Dan Erwin

4 Tips for Encouraging Team Member Participation

You know the drill. A team meeting is called to make a decision on an important issue, but only the usual suspects participate. All the rest keep their mouths shut and their ideas and opinions go unheard. Afterward, the water cooler gets the feedback. Too bad the tape is not running.

Yet the participation equation is obvious: meaningful participation equals meeting success. So here are four tips for getting full participation of your team members.

1. Agree on meeting objective. Why was the meeting called and what do you expect out of it? State the objective of the meeting. “What I expect from this meeting is. . . . Are you all in agreement?” Take a few seconds to eyeball the members one by one. If someone speaks up, great. If not, then take silence for agreement. In any instance, you’ve clarified the meeting objective and this places the burden on the team members.
2. Monitor individual airtime. This not only gives everyone an opportunity to speak up, but also conveys that everyone’s ideas are valuable. When one person has spoken enough, eyeball others and say, “I appreciated what Joe had to say, but now I’d like to hear from the rest of you.” Turn your body away from Joe, and focus on other team members.
3. Restate important points. By restating or paraphrasing what each person has said, you demonstrate the value of a person’s input. Thank people who are usually reticent to speak up.
4. Ask directly. Although some don’t like confrontation, I’m not especially fearful of the direct approach. Besides, after you’ve used that approach at two or three meetings, you’ve raised the bar and let everyone know that dead wood won’t be tolerated. Say something like, “We’ve heard from Jean. Now I’d like to hear what the rest of you think.”  Count ten seconds silently, and if you get no response, then say, “George, we need your input on this. What’s your thinking?” (Slowly count to ten thousand, “one thousand, two thousand, three thousand, etc.”) Silence can be a highly effective means of getting others to contribute. Then slowly go around to the rest of the team members. They’re liable to hitchhike on what George has said, so be ready for that. If someone says, “I agree with George,” you might ask why or how they’ve come to that conclusion.

Although this reads hard-nosed, over the long term it’s highly valuable. It doesn’t sound nearly as hard-nosed if you smile when you ask your questions and paraphrase what each person has said. People are valuable commodities, and if a person doesn’t learn to add his or her intelligence over the long term, it’s time for a “come to Jesus party,” or time to consider that person’s real value. Furthermore, the process often illuminates the ideas of some very gifted people who haven’t learned how to publicly contribute. These people can make a significant addition to your business success.

How to Win a Turf Battle With . . . NONVERBALS.

Turf battles can be among the most frustrating experiences for many workers.  Recently a Gen-Y friend in marketing research (let's call her Jan), learned a great lesson about the power of the nonverbal. Just three years into her career, she began a team project about a subject with which she was unfamiliar. The second week, having difficulty understanding the details of the project, one of the team members said to Jan, "Forget it. I'll do it." Jan was particularly frustrated because when she asked for help and information from that colleague, she took the issue away from Jan rather than coach.  On the third occasion that it happened, Jan essentially backed out and handed the project to her colleague.  After sleeping on what had happened, she decided that she blundered, losing control of her own responsibility and negatively impacting her reputation and career.

Organizations are inherently and fundamentally problematic. Interpersonal competition, politics and turf battles are inevitable. They present us with situations that are difficult to solve and even tortuous to define or manage. They force us to choose how we are going to act and talk.  It's those decisions that determine whether we will acquire and maintain power or not, much less succeed or fail. Many situations require us to pay close attention to the impression we make as we talk and respond to others. We are all on stage more than we want to believe. If you wait for the organization to support and help you through those difficult, ambiguous situations, you're liable to have a long wait. Plenty of research suggests that organizations don't care very much about you personally.

When I asked Jan about her actions, she admitted to me that she acted shyly, confessing that she didn't know how to execute, that she was embarrassed, and felt extremely uncomfortable.  In short, she made a weak and inhibited impression before her colleagues, portraying herself as victim rather than in charge. 

 
Sometimes your actual knowledge base, as well as your actual power, are quite ambiguous.  In such settings, the impression of taking charge, even by displaying anger, can be very useful. Studies by Stanford's Larissa Tiedens reveal that those who show anger and determination rather than negative emotions will be seen as dominant, strong, competent and smart, but less nice or warm. And it is our nonverbals that first signal our emotional state.

