Communication Break-Down

Romney vs. Perry. Courtesy of AP.

What does the above picture tell you? If you’re like me, the first time I saw it I thought:

Rick Perry: “Don’t touch me.”

Mitt Romney: “Now now. I won’t hurt you.” (Instead I’ll just cream you in the polls.)

A lot has been said about this photo in the past few days, and just this morning I read an article that talked about “classic moments” from past debates that “spoke volumes” such as when George H.W. Bush looked at his watch in a debate with Bill Clinton, indicating his boredom, or when Al Gore audibly sighed during his debate with George W. Bush.

Whether George H.W. Bush was actually bored or Al Gore was honestly irritated is besides the point. Bush could have wondered how much time he had left, or Gore could have been tired. But if that’s the case, they inadvertently communicated disrespect for their opponent, and THAT is the material point. Our intention doesn’t always match our communication, and we need to increase our awareness.

Whether Mitt Romney meant to be patronizing isn’t the question. (And whether the gesture is patronizing is a matter of debate. Many people thought it was a gesture of strength and appropriate.)  There’s no way for us to know what exactly he was thinking based on body language alone. Reading body language in isolation and drawing conclusions as to intent is just guessing.

So although I don’t agree with pronouncements as to what so-and-so meant when they did such-and-such, I will agree that nonverbal communication is powerful and it behooves us all to tune into what we’re communicating and how it’s being received.

In other words: we communicate all the time. Why not do it on purpose?

Recently I picked up a book written by a “body language expert” who primarily works in the legal field. She talked about how she intently watches potential jurors, looking for tapping feet, clasping or unclasping of hands, crossed arms and the like. She even goes as far as to use her sense of smell: as jurors walk in she tries to pick up perfume or body odor.

Really?

I work with a lot of trial attorneys, and I can say, without hesitation, that of ALL of the things lawyers have to do and think about during trial, “smelling jurors” is not at the top of the list.

And yet, I get it. There is a deep seated need to put our hands on some sort of a “formula” that can, if not guarantee us results, at least predispose them in our favor.

The number one thing a trial attorney needs in court (or anyone looking to improve their communication, really) is the ability to adapt in the moment. And therein lies the problem: when we buy into a “formula” we stop being aware, and it all goes downhill.

It feels “safer” to believe that there’s only one way to conduct voir dire, opening statements or cross examination, but the truth of the matter is, (as Rick Friedman points out in his book On Becoming a Trial Lawyer) if you’re looking for safety, you’re in the wrong profession.

Increase your nonverbal intelligence and you’ll increase your success in the courtroom or anywhere else. Why nonverbal communication? Because it’s observable. If you want to get good at adapting to your circumstances, you have to be aware of what’s going on around you. To do that, you need to be able to observe something.

And no, it’s not random body language or body odor. (May I just register my creeped-outness here?) I’m not suggesting you watch other people’s body language and hallucinate (because that’s really what you’ll end up doing) about what they might be thinking or feeling. What I am suggesting is that you start to notice, as I mentioned in my last blog, how people are responding to what you’re doing, and adapt your communication based on that information.

What someone’s body odor communicates–outside of the fact that they might need to take a shower–is beyond me, but smell away, if you must.

On second thought, please don’t.

A few weeks ago I was assisting a legal team during a trial. The day before opening statements we received a brand new piece of discovery which made the opposing side look very bad. As we walked into the courtroom the following morning the paralegal took me aside and said, “Peter* is planning on nailing the opposing counsel during his opening statement with the news we got yesterday. He’s really going to let them have it. What do you think?”

I said, “It doesn’t matter what I think, it matters what the jury thinks.”

We’re often so involved in what we’re going to say (content) and how we’re going to say it (delivery) that we forget the most important part of communication: how people will receive it (reception).

It makes sense, really. You can plan your content and practice your delivery, but you can’t know how people are going to receive your message until you’re in the act of delivering it. Not to mention most of us don’t know how to gauge how our message is being received, or what we can do differently if it isn’t being received well. We tend to think, “I’ll do the best I can, and then deal with people’s reactions afterwards.”

There’s a better way. Two ways, actually.

1) Increase your awareness, and

2) adapt your approach.

Nonverbal intelligence allows you to do both. If I know what to look for, I can watch carefully as I deliver my message and gauge the response. If I’m not getting the response I was hoping for, I can change what I’m doing.

For example, if Peter began his opening statement with the inflammatory information and the members of the jury pulled their heads back, shoulders up, and sat rigidly upright (a sign that people have stopped breathing), he could take that information as a sign that his listeners were not open to his “nail the opposing side” message. He could then drop his eyes and hands, walk to a new spot (while breathing) and continue with a softer approach.

The point is, it isn’t enough to know your content and deliver it well. You must always have an “eye” on your listener if you want to be successful.

*Names have been changed to protect privacy.