Consider the Source
When drafting messages, communicators can spend hours agonizing over each word and phrase, considering how they’ll be received and how they could conceivably be twisted or misinterpreted by skeptics and critics.
But who signs the communication should be considered as carefully as the content. The wrong spokesperson can raise doubts, shake confidence, and convey a significantly different meaning than if another leader had signed the same message.
Sound farfetched? Consider the following:
A signature lends authority and credibility to the message. Knowing who is speaking allows recipients to gauge the reliability and trustworthiness of the information. If the sender is a recognized and respected leader, their endorsement adds gravitas to the communication and can signal a strategic and credible vision. The wrong spokesperson can cause internal strife or resentment if the individual is perceived as overstepping their bounds or if there's confusion about who holds authority for certain matters.
The signer’s identity provides important context for interpreting the message. Perspectives or agendas can vary greatly, and knowing who is talking helps recipients understand the lens through which the message is being communicated as well as potential biases. The wrong messenger can lead to misunderstandings or even mistakes in carrying out instructions.
When a communication is signed, it’s not just a name on a page; it indicates accountability. There’s the implication that the individual who signed the letter can be held responsible, which often encourages transparency and honesty. When someone signs their name, they’re taking ownership; they stand behind the information shared, feelings expressed, or actions promised.
Because of this implied accountability, the signature on a communication may have serious legal implications. For example, if the communication is deemed to be defamatory or contain otherwise unlawful content, the signer may be held responsible if it’s used as evidence in court. In such cases, the identity of the signer could be essential for establishing the authenticity and admissibility of the communication.
Signing a communication is more than just a formality; it’s an endorsement, demonstrating the spokesperson took the time to personally approve the message. Anecdotes or references to shared experiences are more likely to be included when the sender has a direct connection to what information is being shared and the community with whom it’s being shared. Ultimately, this humanizes the messenger and makes the communication more relatable.
To avoid confusion, internal strife, and reputational damage, establish clear protocols and procedures for communication and signature authorization. This will ensure messages are adequately vetted and signed by the appropriate individual.
