Meetings: Can They SEE What You're Saying?

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.”

How true! Because we humans still possess remnants of our old reptilian brains - the part of the brain that deals with instinct, our first reaction to people or situations is usually based on visual cues. Given the choice between visual and verbal information, our brains will believe the visual over the verbal. That is why it is so important to be acutely aware of behavior that will send the wrong message.

This was clear to me at a meeting I once attended. The meeting was being conducted by high level administrators of a city agency, Agency A. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce information about a program that was being instituted to ease friction between Agency A and another agency, Agency B. Agency A has always been perceived as being in the position of power and has usually communicated with Agency B in an authoritarian and judgmental manner. On the dais in the front of the room sat five high level administrators from Agency A. Crowded around in a u-shaped table arrangement were about 30 plus staffers from Agency B. Tension was high. Old baggage filled the air. The new initiative was unclear to some, suspect to others. I was in charge of creating a training module to help make communication between these two agencies more effective. What I saw made me realize that my task would be an uphill climb. As one of the administrators proceeded to speak, I observed several things he “did” loudly that made what he “said” difficult to hear.

Problem 1: The gentleman was leaning very far back with one arm draped over the back of his chair. My instinctual brain read that posture as being aloof, uncaring and much too casual.

Fix: A more effective position would have been to sit slightly forward with his chest/ “heart center” open and directed toward his listeners showing interest and openness.

Problem 2: His eyes were either on his paper or on one or two spots in the back of the room.

Fix: Since the listeners were spread out in a u-shape all around him, it would have been more effective to scan the room, giving 5-10 seconds of eye contact to each section of the audience.

Problem 3: Most egregious of all – HE WASCHEWING GUM! As he laid out the new policies for improved relationships between the agencies, he was performing an activity that most teachers and parents drummed into us as being the height of rudeness. I could only imagine how instinctively turned-off some of the staffers from Agency B must have felt.

Fix: If you don’t know, ask your mom!

In addition to the visual cues, the vocal cues were not much better.

Problem 4: He spoke in a slow low pitched monotone.
Fix: Vary your vocal pitch, rhythm and volume. There is musicality in the English language. Find it. The sound and tone of your voice is the second most important factor in delivering effective communication.

Problem 5: He used language riddled with jargon.
Fix: Even if you believe 99% of the people in the room understand your acronyms and jargon, spend some time breaking it down for the 1% who may not.

Was this a rude, uncaring, arrogant man? Or was he a man unaware of how loudly his behavior was speaking? I eventually learned that he was the latter- a tech savvy, hard-working individual with good intentions and poor presentation skills.

However, it can take as many as 12 encounters to undo a negative first impression. Not too many people are going to be willing to give anyone 12 chances to change their opinion. In this day and age, with opportunities for face to face communication becoming rarer and rarer, it’s time for all of us to become more aware of the things we are doing that drown out the things we are saying

Words for the Wise

Even though over 90% of communication is non-verbal, the words we choose to use are still extremely important in creating our Verbal Essence. A large majority of the population is visually oriented. Hence Aristotle's quote: "The soul never thinks without a mental image." Whether your selling someone on an idea or just trying to clarify a point, it's very helpful to use language that will help the listener form a picture in their minds. In addition to choosing visual words, it's important to stay away from words that rob your conversation of its power and impact.

Words to Lose
1) It’s interesting how many of my clients use the words “Maybe” and “I think” before they express an opinion they hold strongly or before they say something positive about themselves. It weakens whatever comes after it. Instead use words like – I believe, I know , I am.. or just state the opinion.
Example: “I think I’m really good at helping my clients reach their financial goals” vs. “I’m a real cheerleader for my clients and 70% of them reach their goals within the first year.”

2) Get rid of your “but” – We all have the habit of stating a positive thought or expression and connecting it with the word but. That negates the positive nature of the original statement. The listener doesn’t hear or believe the positive statement and will concentrate instead on the negative statement that comes after the but. That goes for self-talk as well. How many times do we say to ourselves, “That was a good interview but…. I wish I had….” Our brain doesn’t acknowledge the “nice interview” part. We obsess over what comes after the but.

3) Lose the word “Not” whenever possible. Especially during a sales pitch and in self-talk. There is psychological evidence that our brains do not process negative words. In other words, when we say we are not going to do something, our brain dismisses the word not and absorbs the rest of the sentence.
For example. If I tell you NOT to think of a fresh, moist, slice of rich chocolate cake… what image pops into your head. So instead of talking about what you are not going to do, rephrase the sentence to express what you are going to do instead.

4) Other words to lose are the generic words that have lost all real meaning. Like – “great” ,“nice” “fine”, “like” They are like empty calorie foods. They take up space but don’t really do anything to help your listener understand how you really feel about anything. So instead of saying what a “great” job somebody did, talk about how the specific task that the person accomplished showed how organized, forward thinking or persistent they were.

