LinkedIn has just put up a new facility, with chosen people trialling a thought-leadership blog facility.

Richard Branson's one of them, Deepak Chopra another and of course, Barack Obama. These are big names. They're 'important' people. They're leaders.

Leadership takes many forms. Conventional thinking says there's coercive, charismatic, and collaborative leadership. I think there's more to it than that. Many people are leaders even when they don't see themselves as leaders. They're the ones others come to for advice, who will speak up in the staff meetings to spell out thoughts others are reluctant to voice. They're the ones who provide the thinking, and who influence behind the scenes. They don't always have to be out there, on stage, in the public eye.

These are the important leaders, because they are the ones who are the 'power behind the throne.' They're also the ones who help make our communities what they are.

Why leadership is important in small business

So, why is leadership so important in our community? Of course, our obvious community leaders are our local government representatives (some of whom aren't leaders, but happen to have stood for election and got the votes.) But I'm thinking of those who own and run the companies that provide the backbone of our economy. And because it's so important to the economy, it's even more important there is great leadership.

So often, people start their business because they know how to do their job. They're good at it and they want to be their own boss. Then they expand - take on an apprentice perhaps, or additional sales staff, or partners. The business grows and develops. 

Or, the entrepreneur has a grand idea that works - it takes off (think Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook).

Every business, large or small, needs great leadership if it's to be a success.

Some would say you're a leader if you've gone out and built a business. Not necessarily so. As I said before, many businesses are built because someone was a good plumber, lawyer, accountant or electrician. That they're good at their core role doesn't make them leaders. It makes them good plumbers, lawyers, accountants etc.  

Being a good leader means you;

• Have a vision. You know where you want to go, what your business is going to be, and what it will stand for. 
• Have a strategy. Having a vision is one thing, Knowing how you're going to achieve it is another. Big ideas remain big ideas if there's no strategy on how to make those ideas a reality.
• Have a plan. Visions and strategies don't happen unless you know what you're going to do to bring it all together.
• Know how to collaborate. It's fine having dreams and a vision but you need everyone to buy into the dream. Sharing your vision, allowing your associates and staff in on the deal and having their own input, can only enrich the big picture.
• Lead. Yes, I know, obvious if you're the leader. Actually, it's not that obvious to many. Being at the helm means being able to take charge and be decisive, setting the direction and most importantly, set the example to create the culture, to create the buy-in . . .  

When the Government announced it would consult iwi over the question of water ownership, it was clear it was a sop to quieten the dissent to the sale of New Zealand's energy companies. So one has to ask, how valid is the description of consultation to this process?

When it comes to consulting with the community, it's a brave organisation (or complacent) that assumes the community will not see through a 'tick box' exercise designed to confirm what's already planned.

On Monday, we had the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English turn up at a hui with Tainui to discuss water ownership - and the chairs were mostly empty (11 adults, four kids). Whether you agree or disagree with this whole issue is irrelevant when it comes to good consultation. And right now the Government is displaying all the signs of complacency, comfortable in the knowledge it will do what it wants, regardless of community opinion.

The Government had decided it would call the shots on how it would consult with Maori over water ownership. It didn't ask, it instructed and expected Maori to be compliant and come along to be told what the Government plans. Bill English reckoned he was happy, and if Maori didn't want to show up, that was fine. Clearly, he wasn't about to ask what better way there could be to consult.

Ngati Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa leaders took a different approach today - they turned out in force at Taupo. This was because they want to engage directly with the Government over the issue. These two iwi have a different position to the others and therefore are taking a different approach to how they sort things out over the water ownership issue. But, it's clear Ngati Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa want consultation on their terms. 

And that's the point the Government appears to have missed. To consult effectively, you need to find out the best way that will connect with the people you want to consult with. And, calling a few meetings consultation doesn't make it consultation if there's a pre-determined pathway and result.

I talked about this a couple of posts ago. The trouble is, the government seems to think it is inviolate. But just as poor process affects a company's reputation when they need to consult, so it affects a government - at the ballot box.

Riding roughshod over complete sectors of our community isn't going to win hearts and minds. It's divisive and damaging. A collaborative approach, involving the whole community, over this issue would be a far better and more constructive strategy.

