Not really a metaphor (but I'll keep thinking about that) ... so in the meantime, how about:

"I need your feedback / input in order to help both of us better understand what I just said, and what we both do as result will help us understand even more"

?

I would go further and suggest that it is through interaction that we create meaning. This is consistant with symbolic interactionism as espoused by George Mead. The communication coming from the top has meaning to those involved in that conversation. Their 'communication' to the staff is a gesture which has no meaning until responded to. The response in turn is a gesture back. It's self-organising so it can't be controlled.

That management take action based on their conversations may similarly be greeted with cynicism by staff when enacted. The point being that whether the communication is verbal or action from the top the underlying presupposition is that Management can control the reaction towards a designated end. It still feels like a punish/reward scenario.

hmmm... based on your description, and her request for an interaction metaphor i'd be inclined to call it a 'dissolve'.

everyone's seen sugar sitting in a glass not doing anything after it's been dumped into water. someone needs to stir it to have it become part of the liquid.

agree 100% with interaction metaphor, but right after we listen.

This thread brings up a story for me, rather than a metaphor:
Things had been tense at home that morning. It came to a boil when he made his stand with that classic defense, "I'm telling you that I love you. What more do you want from me?"
To which she replied "Sorry honey, but I don't view the word 'love' as a state of being, I see love as an action verb. Don't tell me, show me."

Ouch. Yes, sometimes promises, declarations, or the best laid plans can have the unintended affect of increasing suspicion and cynicism. Better to put AND shut up.

Changing behavior (same as action) is a necessary precursor to changing culture. Too often organizations or people think it's the other way around and want to wait for the culture to change, then they'll change. The balance is often found in being the first to act/change (i.e., lead) and asking for forgiveness later if the culture/mgt lags too far behind. Leadership takes people to a place they haven't been yet, but need to go.

In South Africa we have a humanist traditional philosophy focusing on people's caring relationship with each other, it in effect translates into I am because you are. The accent being on doing something for others in a sense action speaks louder than words. The communication is in the respect and interaction via deeds that is very often nonverbal thus essentuially symbolic or in terms of artifacts. In one case within a church context as a small group we focused on assisting people in trying conditions by doing something ourselves and in touching these peoples' lives they come to see a different side of what we believed in. This was living out the ubuntu philosophy in practice. It has had a ripple effect that is difficult to describe in changing peoples' perception both within the group assisting and being assisted. A new culture emerged that could not have been predicted in my view at the start.

Some food for thought. Richard

in a highly asymetric situation (few leaders at the top, many followers), the "communication" metaphor is as flawed as the "interaction" one. Top down communication often enough is one way, speaking from a podium, sending, broadcasting. Intercation (falsely) suggests two-way, back-and-forth.

I'd rather propose to change from "communication" to "visible action". So: if actions speak louder that words, leaders would simply DO things differently, and, only occasionally, explain why. And the lower ranks, rather than listening, would just see the new behavior, observe it, interpret it in their own frame - and posisbly imitate and copy it accordingly.