line 6), “our” (lines 1, 4) and “us” (line 2). The use of an inclusive pronoun positions1
the receiver of the invitation in a group with the sender, which suggests that they should reach a
solution together. Even when “you” is used in the invitations, it is only used in connection with
1
I use the term ‘positioning’ as described in Davies & Harré (1990) and van Lagenhove & Harré (1999).
7
the sender through “with” (“I’d like to discus with you,” line 2; “I want to genuinely connect
with you,” lines 4-5). The pronoun use in these two example invitations position the receiver as
part of an inclusive group with the sender, which helps in offering a ‘positive intention.’
Another way in which these invitations are successful in showing a ‘positive intention’ is
through the management of positive and negative faces. Brown & Levinson’s (1987) Politeness
Theory says that people have and need to manage their own and each other’s positive and
negative faces (meaning the need to be appreciated and liked and the need to not be imposed
upon, respectively). The language in these invitations allow the sender to manage both the
receiver’s positive and negative face. The structure of “I’d like to set a time” (line 5) and
“something I’d like to discuss with you” (line 2) is an appeal to the receiver’s negative face,
because the sender shows that he or she respects the receiver’s need for autonomy. The
invitations do not say “Let’s set a time” or “we need to discuss,” but rather express an interest in
meeting, which allows the receiver to choose whether to agree. This management of negative
face shows that the sender wants to respect the receiver’s need to not be imposed upon.
The two example invitations also manage positive face by having the sender show an
interest in working with the receiver. By stating that the sender wants to “work together more
effectively” (line 3) and “hear each other’s experiences” (line 6), the sender shows an interest in
interacting with the receiver to find a solution to a problem together. This appeals to the
receiver’s positive face because the sender would like to get along better and therefore cares
about the receiver. The management of both positive and negative face allows this invitation to
both respect the receiver’s autonomy while showing interest in working together in the future.
The closings of the invitations also construct this ‘positive intention’ that Andreatta
describes. The examples’ endings, “will help us work together more effectively” (lines 2-3) and
8
“find a way to move forward” (line 6), both describe a future goal. A future-oriented closing
signifies that the sender does not plan on just discussing the issues between the two people in the
past, but also has an interest in creating a solution for the future. These closings help the
invitations show a ‘positive intention,’ since they suggest that the proposed meeting will not
focus on the sender’s qualms with the receiver.
The positioning through pronoun use, the management of positive and negative faces and
the future-oriented closings all contribute towards the invitations showing a ‘positive intention.’
However, as a sociolinguist I find two issues with Andreatta’s use of these examples. First,
although these examples fit Andreatta’s requirement that invitations show a ‘positive intention,’
she does not explain how they fit. Given that these examples are used in an online class, she
should explain to the viewers how to adapt them for their own difficult conversation invitations.
For example, if people do not realize that “I’d like” offers autonomy to the receiver, they may
not know to keep that phrasing in their own applications. I do not suggest that Andreatta must
give the viewers a complex linguistic analysis using academic terms, but rather that she should
translate such an analysis into a short description of what features create positive intention in her
examples, so viewers can apply such features in their own invitations.
My second issue with Andreatta’s examples is that they are offered as generic templates
with no discussion on context. These examples may work in certain offices, but in others, like in
a formal corporate environment, the use of phrases like “I really value our professional
relationship” (line 1) and “I want to genuinely connect with you” (lines 4-5) may not be
appropriate, especially when a subordinate is sending an invitation to a boss. According to
Baxter (2010), the “ability to use a repertoire of linguistic strategies to enact authority shows that
a leader can be flexible, versatile, multi-skilled and highly sensitive to context or community of
9
practice” (p. 150). Using this concept of a repertoire of linguistic strategies, I suggest that
Andreatta explains to the viewers how linguistic features must be applied differently depending
on the context. Perhaps she could offer a more formal and a less formal invitation example.
Language does not exist in a vacuum, and when people want to apply examples, they need to
consider that their own workplace cultures, colleagues, and goals should influence how they
construct their communication.
Conclusion
My analysis and discussion of two example invitations currently being used in an online
leadership development course demonstrate one of the many ways in which I can contribute to
the field. As a sociolinguist, I can help leadership development groups by analyzing how the
language constructs the effectiveness of different communication examples and suggesting better
ways to help viewers apply examples to their own circumstances. While the data in this paper are
from an online course, I could similarly analyze a leader’s communication in a one-on-one
coaching session, offering the leader context-specific advice and explaining applicability through
using specific linguistic features. Any leadership development program could benefit from the
critical, research-based analysis of a linguist.
My exploration into the industry of leadership development has proved that the
consultants and coaches value communication, since it is integrated into many programs.
However, they lack the fine-grained linguistic analysis and background theory that I possess.
With my own linguistic lens, I can help leadership development teams base their methodology
more strongly in linguistics and context, in order to help people become better leaders through
more effective and purposeful communication.
10
References
Andreatta, Britt. "Having Difficult Conversations." Lynda.com.
Baxter, J. (2010). The language of female leadership. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, Penelope. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Vol. 4. Cambridge University
Press, 1987.
Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré. "Positioning: The discursive production of selves." Journal
for the theory of social behaviour 20.1 (1990): 43-63.
Holmes, J., Schnurr, S., Chan, A., & Chiles, T. (2003). The discourse of leadership. Te Reo, 46,
31-46.
Rom Harré, and Luk Van Langenhove, eds. Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international
action. Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
11