5) Words to Choose: The 12 most persuasive words based on a YALE study: You, Money, Save, New, Results, Help, Easy, Safety, Love, Proven, Guarantee, Discovery. Try them out the next time you do a sales presentation.

Communication Overload?

This holiday season, I really felt that I needed to give my brain a real vacation away from my business. As an entrepreneur, it's me and my business 24/7. Maybe I should have chosen not to check my email. But because I have a blackberry, I was constantly aware of emails coming in, people posting on facebook and linkedin and new twitter followers. Everytime I picked up the phone and saw some activity, I felt a small twang of guilt. Shouldn't I be doing something too? Shouldn't I be sending out holiday newsletters, blogging, tweeting? But what about the mental vacation I so desperately needed?? I stuck by my decision not to work but was it really a vacation? Not at all. Because I was working hard. Working at managing all the guilt and all the "Shoulds." that came from my not working. I also spent time wondering if my guilt was a result of a poor business attitude? Do I have a problem with being productive? We all struggle with whether we could/should be doing more but... Is it possible to do too much?

I am all about communication. I work hard to help people make their communication more effective. But can we Overcommunicate?? Are we sending, receiving, expecting too much from electronic communication? There are now business owners who send out daily newsletters. WHY? Why do I need to hear from someone everyday? Just wondering? Most people I speak to about this agreed that they felt overwhelmed by the amount of "electronic communication" they receive but it's become a kind of addiction. How many times do we pick up the phone anymore? How many meaningful face to face meetings do we engage in? I'm embarrased to admit that I fall prey to this myself. Last night, I emailed a close friend of mine because I had a question for her. I repeatedly checked my email to see if she had replied. She didn't. This morning I woke up realizing that I never even thought of picking up the phone. The thought never crossed my mind!! How sad is that? And this is a close friend. All this social media and electronic communication is efficient and effective but I really would love to champion two things: 1) sanctioned, guiltfree downtime. and 2)more face to face communication.

Let me know what you think.

(Photo "Mail" by Claire Olivia Moed)

Shame, Shame, Shame...

I love with this book! I also love the fact that I may never have heard of it if someone hadn't left it in my laundry room. So thanks neighbor!
In "I Thought It Was Just Me", Brene Brown focuses on shame and particularly women's relationship to shame. She writes: "Shame is about the fear of disconnection... We are afraid that we've exposed or revealed a part of us that jeopardizes our connection and our worthiness of acceptance." And before you stop reading this post, know that we all live with a certain amount of shame and most of us are too ashamed to even read or think about it. What I've learned from Ms. Brown is that NOT dealing with shame/acknowledging it and working through it can be crippling and dangerous. I began reading this book right after a relative of mine committed a totally unexpected suicide. I truly believe, his decision to end his life was closely related to his inability to deal with and process things he felt ashamed of. This book elucidates everything about shame (and so many other important issues) beautifully in ways that are clear, powerful and very easy to understand.
How does this relate to communication? As Brene articulately illustrates, shame often causes us to judge ourselves, and as a result others, harshly. She writes, "If, for example, we judge ourselves harshly and are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge our own emotions, we will struggle in our relationships with others. If we make a mistake and our self talk is, "I'm so stupid, I can't do anything right," then we are more likely to turn to our child or partner who has made a mistake and convey the same feelings... "
Brene also tell us that shame can cause us to put up what she calls "Shame Screens", behind which we engage in communication or lack of communication that is specifically designed by us to mask our shame. Needless to say, Shame Screens don't work and contribute to many ineffective and unauthentic communication habits. While reading this book, I've become so keenly aware of areas in my life where I carry shame. Will the shame in those areas ever go away? Probably not. But as Brene suggests, we can all benefit by developing Shame Resilience and this book and Brene's website, http://www.brenebrown.com/ helps us to do that. So go... read... enjoy... discover... become shame resilient.

On Your Mark, Get Set, PUNDIT!

The Washington Post ran an America’s Next Great Pundit contest. Check it out! www.washingtonpost.com/pundit
When I looked at pictures of the two finalists I immediately had a bias. One was a white male, the other a woman of color. I thought to myself, I could cast my vote right now. After all we don’t we have more than enough, young-ish white males throwing around their views and opinions? But I wanted to be fair and I know that you can’t judge a pundit by its headshot. So I went through and read a bunch of the blogs, Op-eds and Q&A’s that these two pundit wannabe’s had posted.

The writing by our two finalists was fine, but to me, the woman of color, Zeba Khan, seemed to have a huge breadth of knowledge and opinions and covered a wide array of topics. She had a very clear and sophisticated, no nonsense style and though she was criticized for not being engaging enough, her writing reflected a lot of self –reflection and unique ideas. The male contestant, to me, relied on wit, sarcasm and glibness to such an extent that he obfuscated his actual opinion. I came away from reading his pieces thinking, “but what does he really think?” I get enough confusing messages from my friends, family and the media. I don’t need any more mixed messages, thank you very much.

