Not to get political…
So what even is a press conference?
Political media in Canada is churning over an incident when a reporter repeatedly interrupted Pierre Poilievre, the new leader of the opposition party, who was attempting to make a public statement.
Essentially, the reporter was upset that this “press conference” wasn’t going to invite any actual questions from the assembled media. His frustration led him to some obnoxious behaviour for which he has apologized, and Mr. Poilievre took two questions, from other reporters.
It was an awkward interaction that is being spun into something far greater than it warrants; but that’s politics I guess. And avoiding open questions in favour of better controlled scripted statements and favourable chosen interviews has become common practice from politicians of all stripes.
This obviously raises lots of questions about public accountability, a changing media landscape, and what should be expected of elected representatives and those running for office; but I think there’s another issue here that is relevant for leaders in every field.
How do you communicate with your people?
Almost everyone would agree that healthy leaders need to ensure that there is open two way communication. Failing to listen, receive feedback, and gain insights from every level of your organization is a recipe for frustration and poor decisions.
But there’s a finer point here too.
Do you and your team consistently agree on what type of communication is happening during meetings, public statements, town hall sessions, and other interactions?
Not every issue or situation benefits from live discussion. There are times and places for directive information sharing, other ones for dialogue, inviting input, or even having a vote. The problems really come up when people don’t agree on what kind of communication is supposed to be happening.
Which direction (or directions) is information supposed to be flowing, on which topics, with what authority?
Sitting in on meetings with leadership teams of lots of different organizations in recent years I’ve seen this problem over and over. An item comes up and people start discussing or debating while the boss gets exasperated because their intent was for this to be received as a directive. Or no one says anything on an item where feedback was expected and input hoped for.
Four simple tips to help increase clarity and reduce frustration:
Every item on your agenda should have an indication of what kind of interaction is expected and these are distributed in advance so people can prepare appropriately.
Establish a shared understanding on whether silence means agreement, disagreement, more time is needed, or something else entirely on items where input is expected.
Clarify the channels for adding items to the agenda, asking for and providing feedback, or requesting more information ahead of, during, and after meetings.
Develop facilitation skills and share the responsibility of leading meetings so the same voices don’t always dominate.
Politicians and reporters may never agree on how questions should be asked and answered, but you and your team will be far better off if you agree to some clear mutual expectations.
The “Conversations That Count” workshop I offer expands on these tips and offers several more keys to improving communication at every level of your organization. Contact me to see if it’s a fit for you.