Communication Break-Down

X-ray vision. The ability to fly. Super-human strength. Identifying a liar.

Claim any of the first three and people will think you’re crazy. Claim the last one, and you’re a body-language expert.

Pamela Myer in her recent article How To Spot a Lie, claims that anyone can spot a liar, and that, “Detecting lies, or ‘lie-spotting,’ is an essential skill for everyone to acquire, both for personal and professional reasons.”

My question is, “why?” Why is it such an essential skill to be able to spot a liar? What, exactly, are we so afraid of?

Look, I get it. No one wants to be taken advantage of. And yet people lie for a variety of reasons, many of which don’t have a single thing to do with us. Not to mention that there is no guarantee that you can even spot a liar. Research has been pretty clear that there are no tell-tale signs of lying, and even Myer admits that most of the nonverbals associated with lying–shifty eyes, stuttering, blushing–have been discredited as such.

But my biggest problem with “lie-spotting” is that it takes us away from what communication is really supposed to be about: connection. You can follow Myer’s advice and carefully observe nonverbal behavior, but what if you determine –after your thorough examination–that the person is, in fact, telling the truth? You’ll have missed out on authentic connection with the person sitting right in front of you.

We’re all hard-wired from birth to understand and interpret nonverbal cues. The problem is, we often ignore our instincts out of politeness or because we don’t want to believe that someone would lie to us. If you’re really interested in increasing your awareness to dangerous situations I highly recommend Gavin de Becker’s book, The Gift of Fear. But nonverbal communication, at least the way I use and train in it, is something we fine tune in an effort to communicate more authentically and effectively leading to greater connection, not less.

In other words, I support a balance between trusting our instincts and giving people the benefit of the doubt. What gets under my skin is the underlying message that everyone is out to trick you. This just simply isn’t true. Life is risky. We can’t protect ourselves from everything. But we can get lost in fear, which increases the separation between us and our fellow human beings.

Which, come to think of it, might just be the biggest danger of all.

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?

In my book, Beyond a Firm Handshake: 21 Ways to Communicate You’re the Right Person for the Job, I discuss the 21 ways job seekers can position themselves as the top candidate in an interview. I’ve titled each chapter with various adverbs: Persuasively, Calmly, Confidently, Carefully, and so on. But there’s one way you must communicate above all others.

Authentically.

The most important thing you can communicate in an interview is who you are. You can’t trick people into believing you’re something you’re not, no matter what degree of “nonverbal intelligence” you possess.

Because we are often unaware of what we communicate nonverbally, we inadvertently get in our own way. We mean to say one thing and end up expressing something entirely different. How many times have you said, or heard someone else say, “But that’s not what I meant!” Nonverbal communication transmits the majority of the message. Increasing our nonverbal intelligence helps us communicate clearly; when we understand and are aware of nonverbal communication, we ensure that our intended message gets across.

By tuning into your nonverbal communication you’ll be able to convey your qualifications and your enthusiasm in the interview. You’ll be able to speak calmly and confidently, but also show that you’re listening. You’ll be able to remain composed and patient, and yet purposefully avoid behaviors, apparel and objects that detract from your presentation. In other words, you’ll be able to be you, without all the other stuff getting in the way.

The theme of “authenticity” has come up a lot lately in my work. Whether clients want to increase their public speaking, social or workplace skills, once we begin working together I sense hesitation or conversely feel like I’m watching a “show.” Over and over again I explain that the most powerful communication is authentic–you must “own” who you are and what you hope to get across–nonverbal skills assist you in communicating that authenticity more clearly.

So for those of you looking for work: Take a breath, believe in yourself and work at increasing your nonverbal intelligence to allow the real you to shine in the interview. The most powerful way to communicate in an interview, and in life, is authentically.

Learn more at our May 18th workshop when I team up with Stacey Lane, Career Coach for Beyond a Firm Handshake-Acing the Interview Before You Speak.

I did it. It’s done. Finally. And it only took three times longer than I expected it to!

You’d never think someone who speaks for a living would have such a hard time getting those same words down on the page, but hoo boy, writing is a completely different animal than getting up and speaking in front of people.

But it’s done.

I can’t speak for all writers, but what I feel after finishing the book falls somewhere between sheer elation and massive panic. I mean, it’s done, but no one except nearest and dearest have read it.

