13 - The Power of Language
Discussions about the power of language often focus on the rousing speeches made by famous leaders, real of fictional, in addressing an audience on some momentous occasion. We seldom pause to consider the power of the language we use in everyday life.
Most day-to-day conversations are functional and casual. They are not carefully crafted, but entirely impromptu, delivered to a small group or even a single person. The speaker isn't looking to be grandiloquent, nor does he expect that his words will be recorded in history. But it is very often the things we say to people in day to day life that are well-remembered and influential.
Consider that we often have childhood memories of something that someone said in a casual moment that stuck with us for the rest of our lives. Very often a passing phrase that someone didn't think very much of at the time haunts us still - particularly when someone casually said something hurtful about us at an impressionable age. And the lessons we take from grandparents are not usually from the moments when they were attempting to impart wisdom, but from a casual remark they made when they may not have been aware we were listening.
Communication, especially casual communication, creates a bond between people that can have huge significance. What's more, it is daily conversations that shape our connections to others. It's particularly obvious when there are inconsistencies in the way in which a person speaks privately and the way they speak publicly - it becomes clear that their words are not always an honest representation of their thoughts.
(EN: It's not necessarily public speech. Some people, particularly older generations, attempt to fabricate a "professional" image by changing the way they speak - they seem very awkward, uncomfortable, and artificial when attempting to edit themselves on the fly. It becomes obvious that they are putting on a show and not being themselves, and they lose credibility.)
Active Listening
Switching for a moment to listening: the way in which you listen to someone also makes an impression. A person speaks to be heard, and when it is obvious others are not listening, whether they appear to be completely tuned-out, or they respond in a manner that does not account for what the other party has just said.
(EN: The problem here is that "active listening" is often not about listening at all, but about pretending to listen. Making eye contact, nodding, facing the other person, etc. are all cues that indicate a person is listening - but many people do these things and still do not listen.)
While the author has little to offer on the topic, she does indicate that listening is critical to communication - attempting to understand what the other person is saying without being judgmental. When two people are talking, but neither one is paying attention to what the other is saying, then communication is not taking place.
Brain Systems and Communication Styles
The author refers to a psychological model that suggests that people have two different brain systems - one that reacts quickly and without little thought, and another that reacts slowly with great deliberation.
The fast system is necessary for us to be able to react to threats, or to avoid expending much brainpower on routine tasks. Consider a person who is walking down a sidewalk - their body seems to be moving automatically, even though the activity of walking is quite intense: they have to maintain their course, avoid bumping into people and objects, and so on.
The slow system is necessary for us to act intelligently, paying close attention to where attention is necessary. Consider again the notion of walking, only this time an individual is walking on a narrow path on the side of a mountain, a space just a few feet wide that is on the edge of a precipice. Even though there are fewer obstacles and distractions than the sidewalk scenario, the mountain-walker is intensely engaged in the simple task of walking a straight line while keeping their balance.
People are most self-aware when they are in their slow system, and they consider that their personal identity is composed of the choices they make with great reasoning and deliberation. They seem to forget that other people are most familiar with their fast-system behaviors, which are done without much thought or attention. It is often the reason that peoples' self-image is much different to what others think of them.
It's also worth noting that the fast-system brain, which is engaged in casual everyday conversation, is not particularly effective or discerning. It is geared to completing tasks quickly and superficially, for ease of effort rather than accuracy or effectiveness. In effect, what we do without thinking is often done quite poorly.
The fast-mind can also be trained to be more effective, typically by practice. Back to the walking analogy, a mountain Sherpa can be very nimble and effortless when walking on narrow paths - because he has become accustomed to doing so. And in conversation, a person who has trained themselves to be attentive and courteous can do so without effort.
Animal Hierarchies
A bit of a diversion: the author speaks of the behavior he noticed in two stray dogs in a third-world country, where strays are known to be dangerous.
He notes that it was clear that one dog was the "top dog" and the other was the "underdog." The underdog was first to approach him, and when he pet the dog, the top dog charged over. The underdog moved away and allowed the top dog to interact with the human. The top dog was also friendly toward him and seemed to ignore the underdog, who retreated to a distance and assumed a passive posture.
Canine behavior has evolved over many thousands of years to ensure the survival of the species. The weaker members of a pack are subordinate to the stronger, reducing internal conflicts, and there are well established patterns of behavior - such as using low-rank animals to check for potential threats and then surrendering rewards to the higher-ranking animals.
He notes this is analogous to human behavior. Consider the behavior of a clerk and a manager in any retail store when dealing with a suspected shoplifter. The manager will send the clerk to greet the person, to take the risk that they may be a criminal, and will only step in once the clerk has ascertained whether the individual is a shoplifter or a customer who needs assistance.
The competition within the pack is also similar to human behavior, with people struggling against rivals to obtain positions of power and status. We may be more sophisticated and indirect in the way we go about it, but the basic behavior is essentially the same.
The problem is that, while human beings descended from animals and still have these traits in common, we no longer live in an environment of deprivation and constant threat. Many of our "animal instincts" are no longer necessary and can even be detrimental to interaction in non-survival situations. Yet we struggle to overcome them.
The interpretation of language
Another random topic: language is an imprecise medium, but its lack of precision is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is that language is flexible enough that it does not constrain our ability to communicate about new and unusual situations. The weakness is that it can be vague, such that what people hear may be different to what we intended to say.
The medium itself is imprecise in that messages are interpreted - the words themselves may have different meanings. They may also have different connotations to people of different cultures, even people who have different life experiences may interpret the same phrase differently. It's very easy to get it wrong.
Now add context: a person's situation and state of mind at any given moment may cause them to interpret the same message differently. A person who is in a foul mood may interpret a compliment as an insult, and we may find that we have exacerbated rather than soothed a conflict.
Then add nonverbal elements: people are attentive to accidental inconsistencies between the message, the tone of voice, the facial expression, the gestures, and the posture of the speaker.
Given these complexities, the authors finds it "extraordinary that the human mind is capable of making sense of it all."
But again, there are benefits to having a flexible language. If we were constrained to a fixed, unchanging, and precise language then we would have no method of describing anything that was not accounted for in the rules and structure of the language. We would be unable to discuss unexpected situations or new ideas. We would be unable to evolve.
Breadth and Depth of Perspective
We generally acknowledge that we should approach problems with breadth and depth rather than acting on the exigencies of the moment. The most effective course of action to solve the problem right away might harm more people than it helps or there may be negative consequences in the long-run because we did something hasty. And yet, we can be very myopic in our decisions, particularly the things we do casually and without much forethought because we assume them to be unimportant.
In organizations, there are individuals who have a goal to achieve and don't really care whom they might harm by doing what they feel needs to be done in the moment. They don't consider that they are making more enemies than friends, and offending more people than they impress. They may even be aware of it but feel that it is a good trade - that the people they harm are less important than the ones they help. They recognize their error only when they need to depend on the people they have abused for their own short-term interests.
(EN: I recall an article, or perhaps a chapter in a book, where the author spoke of "corporate sociopaths," which seems a misguided and melodramatic use of a clinical term. However, he was able to provide many examples in which the behavior of people in organizations very closely correlates to the diagnostic criteria for sociopathic disorder.)
He mentions the behavior of shoppers in a retail store, when they have the perception that supplies are limited. People who are normally mild-mannered and polite become self-centered and a bit vicious. Under stress, we tend to show our worst.
In terms of fear, this is another reason companies should avoid using it as a motivating factor: you don't get the best results when people are in panic mode.
Changing Conversations
The authors assert that "Changing the nature of conversations in organizations can be the single most powerful way to bring about an innovative mindset and performance breakthrough." From there, the rest of this section is succotash:
- Research indicates that high-performing teams communicate in open ways, and this leads to greater productivity and profitability, higher customer satisfaction, and greater job satisfaction.
