When One Word Shapes a Legacy

Leadership

Oct 31

On responsible visibility and the language of leadership

Photo by Alexander Hafemann on Unsplash‍ ‍

Language is woven through our everyday lives and rich with nuance — from tone to body language, context, and even gendered bias. Although this essay examines C-suite executives’ public-facing communication, the idea extends to the visibility we all navigate — from professional meetings to personal interactions. This reflection stems from an idea I’ve been mulling over the past week: responsible visibility. It explores how misrepresentation in media — even from a single word lifted out of context — can distort intention and reshape how language is received.

Curious about how executives navigate this tension, I went on a digital quest and uncovered several communication strategies used to prevent misrepresentation. This is what I found.

Narrate the ‘why’ behind the message

In recent articles from Adweek and The Guardian featuring WPP’s new CEO, Cindy Rose, headlines emphasized her use of the word “unacceptable.” Strong language choices like this risk an audience hearing only the emotion of the word rather than the reasoning behind it. When reading the full Adweek interview, however, Rose’s key quotes appear near the end and provide a more nuanced context for her message:

“We know what it takes to win: we are optimistic, energized, and confident that we’re building the right plan and the right culture to secure a bright future for WPP, our people, our clients, and our shareholders. We look forward to sharing more details early in the new year.”

Yet both Adweek and The Guardian chose to spotlight the term “unacceptable,” creating a tonal disconnect from the deeper, more constructive message embedded within her remarks.

Was the use of “unacceptable” in reference to WPP’s reduced 2025 earnings a strategic choice—or an unguarded moment of candor? What language could have achieved the same sense of urgency without the unintended emotional charge?

What to do: Before using charged terms, pair them with context. Instead of “I acknowledge that our recent performance is unacceptable and we are taking action to address this,” a leader might say, “Our results aren’t where they need to be—because [reason]. That’s why we’re shifting [plan].”

Use precise and audience-sensitive language

The example of “unacceptable” underscores how quickly tone can overshadow meaning. Even a single word can shift perception from strategic to emotional, especially when removed from context. This brings up the broader principle: precision matters. When leaders communicate with clarity—choosing words that balance honesty with kind composure—they strengthen trust. Yet, when language is vague, overly complex, or too dramatic, it can unintentionally erode credibility. This is where audience-sensitive language becomes critical: how we say something must align with who we’re saying it to, and the emotional climate we’re saying it within.

Research on executive communication shows that tone and phrasing directly influence how messages are interpreted across audiences. A statement designed to motivate shareholders, for example, might unsettle employees if it leans too heavily on urgency or loss. Effective leaders use language that both clarifies and steadies—words that build alignment rather than tension.

What to do: When speaking publicly, choose words that balance candor with composure. For example, if urgency is needed, we can anchor language in purpose rather than blame: instead of saying “we’re falling behind” we can say “here’s how we’ll regain momentum together.”

Ensure continuity between message, action, and follow through

Words set expectation, but actions sustain credibility. When leaders make bold statements, their visibility magnifies the gap between what’s said and what’s done. A single unfulfilled promise, even when well-intentioned, can erode trust faster than any misstep in tone. Continuity between message and follow-through is what transforms communication from performance into integrity. When audiences witness alignment between language and behavior, they experience reassurance—that leadership is not merely rhetorical, but lived. This alignment builds what branding theorists might call “organizational coherence,” where every outward message reflects an internal truth.

What to do: Follow through visibly on public as well as interpersonal commitments to ensure tone mirrors intent. A measured promise kept builds far more trust than grand declarations unmet. Authenticity in leadership lives in the small consistencies between word and action.

Engage relationally rather than simple broadcast

Leadership today demands conversation, not monologue. The era of one-directional messaging—press releases, town halls, and polished soundbites—is giving way to something more relational: dialogue that invites participation. When leaders listen as much as they speak, they transform visibility into connection. Relational communication acknowledges that audiences are not passive receivers of information but active interpreters of meaning. It’s through this exchange—between speaking and hearing, visibility and reflection—that credibility deepens and collective insight emerges.

What to do: Replace performance with presence. Create opportunities for genuine feedback and respond with curiosity, not defensiveness. Visibility becomes most powerful when it reflects a leader’s willingness to evolve in public view.

Final thoughts

This exploration is as much personal as it is professional. In studying how leaders communicate, I’ve found myself reflecting on my own relationship to visibility—how it asks for courage, restraint, and empathy in equal measure. The path to responsible visibility isn’t linear or flawless; it’s an ongoing practice of awareness. It invites leaders, and those observing them, to choose vulnerability over performance and grace over judgment—to pause long enough to hear not just what’s said, but what’s meant.