Jan was ready for the next meeting. She dressed up a bit, made certain her hair was neat, put on a minimal but appropriate amount of makeup, and walked into the room like she owned it. She took more space at the table, sat up straight,eye-balled her colleagues, moved directly in front of her troublesome colleague and ratcheted up the vocal intensity (not the pitch level), making clear-cut, informational demands with an obvious expectation that others would respond to her request. Although willing to confront her colleague, she did not have to, because the nonverbal messages clearly drew boundaries. On one occasion Jan actually interrupted her colleague, another useful strategic maneuver.  Her peer became immediately helpful, did not attempt to intervene, and offered help when asked directly. For Jan, the experience was a classic example of the power of constructive self-presentation--and totally nonverbal.

Jan is learning the lesson that many still have to learn: the world is not always fair. Those who intend to succeed will have to promote themselves and fight for their own interests. Nonverbal talk, in and of itself, can be used to create impressions of power, authority, credibility and even personal attractiveness. Indeed, nonverbal talk, as Jan's behavior brought home, can signal a person's expectations and bring about the behavior that conforms to those expectations.

Photo from Flickr, by WildImages

4 Tips for Giving Your New Boss Feedback

Focusing on the relationship with your new boss--from the start--is key to long-term success.  If you've never done it before, giving your boss feedback can be nervewracking.  Still, many, if not most strong relationships are based on openly sharing advice and input.  That kind of communication relationship weathers the storms of personal disagreement and corporate difficulty.  So here are four tips for building a relationship with feedback and advice at the center.

1. Start early.  Most new bosses try to have one-on-ones early in their tenure.  Pay close attention to her input, guaging her willingness to listen and openness to relationships.  Be attentive to the smallest hints of concern that she may voice.  Make a few comments and ask a few questions that telegraph your desire for a relationship and willingness to give unsolicited input.  Research clearly reports that your ability to enhance the ego of your boss is a key success factor. 
2. Determine her willingness to listen.  Since silence is open to many interpretations and meanings, define early on how your boss uses silence.  Is she paying attention to what others are saying, formulating her own response, accepting or rejecting ideas?  Keys to a real listener include her use of questions, definition of terms, clarification of input, as well as summary application of a speaker's insights.  Pay close attention to her "turn-taking" skills.  Does she talk, listen intently with silence, talk again, listen more with questioning?  If not, be wary and very carefully filter your messages to her respectfully, always assessing her response until you get a better handle on her expectations and liking.
3. Schedule your feedback.  Always set up the meeting with your new boss.  And do it within the first four to six weeks of her tenure.  Tell her that you've got a couple important issues you'd like to talk about.  Be ready to give and explain a very positive contribution she's making to the organization. Detail it's success.  Then suggest one change or new action that would make her more successful. Explain your rationale, give an example, and suggest the positive consequence.   Never, never take her by surprise until she lets you know that she's comfortable with "walk-ins."
4. Gauge her reactions.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the best of us are more often wrong than right when it comes to assessing a person's reactions.  So pay close attention to how she goes about problem solving and making decisions.  How much info does she need?  Listen to assess her ability to determine the consequences of her behaviors.  And pay attention especially to her self-awareness. Can she admit error, talk about her thinking and laugh at herself.  And after you've dished out positive and negative feedback, check in by occasionally asking, "Does this make sense?"  Or, "Did that work?"

The majority of bosses are completely lacking in both interactional skills and self-awareness.  That's neither condemnation of bosses nor of business/technical education.  Relationship skills were not required in the 20th century industrial economy.  Indeed, giving and following orders in a controlled environment required little relationship intentionality.  In the New, Global Economy relationship skills are the ultimate distinguishing characteristic of the successful.  Technology, the so-called hard science is rather easy to learn especially because it is largely controllable and predictable.  In contrast, many struggle to learn the so-called soft power skills where the ability to control and predict consequences is far more difficult. Even today, few business and technical colleges and universities are up to the demands of the world environment.  And you'll often find, much to your dismay, that many managers and execs are clueless.  So be wary as you go about managing your boss.  But don't fail to do it.

Relationship building is never an event, but a long-term campaign.  It can be costly, but as I've emphasized in an earlier blog on managing your boss, it'll also provide job opportunities, resources, links to the rest of the organization, and often a very good raise.  

Does Social Media Make You Anti-Social?

Well . . . No.  And yes.  The issue surfaces regularly in management situations.  It sounds like this:  "This guy is great with social media, software and applications.  He knows how to work online with other people.  He understands social networking.  But get him or her in front of people and it's a disaster.  So I can't promote him.  Get him out of the cubicle and he's lost.  He doesn't know how to read people."

In what seems to be a rejection of the above, Penelope Trunk makes the point that Gen-Yers are better communicators than the rest of the generations.   She supports her idea with research from Stanford writing classes.  The research finds that texting and tweeting makes them better communicators.  It teaches them rhetorical adaptability, the ability to make adjustments to their "reading" audience.  All well and good.  And obviously true.  I'd have to be brain dead not to realize that Gen-Yers are better at electronic communication and that the near instant feedback teaches them quickly adjust their messages.  But Penelope pushes the envelope too far in arguing that they're better at face-to-face communication than their elders.  Better?  I doubt it.  Equal to?  On some occasions, perhaps. 

But a very important issue that both Penelope and the research on writing skills omit is the high impact of the nonverbal.  The research is about written rhetoric, not about oral rhetoric.  In distinct contrast, research on oral communication indicates that more than 90% of face-to-face communication is nonverbal.  That includes the impact of context, verbal tone, posture, gesture and eye contact.  And it's all those nonverbal messages that take a lot of time to learn.  You can text from now to doomsday and you won't learn, for example, what silence in a given conversation means.  I've watched people lose their jobs as a result of the simple failure to understand silence in a given context.  And when you ask, you're asking for trouble, unless you know how to ask in a way that doesn't evoke defensiveness.  And to be blunt, it's hard enough to learn what the real questions are in your thirties and forties, much less in your twenties.  It's even more difficult to learn how to ask those questions effectively in a face-to-face situation when a lot is riding on the answers.     

I'm not a Luddite.  I think texting and tweeting are great.  I do it myself.  Gen-Yers are inherently superior at it than the other generations.  Keep it up!  But don't get fooled.  On its own, it's horribly inadquate.  If you want to succeed in today's world, you're going to need world-class expertise in a new rhetorical technology: SMART TALK.  Effective talk that's face-to-face and can manage both the verbal AND the nonverbal.  The demands of new contexts put people in situations they wouldn't have dreamed of just 15 years ago.  As a result, I spend days and weeks teaching Gen-Yers, Gen-Xers and even Boomers how to manage face-to-face in today's complex, complicated and volatile world.

Does social media make you anti-social?  NOPE.  It's just plainly inadequate for the demands of the 21st century.

Fool Me Once, Shame On You. Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.

"i looked the man in the eye.  I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.  I was able to get a sense of his soul."  Despite that seeming warmth between Putin and Russia and President Bush, the men did not go on to have a trusting and productive relationship.  And Bush was widely criticized for reading far too much into a seemingly meaninful exchange of eye contact.

When time is very short and we've had no previous relationships with a person, most of us tend to assume that what is communicated through words is all that matters.  The old proverb may well have been the result of that wrong-headed belief: "Fool me once, shame on you.  But fool me a second time, shame on me."   However, new research shows that like President Bush, it's very easy to fool ourselves--and a lot more than twice.  Studies reported in Harvard's December Negotiation Newsletter, asked how the facial expressions of the other person influences us--especially when we've had little relationship with that person.

Some participants were shown a picture of a smiling opponent, and others were shown a frowning, angry-looking opponent.  (The same person was depicted in both pictures, and unbeknownst to the participants, they were simply playing against a computer.) Some of the participants read a message in which their opponent (either smiling or frowning) stated that he wanted to cooperate in the upcoming game. Other participants read a message in which the same smiling or frowning opponent said he wanted to claim as much as he could for himself. 

The results showed that participants viewed the “happy” opponent to be more honest, reliable, and trustworthy than the “angry” opponent, regardless of his message.  As a result of this trust, the participants relied more on the happy opponent’s message than they did on the angry opponent’s message . . . .  A practice often to our disadvantage. 

As the study shows, it’s easy to misread both smiles and other facial nonverbals.  Happy emotions are an imperfect means of judging someone’s true state—and whether they can be trusted.  Think about the many occasions when a nice, friendly, smiling person ended up taking advantage of both you and the situation, all because you believed the facial nonverbal.  For example, you have a new colleague and initially he/she has a big smile in greeting you and sends all kinds of positive nonverbal.  Or, you’ve invited a vendor or a service person to consider for a project, either at work or home.  Don’t get taken in by the smiles or nice conversation in which he/she demonstrates interest in you.  Ironically, one of the best ways in which we attempt to preserve our self-esteem is to “surrender” to the other person and fail to check out the actions of the other before we make a decision on behalf of the other. 

There are immense research findings about this phenomenon.  Appropriately, it’s called self-handicapping.  We want to be seen as a nice guy and we want to believe the other person is a nice guy—especially when that person is all smiles.  But you may very well get suckered.  So what can you do to limit those failures? 

1. Be very aware of our bias to trust smiling, friendly people.
2. As much as possible when you’re engaged in first interactions with other people, prepare thoroughly for that interaction—and along the way, carefully analyze new information that surfaces.
3. Face-to-face meetings are always preferable to email, phone, or even video.  Often other sensory or nonverbal information can outweigh those personal biases.

One of my most impressive clients, a top executive at Ralston Purina, once told me that he always took his time about deciding whether he could trust a new employee or vendor, in spite of that employee's overt friendliness.  He wanted to be able to assess that person’s actions and performance in more depth.  How much time do you take, I wanted to know.  His response?  Two or three months!  That's great when you're in a situation of continuous interaction.  But sometimes, like when interviewing or negotiating, you only have a few minutes or an hour to decide whether you can trust another person. So be very careful.  Seeing is not necessarily the true test for believing.

 Research Abstract here:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.659/abstract     

Sex in the City or Sex in the Workplace?

The research has been around for a long time.  It has to do with our looks as members of the human race.  Most by now know that a large majority of U.S. presidents were taller than average.  The same is true for CEO's.  On average, they're taller too.

But the issue is more than height.  It's also about looks.  Good looks, and, to be politically correct, less attractive looks.

We live in a looks-based culture.  It's expected in the movies, and, I hope, obvious to most.  You know.  You can't see 40-year-old Sarah Jessica Parker without wanting to feed her a well-buttered croissant.  But have you seen her husband recently?  He's got an expanding waistline that doesn't seem to affect his roles.

But here's the research finding, in legal terms from an article, Our Beauty Bias Is Unfair, by Dahlia Lithwick in Newsweek:  The less attractive you are, the more likely you are to receive a longer prison sentence, a lower damage award and . . . a lower salary.

I assume that the American cultural priorities have changed little over the past 25 years.  That being the case, here are the top three arranged in order of most importance with #1 as the most important:

1. Beauty (handsomeness for males)
2. Money (Notice.  Money is not the topmost value.)
3. Intelligence.

In the earlier years of my coaching business, there were a few occasions in which I was hired to help a guy dress better: polish shoes, laundered all-cotton shirts, stylish ties without food stains, neatly cut hair, etc.  That's been a long time since.  But people still look.  Sometimes it's obvious to them.  But even when it's not obvious to the looker, the antenna automatically pick up on attractiveness or the lack of it, including dress.

But annoyed or not by this information, I'd suggest that you not ignore reality.  I recommend that you dress just slightly better than the average in your group.  The payoff?  You'll get a bit more attention from the boss which just may translate to better opportunities.

Here's how I handle the issue.  Whenever I get a new client in a new firm, I always ask some details about the dress code.  Consultants, like anyone else, can get over-dressed or underdressed for the workplace.

