There are many aspects that make a good leader, and the best ones are absolutely infectious. Their moods dictating the moods of their followers, their words become a mantra for their people, their actions an example. In this article I want to focus on an invaluable but, in my eyes, often overlooked aspect of leadership. An aspect which does not on it’s own make a leader, but instead, when used properly, allows any one person to step into a kind of “soft” leadership, ensuring their ideas be regarded without bias, and most importantly of all, that their unique point of view is respected.
This is the technique of constructing ones own language to convey ideas, as opposed to leaning on more accessible, readily understood prose. This idea is so powerful that it has historically created great divides in groups of people, going so far as to incite hostility and separatism when taken to the extreme. It also presents a universally astute way to bring your point across in a conversation where the topic may be sensitive, or your company are the kind who are quick to erupt into anger.
The Fallacy of Common Sense
That which is thought to be understood readily by everyone, especially that which is in nature complicated, or beyond typical grasp, is bound to be, at best severely diluted from its original complexity once it reaches the status of “common knowledge”. A good, ready example of this lies in ethics, the field in which everyone feels they understand, but upon difficulty, seem to forget about entirely.
If you have ever spent any time around a university campus, you will see this phenomenon in full blast. Many politically charged words, especially those which especially fundamental meanings, such as “left”, and “right”, seem to take on completely separate meanings depending on whom you are speaking with. To the more astute individual, you may realise that a word such as “left”, when uttered by separate individuals, happen to actually be describing entirely different set pieces of information, and as it just so happens the sounds used to convey these set pieces sound exactly the same. It is here that we can see that in both cases the speaker, by their use of words such as “left”, or “right”, has failed in his or her communication, and by extension, his or her leadership.
By clinging on to common concepts and words to describe your unique agenda, you confuse their meaning and place yourself under the reign of already established ideas. This has the knock-on affect of ensuring that any and every person that you speak to who already has preconceived ideas about your topic will approach your unique point of view with their own prejudice and presumptions. Whilst in the example above I spoke of politics, this can be especially harmful if the speaker in question is taking about mental health issues such as depression or chronic anxiety, especially when these issues affect them personally. Simply humoring over-used language in itself undermines your own uniqueness, and makes it difficult for others to both relate to you, and take you seriously.
Indeed once a word has become part of the spectrum of common knowledge, and thus belays any sort of explanation, you take the power away from yourself to offer such an explanation. This in turn means that you have essentially killed any opportunity for clarification or joint understanding in your conversation, and at worst you have created an opportunity for those who already harbor their own ideas on a topic to muddle your unique thoughts with their misunderstandings. This is the epitome of throwing out any sort of co-operation and leaving your conversation to the whims muddy chaos. You simply can not control whether or not people listen to you in the first place when choosing to communicate in this way.
The Building Blocks of Linguistic Leadership
One of the first steps you need to take as a forger of your own language, is to ensure that you have a deep and thorough understanding of your topic, this means being sure about your stance against any conceivable counter argument, as well as having a thorough understanding of any possible opposing points of view, if applicable. With this knowledge you should be able to get to the very meat of the idea you wish to convey, allowing you to communicate it solely using language which describes its elements fundamentally.
For example, you may have a viewpoint on the film industry; lets say you believe that the consumers’ willingness to consume without critique of quality is the primary cause of so many bad movies being released each and every year.
The above may seem like an innocent enough viewpoint, however, upon further scrutiny one can see that the holder of the viewpoint is not communicating anything substantial, or even easy to understand, with just the above sentence alone.
Who are the consumers? What defines the Film Industry? Who is releasing these bad movies? The word “consumer” means very different things to say, a Canadian National and a French National. Likewise what is the film industry to one who regularly participates in amateur film-making, compared to a typical movie buff with no connections in the industry? Furthermore, exactly which body of film-production is to blame here? It is never specified.
Waving the finger at a vague and undefinable “consumer” and “film industry” is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also uncharismatic. It is with this rather innocent example, (things begin to get much more dire when the topic at hand has particularly dangerous ramifications), we can see how one can so easily fail at communicating a salient point, about pretty much anything.
It may seem easy to fall back on established ideas and set-piece phrases such as “consumers” and “industry”, however one must take a step back and ask themselves the question. When one does open ones mouth, does one not want what expires to esteemed at value? What would the point of speaking be if all you have to talk is, for lack of a better term, trash? Being specific via the use of more foundational language, that is, talking about things that actually exist, as opposed to concepts, not only gives you greater intellectual integrity, actively making you a smarter person, it also gives you the opportunity to make your viewpoint heard and understood without the filth of others preconceptions. It ensures you are taken seriously.
One of the biggest failings of people, in this sphere at least, lies in their fundamental desire to feel important. By muddling their ideas in vague, undefinable concepts, they defend themselves against opposition, and in doing so, create a sort of “safe ground” to speak without objection. This degree of narcissism is dangerous and is best avoided.
A Touch on Advanced Techniques
An interesting phenomenon as it relates to our topic, is the event in which, through repeated dialogues with the same audience, one, a leader, begins forming their own conceptions and language over the course of many lectures. It is here that the audience may begin to accept their leaders views in a sort of “shorthand”. This is most often where memes come from – complex ideas have been condensed to the point where a few words, or a phrase, is enough for the entire concept to be grasped.
When you notice this phenomena occurring, you must use what means you have to subvert it, as eventually your own astute ideas will be reduced into meaningless conceptual fodder, parroted yet not understood. It is important that you never latch on to concepts even if they are your own creation, as this invites misunderstanding, abbreviation and the same muddiness of interpretation which was described at length above. Falling back on these newly established concepts only communicates that you have not been thinking or developing your own ideas, and at worst conveys that you may have forgotten them. Return to base concepts whenever you have the opportunity to do so.
So go forth and speak with integrity; say what you mean and communicate with an unmistakable clarity. You owe it to yourself each and every time you open your mouth in dialogue.
