The Effects of Leader Communication Medium and Motivating Language on Perceived Leader Effectiveness

Good leadership is at the core of all successful organizations. Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX) focuses on how leaders influence organizational success through the development of individualized relationships with each team member. Research has shown that effective leader communication is one key way to influence team members. Motivating Language theory (ML) suggests that leaders motivate team members through three communication constructs: perlocutionary (direction-giving) language, illocutionary (emotion-sharing) language, and locutionary (meaning-making) language. With the increase in off-site work opportunities, leader-member communication has changed formats to include more electronic communications and less face-to-face communications. Because effective leadership has been closely tied to improved individual member, team, and organizational outcomes, it is important to determine if differing leader communication mediums (electronic versus telephone versus face to face), frequency, and motivational content relates to effective leadership. This quantitative survey study measured perceived leadership effectiveness using the established LMX-MDM scale and motivational content using the established Motivating Language Scale. Communication frequency and type(s) of mediums utilized was also asked in the survey. Two hundred fourteen completed surveys were returned. Participants were members of the leader-member relationship, not to exceed the level of manager (no higher than direct supervisors reporting to them) and were current employees at a non-profit behavioral health care center. Results show strong correlations between communication content and perceived leader effectiveness: direction-giving language, r(221) = .74, p < .001; meaning-making language, r(221) = .46, p < .001; and empathic language, r(221) = .77, p < .001, and a smaller but significant correlation between overall communication frequency and perceived leader effectiveness, r(212) = .15, p < .05. Regression analyses suggest that empathic language and direction-giving language most strongly predict perceived leader effectiveness; however, meaning-making language did not, F(3, 210) = 116.87, p < .001. Further, communication medium did not predict leader effectiveness and communication frequency only explained a very mild variance in leader effectiveness. Implications for this research indicate that leaders should focus on utilizing frequent communication with staff and those communications should include empathic and direction-giving language.