It didn’t help that the executive sent to deliver the decision [to lay off] the assembled staff
started off with a glowing account of how well rival operations were doing, and that he had
just returned from a wonderful trip to Cannes. The news itself was bad enough, but the
brusque, even contentious manner of the executive incited something beyond the expected
frustration. People became enraged—not just at the management decision, but also at the
bearer of the news himself. The atmosphere became so threatening, in fact, that it looked as
though the executive might have to call security to usher him safely from the room.
The next day, another executive visited the same staff. He took a very different approach.
He spoke from his heart about the crucial importance of journalism to the vibrancy of a soci-
ety, and of the calling that had drawn them all to the field in the first place. He reminded them
that no one goes into journalism to get rich—as a profession its finances have always been
marginal, with job security ebbing and flowing with larger economic tides. And he invoked
the passion, even the dedication, the journalists had for the service they offered. Finally, he
wished them all well in getting on with their careers. When this leader finished speaking, the
staff cheered.2 Types of Audience Decisions
This excerpt from Primal Leadership by Daniel Goleman and his colleagues illustrates the importance
of understanding your audience and the type of decision you want them to make.^1 The excerpt
contrasts how two executives from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) informed their
audience of about 200 journalists and editors of upper management’s plan to shut down their news
reporting division. Notice how unsympathetic and immature the fi rst executive appears to be as he
reports on the success of the other divisions at the BBC and then adds that the apparently unprofi t-
able news reporting division is to be shut down. Giving such a report to a different audience, say the
BBC’s board of directors with oversight responsibility for upper management’s plans, might have
been totally appropriate. In order to make an informed oversight decision, most board members
would appreciate the comparative information the fi rst executive shared as well as his apparent con-
cern for profi tability. But for this audience of soon-to-be unemployed journalists, the fi rst executive
appears to have no clue to whom he is speaking or the type of decision he wants them to make: