The Nonverbal Advantage
People are constantly telling each other exactly what they think and feel … often, it has nothing to do with the words they say.
The boss tells you that he likes your idea and is considering implementing it. But if he’s leaning back, arms crossed with a forced smile, he’s sending the opposite message. Customer’s may say they are not interested in making a deal, but if they keep glancing at the contract on the table, they’re telling you they are interested.
Understanding body language is a critical tool in today’s business environment. Unfortunately, few professionals read the clear signals of others. And worse, most people don’t have a clue how their own behavior is sabotaging their efforts.
In her latest book, The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work , Carol Kinsey Gorman identifies six factors in the workplace that make body language more important than ever before.
1. Emotional Literacy Words communicate content. Body language comments on the emotions and relationships behind the words. What really counts is the quality of the interpersonal relationship that exists between the sender and receiver. A large part of that relationship is determined by nonverbal cues.
2. Leadership’s move from Command to Influence Managing a global enterprise has altered the effectiveness of “command and control” tactics. Today, executives must lead through influence, rather than relying on the illusion of control they believe comes with their job title. Influence relies on two skills: (1) the ability genuinely understand the other person’s perspective (which includes knowing how to read their nonverbal messages) and (2) the ability to align the spoken word with body language that supports the intended message.
3. Validation of Face to Face communication When a leader must deliver bad news or communicate any kind of change, the research says the best way to do it is face-to-face. Regardless the number of times and ways announcements are made internally employees want to be able to look at the boss, not just to hear the boss, but to see the boss, as he/she says it.
4. The Visual Technology Revolution The days of ducking behind computer monitor and ignoring nonverbal behavior are over. Cisco Systems is working on products that make the virtual experience almost the same as a face-to-face interaction. Cisco’s TelePresence uses “life-size” HD video with directional sound technology that makes participants in a video conference between New York and Hong Kong feel as though they are actually in the same room.
5. The Global Work Force In the high stakes world of international business, body language often speaks for itself. Unfortunately, much of the meaning may be lost in translation. The most innocuous of gestures, when misinterpreted can wreak havoc on business dealings.
6. The Latest Science A research team at MIT have developed small devices that track not only a person’s physical location, but also their body language. By taking notes of people’s proximity to others and the patterns of their movements (body language), the MIT team is gathering insights into the subtle differences between effective and ineffective teams, and the kinds of interactions that build or block collaboration.
Psychologist Carl Rogers believes “Real communication occurs when we listen with understanding - to see thee idea and attitude from the other person’s point of view, to sense how it feels to them, to achieve their frame of reference in regard to the thing they are talking about.”
Reaching that goal of understanding, of empathy, can mean a big difference to leaders in the business word. Which is why nonverbal cues are so important to our professional relationships and a such a critical part of business communication.
Rooting for Chaos
“I like people. It’s mankind I can’t stand. I root for chaos.”
“Comedian” will be the word most will choose to describe George Carlin, who died Sunday night of heart failure at age 71. But “comedian” barely scratches the surface. Carlin was a cynic, a skeptic, a linguist, a social commentator, a philosopher, a rebel, a radical, a lover of language, a very funny man and perhaps most important, a really good guy.
I was in Junior High School when Carlin made the turn from mainstream comic to counter-culture commentator. The first LP record album I ever bought was Carlin’s instant classic “Class Clown,” I even remember the day in May of 1972, when I made the purchase. Trouble was the best bit on that record was Carlin’s most infamous, if not his most brilliant piece of work, “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV.” I wore that record out, which is an achievement considering I did not own a record player, and could only listen when my parents weren’t around. I still have the record.
George Carlin was one of my heroes. A high school drop-out, he proved that you didn’t need a diploma to be educated. The man knew how to use his head. Over the years, I saw him perform at least a dozen times and he never ceased to amuse and amaze. Carlin’s comedy got smarter, sharper, edgier and crankier.
One of my last assignments at CBS News was producing a profile of Carlin with Bernie Goldberg. It was early in 1996, Carlin was being honored at the Aspen Comedy Festival, where he was preparing to tape his latest HBO Comedy Special.
On that show Carlin debuted one of my favorite pieces “Bullshit.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=23lOtdrszq0
Actually, doing that story was just an excuse for Bernie and me to hang out with George. We had a great time. George Carlin the man was much different than George Carlin the entertainer. The angry demagogue on stage, off it Carlin was surprisingly mild mannered, gentle and soft spoken, a sweetheart of a guy. He was so unassuming, such a regular guy, it was as if he had no idea that he was “George Carlin.”
He educated us about his exacting creative process. Carlin said one of the “gifts from his genetic toolbox was the ability to keep writing and writing.” He spent months crafting and refining every routine on paper before committing it to memory. Only then did he spend weeks reciting the material thousands of times to perfect the rhythm and pacing of his delivery. It was hard to believe that his machine-gun delivery, which often sounded like a cocaine induced impromptu stream of consciousness, was actually a carefully constructed and meticulously rehearsed script.
George Carlin was much more than a comic. Yes, he was a very funny man, but his comedy was never silly or stupid. Carlin was a brilliant social, political and cultural commentator. Years from now, when historians look for clues about what was really happenning in America these last 50 years they would do well to give George Carlin a listen. No doubt they will learn. Most certainly they will laugh.
Confessions of a White House Press Secretary
It’s the toughest PR job on the planet. Life walking the tight-rope between honesty and politics is both professionally and personally challenging on a daily basis. Especially when the Spinmaster learns that he’s being spun.Loyalty is job one for the White House Press Secretary. But it’s tough to be loyal when the Boss isn’t being honest. We saw a trio of capable Press Secretaries bolt the Clinton White House as covering for Bubba became increasingly untenable. Dee Dee Meyers, Mike McCurry and Joe Lockhart each got fed up and split. But the travails the Clinton Spinmeisters faced seem silly compared to the challenges the Bush White House created in the run up to invading Iraq. Ari Fliescher, one of the most capable Spokespersons the White House Press Corps has ever dueled with, got fed up and threw in the towel in 2003. Scott McClellan took over and dutifully delivered the company line as things not only turned sour in Iraq but reached surreal levels with the White House mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina. You couldn’t help wondering what the real back story was Scott McClellan bolted his White House gig shortly before the end of W’s first term. You also had to wonder if, or how long, McClellan would uphold his oath of omerta’, the silence that is expected from mafia soldiers. McClellan broke the oath in a big way with a stunning tell all book excerpted in today’s WSJ. The book comes out next week. It’s already a best-seller on Amazon! Scott McClellan worked as a loyal press spokesman for George W. Bush for eight years, ultimately becoming White House Press Secretary . He resigned from that position in 2006, in the wake of the controversy over the Valerie Plame leak scandal. In his new book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” he offers a harshly critical portrait of the president and his administration. Going to war in Iraq was a mistake, he concludes. But an even more fundamental mistake was the administration’s decision “to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.” What follows are excerpts from his book: As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided. In these pages, I’ve tried to come to grips with some of the truths that life inside the White House bubble obscured. My friends and former colleagues who lived and worked or are still working inside that bubble may not be happy with the perspective I present here. Many of them, I’m sure, remain convinced that the Bush administration has been fundamentally correct in its most controversial policy judgments, and that the dis-esteem in which most Americans currently hold it is undeserved. Only time will tell. But I’ve become genuinely convinced otherwise. Most of our elected leaders in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, are good, decent people. Yet too many of them today have made a practice of shunning truth and the high level of openness and forthrightness required to discover it. Most of it is not willful or conscious. Rather, it is part of the modern Washington game that has become the accepted norm. As I explain in this book, Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign, a game of endless politicking based on the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin. Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, with electoral victory and the control of power as the sole measures of success. That means shaping the narrative before it shapes you. Candor and honesty are pushed to the side in the battle to win the latest news cycle… Ironically, much of Bush’s campaign rhetoric (in 1999-2000) had been aimed at distancing himself from the excesses of Clinton’s permanent campaign style of governing. The implicit meaning of Bush’s words was that he would bring an end to the perpetual politicking and deep partisan divisions it created. Although Washington could not get enough of the permanent campaign, voters were seemingly eager to move beyond it. Bush emphasized this sentiment during the campaign. He would “change the tone in Washington.” He would be “a uniter, not a divider.” He would “restore honor and dignity to the White House.” He would govern based on what was right, not what the polls said. He would, in short, replace the cynicism of the 1990s with a new era of civility, decency, and hope. There would be no more permanent campaign, or at least its excesses would be wiped away for good. But the reality proved to be something quite different. Instead, the Bush team imitated some of the worst qualities of the Clinton White House and even took them to new depths. Bush did not emulate Clinton on the policy front. Just the opposite – the mantra of the new administration was “anything but Clinton” when it came to policies. The Bush administration prided itself in focusing on big ideas, not playing small ball with worthy but essentially trivial policy ideas for a White House, like introducing school uniforms or going after deadbeat dads. But a significant aspect of the Clinton presidency that George W. Bush and his advisers did embrace was the unprecedented pervasiveness of the permanent campaign and all its tactics. In hindsight, it is clear that the Bush White House was actually structured to emulate and extend this method of governing, albeit in its own way. The most obvious evidence that the Bush White House embraced the permanent campaign is the expansive political operation that was put in place from day one. Chief political strategist Karl Rove was given an enormous center of influence within the white House from the outset. This was only strengthened by Rove’s force of personality and closeness to the president. The permanent campaign also ensnares the media, who become complicit enablers of its polarizing effects. They emphasize conflict, controversy and negativity, focusing not on the real-world impact of policies and their larger, underlying truths but on the horse race aspects of politics – who’s winning, who’s losing, and why… The press amplifies the talking points of one or both parties in its coverage, thereby spreading distortions, half-truths, and occasionally outright lies in an effort to seize the limelight and have something or someone to pick on. And by overemphasizing conflict and controversy and by reducing complex and important issues to convenient, black-and-white story lines and seven-second sound bites the media exacerbate the problem, thereby making it incredibly hard even for well-intentioned leaders to clarify and correct the misunderstandings and oversimplifications that dominate the political conversation. Finally, it becomes much more difficult for the general public to decipher the more important truths amid all the conflict, controversy and negativity. For some partisans, that is fine because they believe they can maneuver better in such a highly politicized environment to accomplish their objectives. But the destructive potential of such excessively partisan warfare would later crystallize my thinking. When Bush was making up his mind to pursue regime change in Iraq, it is clear that his national security team did little to slow him down, to help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening and the potential risks in doing so. I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war – more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens dead – he would have never made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly. And though no one has a crystal ball, it’s not asking too much that a well-considered understanding of the circumstances and history of Iraq and the Middle East should have been brought into the decision-making process. The responsibility to provide this understanding belonged to the president’s advisers, and they failed to fulfill it. Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently the only adviser who even tried to raise doubts about the wisdom of war. The rest of the foreign policy team seemed to be preoccupied with regime change or, in the case of Condi Rice, seemingly more interested in accommodating the president’s instincts and ideas than in questioning them or educating him. An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. Most of the arguments used – especially those stated in prepared remarks by the president and in forums like Powell’s presentation at the UN Security Council in February 2003 – were carefully vetted and capable of being substantiated. But as the campaign accelerated, caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded. Evidence based on high confidence from the intelligence community was lumped together with intelligence of lesser confidence. A nuclear threat was added to the biological and chemical threats to create a greater sense of gravity and urgency. Support for terrorism was given greater weight by playing up a dubious al Qaeda connection to Iraq. When it was all packaged together, the case constituted a “grave and gathering danger” that needed to be dealt with urgently. To this day, the president seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for the war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged. The policy is the right one and history will judge it so, once a free Iraq is firmly in place and the Middle East begins to become more democratic. Bush clung to the same belief during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC News in early February 2004. The Meet the Press host asked, “In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity? “ The president said, “That’s an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It’s a war of necessity. In my judgment, we had no choice, when we look at the intelligence I looked at, that says the man was a threat.” I remember talking to the president about this question following the interview. He seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question. This, in turn, puzzled me. Surely this distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the United States could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one that Bush must have thought about in the months before the invasion. Evidently it wasn’t obvious to the president, nor did his national security team make sure it was. He set the policy early on and then his team focused his attention on how to sell it. It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did. Most objective observers today would say that in 2003 there was no urgent need to address the threat posed by Saddam with a large-scale invasion, and therefore the war was not necessary. But this is a question President Bush seems not to want to grapple with. I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. Had a high level of openness and forthrightness been embraced from the outset of his administration, I believe President Bush’s public standing would be stronger today. His approval ratings have remained at historic lows for so long because both qualities have been lacking to this day. In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security. All the president can do today is hope that his vision of Iraq will ultimately come true, putting the Middle East on a new path and vindicating his decision to go to war. I would welcome such a development as good for America, good for Iraq, and good for the world. Bush knows that posterity has a way of rewarding success over candor and honesty. But as history moves to render its judgment in the coming years and decades, we can’t gloss over the hard truths this book has sought to address and the lessons we can learn from understanding them better. Allowing the permanent campaign culture to remain in control may not take us into another unnecessary war, but it will continue to limit the opportunity for careful deliberation, bipartisan compromise, and meaningful solutions to the major problems all Americans want to see solved
Scott McClellan’s ConfessionMay 28, 2008 11:33 a.m.
![[Image]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BN228_mcclel_20080528092843.jpg)
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
“The Manipulation Is Disgusting”
“The manipulation is disgusting. “That’s Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association reacting to news reports that Merck & Company frequently paid academic scientists to put their names on research articles actually authored by the company’s own medical writers.
Two separate stories, published in this month’s JAMA, claim Merck frequently paid academic researchers to take credit for articles prepared by medical writers the company hired. The practice is called ghostwriting. It’s not new. But the extent to which Merck went to influence the interpretation and publication of research has come as a surprise even to those familiar with the ways of Pharma.
“We’re the ones who allowed this to happen. Now we’ve got to make it stop,” says Dr. DeAngelis.
Merck pleads innocent, saying that many of the comments in the JAMA reports were “false, misleading or lack context.”
Regardless, this is a black eye for Merck, and big Pharma in general.
Public mistrust of the Pharmaceutical industry is nothing new. In fact, Pharma’s image is so bad that when oil company executives are accused of price gouging and profiteering, they frequently try to change the subject by pointing out their profit margins pale in comparison to those of pharmaceutical companies. (It’s true. Pharma’s profit margins are almost triple those of oil companies. But that’s apples and oranges, and as they say, another story.)
What’s interesting here is that in all its maneuvering since the FDA pulled VIOXX off the market in 2004, Merck has done little to improve its image with the American public. It may be that anything even slightly apologetic would only come back to haunt Merck in the countless civil lawsuits from VIOXX users. Even so, one wonders why Merck remains so clueless about public perception.
Merck’s management, like that of most major corporations, fails to see value in managing public perception. They don’t understand that where public perception is concerned, guilt and innocence are irrelevant. The court of public opinion rules first and foremost on the appearance of impropriety.
Protecting oneself from the appearance of impropriety requires an outside-in approach. It means examining corporate issues and behaviors for any possible areas of misunderstanding, any potential negative story or scandal.
Good communicators are careful to say things in ways that people understand. Great communicators say things in ways that people never misunderstand.
Or, as Ben Franklin said, “It’s best to pursue life as a pessimist, prepared for the worst and over joyed when it does not occur.”
Welcome to my blog
Welcome.
For quite some time now, I’ve been encouraging clients to improve communications, both internally and externally, by writing a blog. Trouble is I never made the time to make blogging part of my communications. Recently, I was busted by one of my CEO clients who suggested my advice might carry greater weight if I actually took it myself.
So, to end that hypocrisy, here we go. I’ll use this space to share insights and lessons gathered from my consulting work. I’ll also provide my take on communications issues that challenge senior executives as they relate to the news of the day.
There’s a good lesson in today’s top political story … the continuing firestorm over Barack Obama’s comment about the attitudes of small town voters … “it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter,” said Obama at a fund raising event in San Francisco, “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”Obama’s apologized repeatedly, admits he should have been wiser in his choice of words because, “they were subject to misinterpretation … and I regret that deeply.”
It will be interesting to see just how much distance Hillary Clinton and John McCain can get out of Obama’s remark. But of greater interest to me is where Obama made the comments.
It was April 6th, at a “private” fund-raising event for deep pocketed Democrats in San Francisco. No Reporters aloud. The only people present were Obama campaign staffers and donors. Obama was engaged in what he thought, was a private, “off-the record” conversation. But as any executive who has ever worked with me knows … THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE RECORD!
Somebody at the event, likely using a mobile phone, recorded the Senator’s remarks. The recording made its way to the www.HuffingtonPost.com and the rest, as they say, is history.It’s hard to believe that someone as savvy as Barak Obama was caught off guard.The lesson here is one I stress to every executive I work with. There are only two places you can possibly conduct “private” conversations … your office, or your bedroom. If you’re anywhere else, consider yourself “fair game.” Mobile devices capable of recording audio and/or video have turned nearly every passerby into a potential paparazzi. Like Presidential candidates, executives must understand that constant public scrutiny is now part of the job description.
So remember, the new reality is that outside your office or your bedroom, people are always listening and might be recording … so be careful not to say anything you’d be uncomfortable hearing … or reading on the front page!