Of course, politics will always get in the way, so convenience and political pragmatism wins out over good practice.

There's a peculiar attitude that seems to prevail in some organisations. That it's OK for managers, whether middle or senior, to take someone's work and alter it because they want to make their mark rather than add value.

Now, there are times when a document or project needs to change because priorities have changed, or facts are incorrect. That's a good thing to pick up on and ensure the end product is accurate and reflects the company's direction.

It's another story completely, when someone in a position of power takes a project, or a document, and makes inconsequential changes in order to leave their mark.

This speaks to an unhealthy internal culture. It leads to disempowerment and frustration as these interfering people (usually) take credit: "Without my input, this wouldn't be nearly as good...." is the unspoken message.

The cultures where this is allowed to happen are the ones where there is a lack of strong, inclusive leadership, which I touched on in an earlier post.

Leadership isn't just about the head honcho, although s/he sets the tone. A leader can be anyone, at any level. They're the ones who have the ability to inspire, to support others, empower others, know how to delegate and how to give credit. They also know that leaving others to get on with their jobs will in the end, be constructive, achieve the required goals and contribute positively to the organisation.

Those who seek to take credit for others' work, who diminish by interference, inserting themselves in every part of the process, are the ones who demonstrate they are not leaders, but in fact are exhibiting domineering behaviours.

Being a 'boss' is not necessarily being a leader. There are many who need to learn this. 

I was interested in a story on Media Watch on Radio NZ discussing the role of journalists in the coverage of the Pike River mine explosion and the Canterbury earthquakes. 

In particular, the interviewee discussed how, what was for some intrusive journalism in fact contributed constructively to telling the poignant stories that made up these events. This is what journalism is about - communicating the stories, background and facts that contribute to the headlines. 

What I find disappointing is when communications people act as gatekeepers, particularly when there's a crisis. The job of communicators is to communicate. Sure, there's times when information can't be released for legal or privacy reasons, but overall, the job is to tell the story and working with journalists is an integral part of the job.

It's fairly obvious that if information doesn't come from us, as the organisation in strife, then someone else is going to fill the vacuum. Rumour takes pride of place and others' viewpoints and perspectives will lead.

So what to do:

• Lead with the news. Let journalists know  as much as you can what the story is - don't make them work for it.
• Recognise that journalists will talk to others. Accept it.
• Don't allow vacuums to develop. Make sure your communications are aligned and that you're talking to all those people (stakeholders) you need to - internal and external.
• Make sure you facilitate media requirements - help them meet their deadlines (or risk being referenced as not available). Help TV set up their shots (ensuring it's appropriate to your circumstances), radio to get audio and print their photos (making sure it's right for your organisation).
• Understand that journalists have their job to do, just as you have yours. Make sure they understand your priorities too, and acknowledge theirs.

How often have you seen government and local government consult with communities, and you just 'know' they're consulting because they have to, and they've already made the decision?

Frustrating when you have what you believe is great input into something you care about. But, apparently, they don't care at all about what you might think. They just want to get on with the job.

I've seen great examples of community engagement and consultation. I've seen times too, when it's been a tick-box exercise, where the community's opinion is sought in order to meet legislative requirements, quiet any critics, feed them a sop and hope they go away. 

Well, it's not only government that needs to think about engaging with the community. Businesses large and small operate in the community. What they do affects the people around them, as well as those who work with them and for them.

Mostly, when a company wants to do something that might affect the community, they take the decision, then implement it. Then, when the community comes out in an uproar because they don't like it, the company's surprised. Well doh . . . . those same people who made that decision are probably the same ones who groan and moan about the latest council decision they didn't know about till after the event.

Effective engagement with a community about an issue that affects them will help your business in many ways. For instance, it can reduce the number of appeals through the legal system, it can avoid negative publicity, and most of all, it can actually enhance your reputation and relationships with your communities

This is a little rant because I am tired of seeing Google ads promising the moon regarding media coverage. "We guarantee media coverage..." they claim. Yeah right. Unless it really is the first self-cleaning fabric, for example, or truly water-powered car, media coverage is not guaranteed. How can they promise media coverage when:

1. Journalists aren't in control of what happens on the day (how many product and companies got coverage on 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 in New Zealand?). 
2. It depends on the bureau chief, news editor and editor as to what gets in and what doesn't.
3. Sometimes, it just ain't news.

If a PR company only 'does' media, then they're not PR companies, they're media shops and that's quite legitimate and fine - that's what they choose to do. And if you're a prospective client, be suspicious of any 'guaranteed media placement.'

A full-service agency does corporate communication, often including investor relations, marketing communication, community relations (including engagement and consultation), and often, but not always, internal communication. And yes, media relations.

So, what can you expect?

• Your agency needs to understand your business and your industry. They won't know it all straight off and if they claim to, then be sceptical, because there's plenty that no-one can know unless they've worked closely with you for some time, to understand what's going on behind the scenes. But, they do need to have done their homework and researched your company, and the industry you're in.
• Expect to provide a full brief. This means you have to do your homework. Why do you want a PR agency? What do you want to achieve? If you just want media coverage, expect to be advised as to how realistic your expectations are. If you want support for your in-house communications department, be clear as to who will be doing what - do you want advice and strategy or do you want implementation support? 
• What budget do you have? Most companies don't want to reveal their budget first off, because they worry the agency will maximise their work to fit, regardless of what's required. However, it's also unfair to expect an agency to put (costly) hours into a proposal that might well put you off because it goes beyond what you can afford. 
• Any good PR and communications agency will let you know their pricing options - hourly, retainer, project-based. 
• You can also expect to be told who will be working on your account. Don't be fooled by the 'stars' being trotted out to sparkle at the presentation, to have your work fobbed off to more junior staff. There's nothing wrong with junior staff working on your account, but you need to know who will be doing the work and who's responsible for what.

Having spent many years working with and for local government, I know about jargon. (I can almost hear your chorus of agreement!). It comes from the anonymous people behind the scenes and I have sat in many meetings embarrassed as councillors have debated important issues, clearly not understanding the jargon-ridden reports in front of them.

Corporate communications and documents can in their way be as bad, but government and NGOs, in my opinion, are the worst offenders. Why, I really don't know, because they are the ones which most need to connect with their audiences.

I've just completed a major plan for a client, and part of the brief was to tell their story and communicate their plan in lay language so the public could easily read and understand. This was a departure for them which public feedback told them was really welcomed. 

Internal communication, too, should rely on lay language. So often I've heard of staff getting the wrong end of the stick because of unintelligible jargon.

Here's a 'memo' I composed for a LinkedIn discussion on this subject. Sadly, it's not too far from the truth for many organisations.

"I am confident that, at the end of the day, we will gain some quick wins through onboarding then socialising the concept of eliminating jargon. Going forward, we will all be on the same page – indeed singing from the same song sheet – and be thinking out of the box when it comes to the language we utilise in the C-suite. Initially, it will be similar to herding cats, and the process will identify the square pegs in the round holes, but we will achieve some upside and a paradigm shift as we reach out and break the silos through the use of intelligible language.

Or: "We're not using jargon from now on, so that everyone can communicate effectively."

That's what it's all about - effective communication both internally and externally. That's a basic requirement for effective public relations and communication in all its forms.

New Massey University research  shows that while a high proportion of business owners have experienced a major crisis, there's still a high degree of business vulnerability. Even more disturbing, there's a lack of formal crisis and business continuity planning. There's also a high degree of variability in adaptive capability.

Predictably, of the 43 percent which had experienced a crisis in the past five years, 79 percent were in Canterbury and 39 percent in other parts of the country.

The very nature of crises means they are unexpected. They can be natural disasters, economic, key personnel loss (CEO and senior management team lost in an aircrash as happened to NZ Crop & Food), criminal actions of staff, IT (information hacked), or physical such as fire. And as News of the World and the Murdochs can testify, reputational crisis can bowl along at the most inconvenient times if you're not careful.

Business continuity is reliant on plants getting under way again, ensuring you have premises, that your IT systems are all backed up off site (and preferably out of region) and you have generators to keep power going. All of this is critical.But, one thing that is often overlooked is the element that is core to managing a crisis - communication.

Crisis communication is often thought of as letting those who need to know, what your crisis management plan is. That's just the start.

Crisis communication is about your response during the crisis, and planning for that response beforehand.

