Leadership Meta-Talk: Why Words Often Outshine Deeds

An article co-authored by GSEM Professor Thomas Fischer and Lund University Professor Mats Alvesson, published in the Journal of Management Studies develops the concept of “leadership meta-talk,” a positive and selective way for managers to explain the meaning and purpose of their actions.

This discourse is often only loosely connected to what actually happens in practice, making leadership appear more frequent, moral, and effective than it is. The authors show that this gap between talk and action is widespread and driven by systemic pressures. While meta-talk can improve leadership attributions, it may also hide problems and foster unrealistic expectations.

ABSTRACT

We identify managers' meta-level talk about the positive purpose, meaning, and significance of their actions as an overlooked type of leadership behaviour and call it leadership meta-talk. We outline why leadership meta-talk is not necessarily truthful or deceptive, but selective and loosely coupled with leadership practice. We discuss varieties of leadership meta-talk, namely aspirational, sub-texting, and sensemaking meta-talk, as well as principled, situational, formulaic, and casual meta-talk. We show how all varieties of leadership meta-talk draw people's attention to positive aspects of leadership practice and provide positive interpretations of it. Thus, leadership meta-talk can positively influence attributions of leadership and portray workplaces as overly harmonious and well-ordered, masking power imbalances and tensions and creating a quantitative and qualitative talking-doing gap. We argue that these talking-doing gaps are systemic rather than pathological features of the contemporary workplace because overly positive leadership meta-talk responds to systemic pressures and opportunities for managers and provides egocentric, psycho-relational, and public-image benefits. In contrast, leadership practice that lives up to leadership meta-talk is more costly, difficult, and time-consuming than commonly assumed. Our theory reconciles attributional, behavioural, and romancing views of leadership, and offers new insights into key organizational and societal challenges, including managing healthy workplace expectations.

Access the study:A Theory of Leadership Meta-Talk and the Talking-Doing Gap

> Click here to view the GSEM faculty’s publications in top-tier journals.