I suppose I should tell you what it’s about. It’s called, Beyond a Firm Handshake: 21 Ways to Communicate You’re the Right Person for the Job and focuses on how to get and nail the interview. I wrote it for several reasons: 1) so many people are looking for work right now, it just made sense to focus on how nonverbal communication can assist the job seeker, 2) my business manager told me to, and I usually do what he says and 3) most of the “body language” advice in current interview prep books is just plain stupid. And insulting.

For example, flip open any interview book and you’ll find advice like, “Use a firm handshake,” “Maintain eye contact” and “Sit with good posture.” And unless you’re 16 years old and looking for your first job, most people respond with, “Well, duh.”

MY eBook is different, of course. Beyond a Firm Handshake: 21 Ways to Communicate You’re the Right Person for the Job goes beyond a firm handshake and other obvious “body language” advice—although I’ve included some for fun—and gives you practical tools you can use to increase your nonverbal intelligence. This will ensure you communicate clearly, leading to increased interviewing capacity, and eventually, the job of your dreams.

At least that’s what the intro says.

More seriously, you’ll learn:

• Why no one is reading your resume
• How to turn the phone screen into a face-to-face interview
• Why “friendly” hiring managers can be dangerous
• What to bring, and more importantly, avoid bringing to the interview
• Why your interview begins and ends in the parking lot
• What it really means to be “likeable”
• How to handle illegal, trick or just plain weird questions
• Why you should never, ever call to follow up
• And more!

You can download a PDF copy at our website for $8.99 or stay tuned for the announcement of when it’s available for Kindle, iPad, Sony Reader, Nook and other eReader devices.

You get a free copy if you register for our upcoming workshop: Beyond a Firm Handshake-Acing the Interview Before You Speak on May 18th when I team up with Stacey Lane, a local career coach. And finally, if you want to hear me talk about the types of things I write about in the book, you can listen to my recent interview with Career Studios.

Happy reading!

Absolutely nothing.

A year and a half ago in my first blog post, I explained how I wasn’t a body language expert. Seems the word still hasn’t gotten out.

I got a call from my business manager Sunday asking if I’d like to be on television that afternoon. Turns out a local station was hoping I could read Congressman David Wu’s body language as he gave an interview about the departure of almost half his staff due to his rumored mental health issues.

“What’s their intended outcome?” I asked Corey. “I don’t know,” he said, “they just want you at the station in a few hours.”

I declined.

Reading the body language of someone who is in the midst of a personal and professional crisis is an inappropriate use of my skills and poor representation of what I really do. No, I don’t want to read David Wu’s body language, nor Tiger Woods (which I’ve been asked to do) nor recent Oscar winner Colin Firth..well wait. Perhaps I’d be willing to do that. I’d take any chance to dissect Colin’s body, uh, language, especially that pond scene in Pride and Prejudice, when he dives in and emerges dripping wet…

But I digress.

Reading body language of a politician, celebrity, or potential juror is futile. It’s nothing short of hallucinating. We tend to watch people and make up stories as to what’s going on inside their heads, and oftentimes we’re wrong. It would be irresponsible of me to train others to watch for specific cues and attach meaning, when we can’t possibly know for sure what someone is thinking or feeling by watching nonverbal behavior. The only nonverbal behavior we can control is our own.

Does that mean it’s pointless to observe the nonverbal communication of those we’re communicating with? Absolutely not. But here’s the question we should always be asking ourselves: what effect does my nonverbal behavior have on someone else? In other words, to become nonverbally intelligent, we increase awareness of what we and others communicate nonverbally, so we can adapt our approach. If I communicate one way and notice the other person remains unreceptive, I switch and try something else. This isn’t because I hope to manipulate- it’s because I want good communication to happen.

Because I’m not personally sitting down with Congressman Wu, nor Mr. Woods, what they’re communicating nonverbally is of very limited use to me. Do I still observe? Yes, we can’t help but do so since nonverbal communication is such a large part of any message. But to draw conclusions based on such limited information is reckless at best.

So although I’m glad people think of me when they think of nonverbal communication, I hope that we can begin a new conversation about its usefulness and turn the focus on ourselves where it belongs.

Unless someone needs a read on Colin Firth. Then I’m up for it.

Update: We’ve extended the early-bird registration price for our new workshop The Language of Leadership. Register at: www.nonverbalsolutions.com by this Friday, March 4th, to receive the discount.