This means having your spokespeople prepared and able to front media. But it's not just about media and PR - your customers, suppliers, shareholders and other interested parties should all on an up-to-date, accessible database with all contact details (not just work). Your staff details are up to date (and their next of kin). You know who needs to know what and when. (This is what a fellow crisis manager says about what not to do in crisis communication)

But when it comes down to it, it is all about practice. The Massey research suggests "it is experience and learning in dealing with the consequences of a crisis which is important, rather than the formality of the planning process."

Now, it's a lot to ask that you risk losing your business to a crisis for the want of planning for a crisis. I don't mean a book that's stored away somewhere. I mean a plan that is practiced in real time through a wide variety of possibilities. Learning on the day is not good business - after all, you test your products before release don't you? You run trials and understand all the wrinkles. It's the same for a crisis plan. 

What do you think? Is crisis planning over-rated? How probable do you think it is that your company will face a crisis? And what will you do if it does? Do you have a crisis plan?

Author and leadership guru Jim Collins says that 'level 5' leader are the ones who decide on who, then what. They facilitate, are participative and encourage others to produce the ideas for new directions. And while they're ambitious, they're also humble, recognising their own limitations and focus on the organisation rather than themselves.

They're the ones who can generate trust and tolerate, even encourage, dissent. They're straight talkers, are deliberate and don't seek out the spotlight. And, they expect performance from themselves and others.

With leaders such as this, encouraging participation naturally follows. And where you have active participation, you then have creativity and enthusiasm to achieve the goals. That, of course, leads to great morale.

So where is communication in this? Right at the heart. Effective internal communication is about encouraging people so they want to come to work every day, are inspired to achieve, feel valued and who end up being ambassadors for their organisation. 

This means two-way communication to create openness, inclusion, transparency and mutual trust and respect. And this will entail:

• clarity of objectives

• clarity of feedback mechanisms

• clarity of consequences.

If any of these aren't clear then you'll have distrust. People will make their own assumptions and judgements and those won't always be what you want. 

It's no coincidence that the communication attributes of a great leader just happen to be the attributes of excellence in internal communication:

■ Information and knowledge sharing (in a timely fashion)

If you want your staff to feel valued and included, then provide information about what's going on. Be generous and share your knowledge about issues that are affecting your company or organisation, so they're equally empowered to provide informed input into what you're trying to achieve. Be timely about it as well - don't wait until the media have broadcast your latest decisions - tell your staff first. 

■ Openness

OK - we all know that there are some things you just can't share with the wider organisation. People understand that. But there's a heap that goes on - projects under way, new initiatives, decisions at senior management level - that can be shared. Let your staff in on it. There's little more damaging to staff morale than the feeling of being excluded. That old phrase of 'need to know' is one of the more destructive phrases I know of. Rather, think about why people shouldn't know what's going on. This can even be demonstrated in what are apparently small things like the folders on the 'N' drive - most organisations I know close these off from staff in other departments - why? HR and all folders relating to staff are obviously closed. But the default should be open.

■ Encouraging dialogue and exchange of ideas

It's an oldie, I know, but two heads really are better than one. Brainstorming is a horrible bit of jargon, but I don't know of a better one, and when it's done well, is great for coming up with creative solutions. But it's not always about the formal brainstorm session. It's about those ideas generated in the kitchen in casual conversations, a discussion begun in the lift and finished over coffee in the cafe. Encourage constructive conversation. Some of my best initiatives have come out of casual sessions 'shooting the breeze' for five minutes in the corridor.

■ Nurturing and recognising creativity

Creativity can be nurtured or nullified equally easily. One of my most difficult battles was to introduce some creativity in developing a major corporate document, in its content, its design and its communication. That document was subsequently recognised as being a benchmark. But it was a hard road and difficult not to lose heart and give up. When you recognise and nurture your staff's creativity, you'll open the way to them contributing meaningfully to your organisation's growth and development and who doesn't want that? 

■ Understanding that transmitting facts and information is not necessarily effective communication

Providing people with fact lists and information is a sure way to lose their interest. You want people to be interested in what you're saying, right? Then find out what makes them tick, find out what they want you to know, and find out what they want to hear and how they want to hear it. Communication is way more than facts and info. It's about conversations and stories - yours and theirs.