I also watched a video interview with the last three pundits standing. Since I’m so all about presentation that was really important to me. I was surprised to see that the recently eliminated third runner up, Courtney Martin, was someone whom I’ve met a couple of times and is a friend of a good friend. She’s a great young feminist writer but fell a little short on the relate-ability scale.

But let’s go to the videotape. In my opinion, the interviewer/host from the Washington Post, did not do that great of a job with his questioning. Lots of ums and uhs and many of the questions were too long and too shallow. There was a separate video where the host gave each of the three contestants feedback. I have to point out my favorite part of that was the fact that before he commented on their performance, he repeated a version of my mantra - that in television it’s not just what you say but how you look and sound when you say it.

So how did they look and sound? To be honest, none of the three wishful pundits were very engaging or interesting to me. Kevin Huffman, our guy, came across as someone who deserved to be there. He wore a slightly smug smile and used effective body language (sitting very upright, legs apart, not crossed - taking up a lot of space. Hands in lap - tented not folded. He kept his answers short which made them seem weightier than they actually were. He also used a vocal tone that said I know what I’m talking about and I don’t really care if you agree with me or not. Very pundit-esque.

Both of the women had legs crossed and hands folded like good school girls. They gave thoughtful, if more wordy comments, so the host interrupted them more often than he did the male. They breathed a little less frequently which communicates a kind of anxiety to get a point across. And - I have to say- Courtney could really use my vocal workout CD. She has that higher pitched “Younger Generation” voice that is a tad nasal and can be very grating on the ear and can also be hard to take seriously.

Zeba, on the other hand, though her voice was on the high side, it had some resonance to it and she spoke with a tone of authority. She sounded earnest, thoughtful and had a great weight about her answers. (The host thought she should smile more and I kind of agree but I believe that people’s presentation style should be true to their natures and Zeba has a no-nonsense way about her which is in itself engaging. So who did I vote for? I went with my original gut choice, and am proud to say that it was not based solely on her being a woman of color. I voted for Zeba because she was a woman of substance, intellect and has a broad base of knowledge.

I usually try to shy away from the “we was wronged” game, but if the male wins, I’ll have to wonder: Are the judges and voters so used to glib white guy standard for pundits, that we have no tolerance or acceptance for anything else? Can’t wait for the results!!

Face to Face Communication Revolution!

I'm just getting into the social networking scene and it is pretty neat and awesome and effective. However, we have to remember that nothing can replace face to face communication. Human beings are visual and aural creatures. Based on the well-known study by Professor Albert Mehrabian, body language and vocal tone contribute to more than 90% of communication's effectiveness - two elements that cannot be experienced via blackberry, email or any other social media. Face to face communication is essential for creating connection, trust and loyalty. Several studies have discovered that people (men AND women ) take action based primarily on their emotions. It is extremely difficult to engage someone emotionally through written communication. Written communication is excellent for laying out logical information, which is important, but cannot take the place of face to face interaction in conveying emotion. No matter how much the human race has evolved, our brains still rely on our instinct to assess danger, trust and honesty. It's important to be able look into a person's eyes, hear the sound of their voice, see the confidence, or lack thereof, in their bodies in order to feel comfortable making major business decisions. There is also an exchange of palpable physical energy that takes place when people are in the same room with each other, an energy that cannot be replicated through video or teleconferencing. So join me in my campaign to not only celebrate and bring back face to face communication but let's raise it to a high art form!

It Stands to Reason

I just read an article in the November 9, Newsweek about the difference in cognitive growth, (basic language and speaking skills) of children whose parents reason with them and those whose parents command them. WOW!! I've been talking about these differences for quite awhile. When I work with supervisors in some of my leadership communication training. I often get the question: "Why can't I just tell them what to do? It's their job and I'm their boss." I usually tell them that of course they can demand obedience from their subordinate staff members but that it will come at a price. Usually the price is bad attitude; lack of motivation; unconscious or conscious sabotage; high turnover; increase in sick days; and the list goes on. Of course, some supervisors have the luxury of firing workers who exhibit those habits. But then, many employees these days are so protected by their unions that firing is not an option. This of course could lead to a conversation about how the unions have employers by the short hairs. But maybe it should lead to a conversation about how to develop leaders to adopt are more reasonable (compassionate) style of communication. Instead of demanding, ordering or even instructing something be done, why not try explaining the reasoning and the need behind it. It may on the surface look like it will take more time, but in actuality, it may save time, energy, stress, hard feelings, disciplinary warnings and pink slips. This of course does NOT mean to become a doormat and allow the employee to run the show by debating all of your requests. It simply means giving the employee sound reasoning behind your decisions. If the employee still wants to buck a request which you believe will improve your work place, bottom line or organization, then it's time to dust off the disciplinary code book. There are still many employees (and children) who have no problem doing just what they are told but I believe that these individuals might be happier and more productive if they were treated as though their imput and opinions mattered.