A number of years ago, I worked for the chairman of a multi-billion dollar global enterprise with very well known brands. He was (and presumably still is) a superb, inspirational communicator who wanted to make sure that his senior leaders and mid-level managers around the globe heard his strategic message directly from him. He understood that, when it comes to getting people to support a strategy, face-to-face communication is more powerful, more persuasive and more personal than any other media.

So, to his great credit, he made the investment of time and energy, and took himself on the road to communicate directly to his employees. He traveled globally, meeting with hundreds of influential managers, personally delivering his key strategic messages. We estimated that during one three-month period, he must have delivered his message at least 60 times. And effectively every time. No communicator could ask for more.

Well…. except me, perhaps. The problem was that while he had communicated his strategy 60 times, and maybe even in 60 different ways, he had done so to 60 different audiences.  While he had heard his messages 60 times, everyone else had heard it only once. Naturally, he was sick of it! And understandably so.

Upon his return to the U.S., I was asked to set up a “town hall” meeting for him at the division where I worked. In discussing his presentation, I urged him to reprise the strategic message he had presented on his last visit. I pointed out that if employees were to remember it, it had to be reinforced, and nothing was more powerful than hearing it from him in person. Again.

Conceptually, he understood. But emotionally, he couldn’t do it anymore. He had delivered the damn thing so many times, in so many places, to so many people, in so many ways, the thought of doing it even one more time was more than he could bear. He simply wanted to, had to, say something new.  Yet, to my audience, which had heard him only once, the old message was new.

It was a near impossible argument to win. And I didn’t. Of course, had I known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have been as insistent as I was.  I hadn’t yet learned a secret that most communication practitioners who work with senior leaders know, and which senior leaders, if they don’t know, find out soon enough:

Saying the same thing over and over again, even if not in the same way, is tiresome, boring, and frustrating!

This is true, of course, for everyone, but it is especially true for the most senior of leaders. Their work is dynamic, constantly changing and largely without repetitive tasks. They are unused to the particular mental fatigue associated with redundancy – in anything, much less communications. And they’re not easily incented to communicate redundantly given that:

 The impact of doing so on business outcomes is neither clear nor immediate, and not easy to measure anyway!

Message fatigue for leaders of large, geographically dispersed organizations is a common, rarely discussed issue that undermines a lot of communication campaigns. True even for those leaders who are already models of strategic leadership communication (maybe especially for those leaders, because they’re more likely to engage in redundant communication.)

So, what is to be done? And not just to eliminate the boredom associated with redundant communications, but to change those entrenched executive mindsets that rationalize their way to avoiding them?

On a general level…. not much. The complex reality is that there is no easy, “one size fits all” answer.  Some leaders can be persuaded to change their mental models regarding redundant communications.  And some cannot. It’s a “one-leader-at-a-time” process that, at its worst, can feel like psychological trench warfare. And even with exemplary leaders, who are already committed to redundant communications, there will be losing battles.  I know.

In the meanwhile, however, all is not lost. An alternative approach to ensuring redundant communications is to focus less on a leader’s mindset, and more on their use of media.  We’ll discuss that approach in the fourth, and final entry of “The Department of Redundancy Department.”