And if you think dress is not obvious, guess again.  On several occasions I've been hit on by a . . . well, what do you call them today?  Hooker?  As a result of the last experience, I had the good fortune to get really educated by a professional, the concierge attendant at the Marriott outside Richmond, VA.  I'd gone for dinner to a nearby mall, after a consulting gig.  The restaurant opened to the outdoor mall area, and a hooker strolled up and engaged me in conversation before I realized . . . .

I'd changed after consulting with a CEO and was wearing old Lev's and a comfortable, slightly worn sport shirt.  I was so surprised, that I stopped by the concierge room when I got back to the Marriott to talk to an obviously astute African-American in her sixties for an explanation.  Which mall she asked.  It was the upscale one.  "Oh honey, no guy your age without money is going to be there."  But she didn't stop the education process.  "It's your leather belt.  You didn't buy that for $25.  And those shoes.  They're Italian."  But most of all, she said, "That haircut."  I interrupted her and asked what hair?  "Well, she went on.  However little hair you have, it's been styled, not cut."  She was so accurate that I was in a state of shock.  Then she ended the conversation with a bit of fun.  "Honey.  If I was 25 years-old again, I'd have hit on you too."

Next question.  Why am I calling your attention to this information?  Workmates and bosses notice your appearance.  It may not immediately register, but if you're outside the norms, you'll really get noticed and it won't be to your advantage.  That's true for both males and females.  So watch your package.

Quotation of the Week: Doug Suttles, COO of BP

Nothing has gone wrong or unanticipated.  We did believe we did pump some mud down the well bore. We obviously pumped a lot of mud out the riser.

    --Doug Suttles, to reporters on the status of the the current attempt to stop the oil gushing out of the well.  See the Washington Post, Estimates of oil leak gush past twice the previous levels; drill permits yanked

I've seen two interviews of Suttles on the News Hour.  Three things are obvious.  He's very, no, exceptionally smart.  And, he's also a very powerful guy.  Furthermore, he's very laid back, displaying little emotion.

As a result of those obvious conclusions, it's absolutely impossible to tell whether he's giving you the straight skinny or not.  The research is very useful when it comes to power and intelligence.  These people are better liars than the rest of us.  In a blog from April of these, Powerful people are better liars, I summarized the research.  Dana Carney of Columbia University found that when people have more power, they're more comfortable with themselves and also more comfortable lying.  As a result it's more difficult to assess their input.

In still another blog on deception and bullshitting, I alluded to Paul Ekman's research that found that most of us are terrible at identifying liars and lying.  My blog, Reflections on knowing when someone is Bsing, reveals that most of us are no better at detection than the flip of a coin.  Most liars can fool most of the people most of the time.

Is Suttles telling the truth?  The only intelligent judgment is that we're all clueless.

7 Behaviors That Keep Women From Getting Ahead

On numerous occasions over the years, I've coached women managers and execs.  Recently, while going through my file on influence management, I stumbled on an old article by Mary Ellen Drummond entitled, Seven Things We Do That Keep Us From Getting Ahead, from a now defunct (?) magazine called Women Managers.  Although these recommendations don't apply to a few female execs that I've worked with, they certainly apply to a large number.  Drummond doesn't mention the basis for her conclusions, but because of my studies in nonverbal research I'm well aware that a number of the recommendations have a research basis.  This information seems to go in cycles in business circles, but I've seen a number of recent articles on personal presentation.  I'm also aware that the top business schools, including Booth, Kellogg, Harvard and Stanford give time in their program for personal presentation, usually in leadership development programs that focus on interpersonal communication.

I've found that typically, because of their socialization, women are not aware of these issues.  The issues surface out of the assumption that business is a man's world, and that if a woman wants to succeed, she'll need to mimic some of the male behaviors.  (Although I've seen and read all kinds of responses to that assumption, I recommend a great deal of flexibility in these issues.  FYI: I've noticed more than a few men that need help with their business behaviors.) 
 
Since what you don't know can hurt you, here are some things to think about and perhaps get some feedback on.

 
 
1. Women do not take up enough physical space.  This is not a matter of size, but how you hold yourself when standing.  If you expect to be perceived as a powerful person, stand with your feet apart, and perhaps your hands on your hips.  Drummond recommends the steeple gesture, placing your hands so that just your fingertips are touching.  This forces the palms apart and makes your arms take up more space whether standing or sitting.  This is a classic negotiating posture, so watch for it when observing others.

Although Drummond doesn't mention this, it's a well-researched fact that when men and women all sit down at a large table, women take up far less room.  Men put papers and books over as much as twice the space as women.  I recommend that women spread out on the business table just like the men.  Take ownership of a huge area of space.  The difference often has a powerful impact on the discussion.

2.  Women nod their heads when listening.  A man nods his head only to show agreement, while women nod to show they're listening.  Plenty of women in executive suites have been schooled to avoid this.  Present yourself as a powerful person, not a nice lady.  Just last week, I took my wife to see an endocrinologist at the university clinic. Prior to seeing the physician, the nurse took information and was nodding her head, encouraging my wife and me to talk.  Then the physician, a nationally known woman walked into the room.  The difference was shocking.  Though smiling and warm, she was totally in charge from the time the door opened.  She asked questions, but didn't nod.  She interrupted me a couple times, probing for information.  Once I acceded to her authority, the conversation became much more familiar.  It was a hilarious experience for this communication scholar, but also a very powerful way for the physician to assert her authority.  I had nothing but kudos and trust of her insights by the end of the session.  Well done!

3.  Women tilt their heads when they talk.  Check this out and notice that women tilt their heads when listening and talking, without even knowing it.  It is not a power position from which to speak.  So keep your head up, chin forward and untilted, and relax your shoulders backward, not hunched tightly forward, when you want to speak.  You want others to listen to you.

4.  Women introduce themselves too soon.   Research shows that no one listens to what's being said in the first 5 to 7 seconds of meeting new people.  They're too busy visually checking you out, and they pay little to no attention to what's being said.  That's why we forget the names of people we've just met.  We weren't listening.  So, when first meeting someone, explain what you do, the company you work for, and then, finally your name.

5.  Women's voices rise at the ends of sentences.  It makes a woman sound like she's asking a question and asking for assent instead of making a statement.  There is a geographical component to this.  Women from the Upper Midwest are terrible at this.  Sometimes I just want to yell at the phone to get them to stop it.  My wife, who's from Detroit, has never done that.  My daughters?  Not in a thousand years.  I've seen them roll their eyes at a woman doing this.  My middle daughter, in a playful mood, will mock someone doing it.  When we moved to Minnesota and she was in the fourth grade, someone asked why she talked like she did--mouth open, and no questioning at the end of sentences.  Her response?  "Why would I want to talk like you?"  Ummmm.  Just to set you straight, she has a terrific number of friends, including a large number of Harvard, MIT researchers who think that when it comes to research protocols and animals, she's god.

6.   Women fidget.  Although I think this is somewhat dated, the research shows that when men enter a conference room, they make 12 major movements.  Women make 27.  Many of these involve pulling out a chair and sitting down, but then women start adjusting their clothes and jewelry.  The more movements you make in business settings, the less powerful you seem to your colleagues.  Beware what you do when you enter a room, and keep your movements to a minimum.

7.  Women let men finish sentences for them.  Fading out at the end of a sentence is more common for women than men, so is being interrupted.  You need to complete your sentences and your ideas.  So, keep talking, a bit louder and hold up your finger to signal you're not finished.  Never, never, never let men get away with interrupting you.  On occasion, you can also interrupt right back to make your point.  And keep talking.  As Drummond says, stick to your guns and your sentences. 

These bad habits are all learned.  They're not natural.  The good habits can also be learned.  So women, don't let the men take advantage of you.  Frankly, I lose my respect for a woman who lets a man take advantage of her.  I raised my daughters to know better!  FYI:  I was never interested in raising "nice girls."  Our objective was to raise intelligent, achieving females who could make some serious contributions to this world.  I've always taken the comment that my daughters or my wife could be difficult to be a compliment.  It was expected.

"Powerful People Are Better Liars."