If you’ve been following me on Twitter or Facebook, then you know I love love love the movie King’s Speech, which is up for 12 oscars this coming Sunday. If you haven’t seen it, GO.

Oh, and stop reading. <Spoiler Alert!>

One of the greatest scenes in the movie is when Lionel Logue, the speech therapist who the soon-to-be King of England hopes will cure him of his stuttering, insists on calling the king by his first name, Bertie. You can imagine how the royal takes this informal way of speaking from a commoner. In addition, Lionel insists that “Bertie” call him by his first name instead of  ”Doctor.”

Here’s the dialogue:

BERTIE

Aren’t you going to start treating me Dr Logue?

LIONEL

Only if you’re interested in being treated. Please, call me Lionel.

BERTIE

I prefer Doctor.

LIONEL

I prefer Lionel. What’ll I call you?

BERTIE

Your Royal Highness, then Sir after that.

LIONEL

A bit formal for here. What about your name?

BERTIE

Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George.

LIONEL

How about Bertie?

BERTIE

(flushes) Only my family uses that.

LIONEL

Perfect. In here, it’s better if we’re equals.

BERTIE

If we were equal I wouldn’t be here. I’d be at home with my wife and no-one would give a damn.

Thus begins an amazing story of healing and friendship.

Imagine my surprise when I encountered, in a workshop this past week, an almost identical situation. As I worked with a group of elected officials, the subject of how they preferred people address them came up. “Constituents insist on calling me by my elected position, rather than by my first name,” a member of the audience said. “I continue to correct them, but to no avail.”

So why did it work when Lionel insisted on being called by his first name, but backfire when the newly elected official insisted on the same? On the face of it, both situations seem alike. But there is one crucial difference: the level of responsibility.

In my workshops I draw an x/y axis grid, writing “position” in the right-hand upper grid, and “person” in the left-hand lower grid. I then draw a diagonal line from grid to grid. The higher you are on the level of responsibility, the more appropriate it is to operate from your position. The lower you are on the level of responsibility, the more appropriate it is to operate from your person. An elected official is high on the level of responsibility. He or she steps into a role that many have filled before. There is a culture associated with the position, one that requires the official to use the proper title. Although there will be times that the official can ask that people call him by his first name, the expectation is that he be called, and answer, to the title of which he has been elected. In other words, whether she likes it or not, an elected official must operate from her position.

Lionel was lower on the level of responsibility. He worked one-on-one with clients, and believed that being on equal footing better served the treatment process. He was able to operate from his person.

Oftentimes we get stuck in what we prefer, rather than what works. Just like it wouldn’t work for the King to ask his subjects to call him Bertie, it doesn’t work for the elected official to insist his constituents call him by his first name. When you occupy a position, you must operate from that position. You no longer get to be “Dan Johnson” you must become “Commissioner, Congressman or President” Johnson. The title isn’t you- you’re just borrowing it for a time. But to be successful, you must increase your positional communication. Lionel was just that- Lionel, and therefore could operate from his person. To be successful, he increased his personal communication.

There’s a reason why we say it’s lonely at the top. Sometimes the job requires you to act against your instincts.

An article in Wednesday’s Oregonian reported that Oregon legislators are considering offering cash bonuses to teachers whose students pass the Advanced Placement exam.

This is a terrible idea.

Not because teachers don’t deserve the cash. No, rewarding educators with cash bonuses assumes that they get into teaching for the money.

I’ll pause to allow my teacher friends a good long laugh.

…

It’s pretty insulting, in my opinion, to even think cash bonuses would work. It assumes teachers are lazy and unmotivated and would only do better if someone waved some cash in front of their noses. I’ve worked with thousands of educators for over a decade, and I’ve never met a single teacher who got into teaching because it was an easy gig that paid well. Most teachers are underpaid and overworked, and yet they continue to go in, day after day, and give their best.

Do bad teachers exist? Absolutely. But they need to be removed, not enticed with monetary gain. Teaching is a craft, something that can be honed and improved. But at its heart, teaching is a calling. If you don’t care to be there, no amount of money is going to fix that.

Teachers need support. Support from their communities, support from parents, and support from their schools. Most teachers leave the profession within the first three years, and it isn’t due to compensation.

If we want to improve education -note I did not say “test scores”- then we must look for ways to support our teachers. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything.

