COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 1
Communicating for Change
Luna (Lindsey) Davis
School of Business, Liberty University
BMAL 504-D04
Dr. Jacob Avila
Author Note
Luna (Lindsey) L. Davis
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Lindsey L. Davis.
Email: ldavis197@liberty.edu
COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 2
Communicating for Change
Is the Landrieu speech consistent with the premise that words can “motivate and
coordinate the kinds of actions that create transformations?
Landrieu’s speech aimed to bring the community of New Orleans together. As he noted
within his speech, they have seen major natural disasters like hurricanes, oil spills and tornadoes
and now the next thing the community needed to come together on was the “Removal of
Confederate Monuments in New Orleans” speech. Recent research has noted that “the
organization’s values and purpose characterize what the company stands for and why it exists”
(Lattuch & Dankert, 2018). In this case, the term organization is being used to describe New
Orleans as an entity unto itself.
Landrieu uses the diversity of New Orleans to help bolster the vision of a more desirable
future. He says, “all we hold dear is created by throwing everything in the pot; creating,
producing something better; everything a product of our historic diversity” (Liberty University
Custom: Heinz, 2021, p. 493). He does note that that statues can be removed, and that while the
events related to the statues will still be remembered, they should not be revered.
Which of the key elements can you identify in the speech? What is the impact in the
presence of those elements?
A shared vision has the unique ability to bring people together through even the toughest
of times, however, what Landrieu faced was a division because some shared a vision of saving or
otherwise preserving the statues. What this speech was able to do, by using repetition, leadership
by example and simplicity, was show the city of New Orleans that these statues and the things
COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 3
they represented were best left in the past and did not represent what New Orleans wanted to be
in the future (they could not be that organization now if the statues stood).
The one thing this speech focuses on is simplicity, even though it seems long-winded in
its text format, when spoken it was likely much shorter. In many cases if it takes more than five
minutes to envision an outcome, then that is too long. Take for instance when Landrieu wrote
this, “Can you do it? Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E.
Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do
these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her
potential is limited, yours and mine are too? We all know the answer to these very simple
questions” (Liberty University Custom: Heinz, 2021, p. 492). These are all very simple, yet
open-ended questions that are calling on the listeners to think, to put themselves in the shoe of, to
put them in the shoes of someone who wants hope. We can also look to Hebrews 11:1 for
guidance specifically related to this line of open-ended questions, when it says, “Now faith is
confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1 , New
International Version, 1978/2011). We do not need to see the statues anymore, they need no more
reverence, but instead we can hope for the things we cannot see, the future, the unknown.
Another effective method that Landrieu uses throughout his speech is repetition, which
makes sense because while it seems annoying, the concept being made within the repetitious
statements really need to sink in. He repeats repeatedly that change needs to happen, and that is
needs to happen now, and that in fact it will be happening now. He also refers to the confederacy
in many ways, but all of them in the negative by using phrases like “the lost cause of the
COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 4
confederacy”, “the confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity”, and “historical aberration”
(Liberty University Custom: Heinz, 2021, p. 491, 493,494).
Is the Landrieu speech effective for a changing New Orleans? What would you do to make
the speech stronger?
Landrieu’s faced many supporters and opponents to the statues removals before even
making this speech, and ultimately “Landrieu’s challenge as political leader of the city was to
accomplish the deed, avoiding violent protests and leading the citizens of New Orleans forward
in reconciliation” (Liberty University Custom: Heinz, 2021, p. 490). What Landrieu essentially
tasked himself with was to become a change manager for the masses, past, present, and future. I
think that he was quite effective in his speech, and I did my best to remain unbiased during
reading and think through how each side may have perceived the language.
Very simply, he touched on the past and why it was no longer viable to hold onto a past
that was not a victory but a tragedy for so many people. Then he talked about the present what
these statues represented for the current citizen of New Orleans, and the future, that this is not
something that New Orleans wants to have on its hands anymore. This is no longer something
they want to be celebrating, commemorating, or revering.
This speech was no doubt filled with emotion, and from my point of view it seemed to be
authentic, and he even included personal anecdotes, about many times he did not even recognize
the statues to be there. Recent research has found that “self-awareness by leaders and followers
of their motives, goals, and values provide them with insights that help them articulate their
COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 5
values in a way that may resonate and appeal to others” (Gardner et al., 2021), the leader here
being Landrieu, the followers being the citizen of New Orleans.
After my readings and notations, I cannot find anything that I would actively change. The
speech covered the past, present and future, and made compelling points stated simply and
succinctly. In addition to this, there were also many quotes used by other prominent individuals
to further bolster the argument as to why the statues were no longer beneficial to the city of New
Orleans.
COMMNICATING FOR CHANGE 6
References
Gardner, W. L., Karam, E. P., Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2021). Authentic leadership theory:
The case for and against. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101495
Lattuch, F., & Dankert, P. (2018). The glue that holds an organization together: building
organizational vision with top management teams. Development and Learning in
Organizations: An International Journal, 32(6), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo-03-
2018-0037
Liberty University Custom: Heinz, A. (2021). Leading Organizational Change. McGraw-
Hill/Create.
New International Version Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (original
work published 1978)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