Dana Carney of Columbia University School of Business has proved that, indeed, powerful people are better liars.  Those of us with a background in rhetoric and nonverbal research have believed this for years, but we're glad to see that someone has at last validated our well-educated hunches.  The article, with the above title, appears in the May issue of Harvard Business Review.

Her subjects were not politicians, at least not governmental politicians, but business bosses and employees.  The bosses, with larger offices and more power were tasked to do such things as assign employee salaries.  Half of all the research subjects were instructed by a computer to steal $100, and, if they could convince an interviewer that they didn't take it, they could keep it.  The other subjects were also questioned in the interviews.  The interviewers were trained to identify deception.  (Although the article didn't say so, it reflects the work of Paul Ekman, the expert in deception, who I referred to in a previous blog:  Reflections on Bsing.)

The subjects were measured on five variables that indicate lying, variables that can't be easily measured in any other context. 

What the research shows is that "if you give people power, they're more comfortable lying, and it will be harder to tell they're doing it."

When questioned about most people's accuracy in spotting liars, the researchers followed through with the same conclusion as I'd given in my blog:  most people are bad at spotting liars. 

Here's the very telling conclusion:  That guy at the head of the table running your meeting, leaning back in his chair, arms behind his head, he's going to take risks.  He won't feel as bad about lying to you, and you're going to have a real hard time telling when he is.

There are a lot of reasons for lying and some of them are quite valid.  One, for example, is to protect the organization from strategic matters.  Another might be that the boss is not ready for information to be made public.  But remember this:  It's rare for a boss to say that he/she is not able to make information available at this time.  Or that the information will be made public on such and such a date.  Sometimes the information is above your level.

Here's one way to deal with the issue, if the info is especially important to you.  Pay close attention to what the boss is saying, but check out any sources you may have prior to asking your question, as well as after hearing the response.  But remember, sometimes it's just not wise, for political or personal credibility reasons, to check out sources.  That means that you'll just have to patiently sit on your hands and keep your mouth closed.

 

Listening to Nonverbal: A Unique and Valuable Skill

You read that right.  We look at all the nonverbals except one:  vocal cues.  Vocal cues are not just about loudness and softness.  There are many different messages in them.  U.S. businesspeople play down the voice in more formal settings.  This becomes especially obvious in males when the issues assume significance. 

It's important to understand that language is mostly a conscious activity, while nonverbal behavior, including voice tone, is fairly involuntary.  If a person is saying one thing, but his/her nonverbals are saying something else, trust the nonverbal messages.  Certainly check out facial animation, color changes, muscle tension, antsy behaviors while sitting, but don't miss vocal tone. 

Voice tone is genuine.  Tone, like all nonverbals is an illustrator when accompanied or tied to speech.  It illustrates what is being said verbally.  It reinforces the verbal message, emphasizing what a person is saying about her comfort with you, or her rejection of your advances.  Listen for such characteristics as warmth, tension or sincerity.  If a person's voice goes quiet, flat or emotionless, that's also signaling something, perhaps control, caution or even fear.  If the tone is pushy, trying too hard or bright, you're getting still different messages.

Three nonverbal rules: 

You can't not communicate.  Even silence is communication.  Often, you'll have to ask to find out what silence means.

Be careful about drawing nonverbal conclusions based on your first meeting of a person.  What's vocally flat in one person may be a message of warmth in another.  

Nonverbal emphasizes the intensity or importance of what is being said.  It not only compliments what's said, but it also accents or repeats the verbal message.

Observe (and listen to) the nonverbal and try to define what the consistency between verbal and nonverbal looks and sounds like in each person.  Individuals differ in the degree to which they express nonverbals.  Cultures differ very much in the degree to which they express nonverbals, even between different parts of the U.S.  The Upper Midwest, where I live, uses less verbal and nonverbal intensity than any other part of the country, while the Southeast uses the most. 

The best way to begin to understand vocal tone is to pay attention to just that one nonverbal for a single day or more.  As you're conversing with someone, keep listening to the tone of voice.  It may feel strange, but you'll gain a lot of insight as you keep up with the process.

Managing up, sideways or down, negotiating, persuading, building relations are just some of the competencies that can be enhanced by a richer understanding of listening to the nonverbal.