My friend Rachel sent me a link today about a new book called Cinderella Ate My Daughter, and asked me what I thought. Rachel has two beautiful girls who of course love to dress up, and she thought the controversy was interesting. (Disclaimer: I have yet to read the book and don’t have kids.)

I watched the clip, but I don’t buy the argument that allowing girls to play dress up or read books/watch movies about princesses is detrimental. Numerous books on childhood development state that the most important activity pre-school children can engage in to develop their brains is pretend play. With Rachel’s girls sometimes that’s pretend camping, pretend cooking, pretend ballerinas, pretend work with Papa in his office, and yes, pretend dress up for a fancy event. “The key,” Rachel said, “is variety.” And I agree. Rachel’s girls love dressing up as much as they love to play in the dirt, and my nephew loves shooting his Nerf air-gun with painted fingernails.

Having said that, I do feel that the media influences the way women see themselves (and men too, although those messages are rarely as demeaning) and we need to be careful. In terms of nonverbals, we know that actions speak louder than words. We can say that we value a woman’s brains as much as her body, but when all we see is half-naked women splattered across magazines selling every product imaginable, the message is loud and clear. Sex sells, no one cares about your brain.

The recent trend in Disney and other movies showing strong female characters is a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough. The psychologist on the Today show said we can’t change the culture, we can only teach our children our values and morals. I disagree. We can change the culture, by refusing to buy into what’s popular. Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty is a great example of highlighting that it’s healthy to want to appear your best, but that beauty comes in many shapes and sizes.

Dressing in pink, watching Cinderella and playing dress up isn’t the problem. No one worries that little boys will grow up and don capes and jump off buildings. Girls learn to equate their self-worth with how physically attractive they are, and that is the problem. Portraying women as one dimensional objects, sexualizing young girls and rigid ideas of gender roles is the issue here. What we communicate nonverbally- whether in our own homes or through a glossy magazine ad- is powerful, and we all have an obligation to think twice about the messages we send and receive.

Reading the Oregonian this morning I came across an article about Joshua Turnridge, the man recently convicted and sentenced to death, along with his father, for the 2008 Woodburn bank bombing that killed two police officers and wounded two others.

It’s always of interest to me to read what the jury was thinking when making their decision, as I have worked as a jury consultant and am currently studying group dynamics in juries. What was particularly interesting about this morning’s article was the numerous references made to the nonverbal communication of Joshua Turnridge and the effect it had on the jury.

“They remembered his breezy confidence while testifying,” the Oregonian reported. “They noted how he stopped making eye contact with them when prosecutors attacked his statements.” “Juror Stephanie Deprima said she found herself looking for some sign of emotion. ‘Having to do this just went against my values and my morals,’ Deprima said. ‘Just give us something: remorse, expression, tears…We wanted to save them so badly, but there was such a lack of emotion and caring and compassion.’”

Not only was lack of remorse displayed through nonverbal communication, but the jurors also sensed Joshua Turnridge was lying by observing his body language. Steve Salisbury, another juror said, “Having kids, you can almost tell when someone is being truthful. He didn’t look at any of us again.”

Twelve jurors, at least one who publicly stated that ‘they wanted to save them so badly’ unanimously chose a sentence of death based on the inability of the defendant to show remorse, highlighting the huge impact nonverbal communication has on the decisions we make.

Even decisions of life or death.

I’m not sure how to say this so I’ll just say it. Dudley needs to close his mouth.

I don’t mean that he talks too much. I’m speaking to his tendency to keep his mouth open when he pauses. It’s not unique to Dudley, several people I’ve worked with do this- until I point out how silly it looks. Yet it isn’t something most of us are aware of. I first noticed it at the League of Oregon Cities debate on September 26, but have since noticed it in campaign commercials, speaking engagements, and other video clips.

The pause is the number one nonverbal. It communicates confidence and intelligence. People often avoid pausing because they are afraid of losing the listener’s attentiveness, but if used correctly, it can powerfully alter how people perceive you. Yet pausing is not enough. You must also close the lips during the pause. Not only will you appear more intelligent, closing the lips assists in getting rid of “ums” and “oks,” space-fillers that detract from verbal presentation.

To avoid appearing nervous -as he sometimes does- Dudley should pause more often, and close the lips during the pause. By doing so he would exhibit confidence and authority- exactly what he needs during this election.

*For readers outside of Oregon, Chris Dudley is currently running for governor.