Clear Channel

We have already discussed how confident executives surround themselves with bright, trustworthy people. Here is another essential quality for those with whom you surround yourself: clear, concise communication. The people I value most when I am gathering facts from a client to defend a lawsuit are those who: (1) can state their points in less than thirty seconds; and (2) can transcend the language or jargon of their specific professional discipline in a way that makes the point understandable by a smart but inexperienced layperson.

I have a couple of little indicators that tell me if I am working with people who will provide me clear channels of communication. You should develop your own, but try these out. First, ask yourself, How long are their voice mails? If someone leaves a rambling four-minute voice mail filled with "aahs," "ums," and repetitive statements, that person has a communication problem. I expect voice mails that are short, well-constructed, and make the point only one time.

Second, if someone uses trade jargon that you, as a layperson, obviously would not understand, that means that the person operates in a small world with blinders and is unable to facilitate the flow of information around and up the structure of an organization. For example, I once witnessed a civilian employee of the Department of Defense brief a diplomat of a foreign country on which U.S. military officials would attend a function that the diplomat was hosting. It was no secret that this particular diplomat had little or no military background. The Department of Defense employee told him approximately the following: "There will be two senior military officials present—CINCSOC and CINCPAC—they may have some SOCOM, USACOM, or CNO personnel with them, maybe a JAG or DOJ guy or gal will tag along. A couple of LAs from the INTEL committee always weasel their way in too." It was obvious that the diplomat had no idea who was coming to his social event, and it was amazing to me that the speaker was so caught up in his little world of acronyms that he could not see how ineffective his communication style was. The liaison was unable to recognize the differing perspective that the diplomat had, and could not, therefore, communicate effectively.