- Conversation is the connective tissue of the organizational network. Without communication, it is no better than a group of individuals each doing their own thing, and in some instances it can be much worse when bad communication creates competition.
- In general, companies who have bad internal communication also have bad external communication, and their relationships with customers and suppliers is also strained.
- Meetings are scheduled and moderated conversations, and can be used to develop patterns of communication that will bleed over into spontaneous interactions. This can be for better or for worse.
- Formal rules/procedures for meetings may be necessary if communications are contentious. Rules should encourage openness, mutual respect, ensuring that everyone has input, being tolerant of diverse ideas, etc.
- Getting things done quickly should not come at the cost of building rapport that will facilitate future interactions. When people feel a sense of trust and fair play, their interactions will be more fluid and collaborative. When rapport is sacrificed, every encounter is less productive and takes more time.
- Some random tips for building rapport: match the tone of voice and speed of speech, use the same vocabulary, repeat key terms when answering a question or adding to someone else's contribution, matching posture and gestures, use peoples' names, asking relevant questions, and acknowledge their good ideas.
- Be careful about trying to create an impression. Be yourself. People will be able to detect when you are putting on airs, if only subconsciously, and will perceive you as being dishonest or having a hidden agenda.
- A conversation and a lecture are two different things. If you are the only one speaking and not genuinely listening to what others have to say, you are giving a lecture. This tends to alienate other people rather than include them.
- Conversation is also open. The ultimate goal is to come to a common understanding, but if one party dominates while the other capitulates, it turns into a lecture and the results are less effective and less acceptable.
- An effective communicator is attentive to the listener, recognizing when his message is getting across and adjusting on the fly. Good communication is more about improvising than having a detailed plan.
- Any group discussion can benefit from having a moderator - a person who does not have anything to gain, and whose function is to make sure that the participants in the group all contribute and play fairly with one another.
Nonverbal Communication
While we are often focused on the words we are speaking, they are only part of the message. We communicate with one another through various other methods: the tone of voice and rate of speech, our facial expressions, our gestures, our postures, and various other elements. When we know a person well, we can often have a conversation without uttering a word.
When we don't know a person well, we often notice their nonverbal signals, particularly in the manner in which they support or contradict the words they are speaking. We trust in people and have confidence in them if the two are aligned. In other instances, the nonverbal component adds richness to a message, communicating the emotional state of the speaker, their attitude toward us, and the attitude they have about the subject they are discussing.
Body language is inevitable - we transmit these signals without being aware that we are doing so, and often cannot stop ourselves from communicating nonverbally.
Recently, body language has been the topic of much research, as leaders seek to gain an edge by controlling their body language. However, much of this research is needless and even harmful. When we behave naturally, our body language generally supports what we are saying - and only in rare cases (such as being nervous when delivering a speech) does our natural body language become an obstacle that undermines the effectiveness of communication.
Very often, those who seek to control body language are up to no good. They are attempting to become more effective at lying (to control the "tells" that make it obvious to others), or seeking a psychological edge to dominate and bully others on a subconscious level. (EN: I've also noticed a number of passive-aggressive types who are constantly accusing others of being dishonest by calling attention to nonverbal signals - even suggesting they sent signals that they did not.)
The author mentions that there is a less sinister motive to being aware of nonverbal, and that is cross-cultural communication. When doing business overseas, it is suggested that adopting the nonverbal conventions of the other culture is respectful. (EN: This has also been debated. When dealing with a foreigner, there's always a level of forgiveness for their not knowing your ways. Mimicking foreign body language is in some instances as condescending as mimicking foreign accents, particularly because people so often exaggerate or get it wrong. Good advice seems to be that one should be aware of differences when interpreting the communication of others, and be attentive to the way in which they might misinterpret you - but don't mimic them.)
Metadiscourse
Metadiscourse is the practice of "talking about talking." It is generally a good practice, particularly when you are not certain that you understood the other person or that they have understood you. It is always better to ask than assume. A few examples ...
- It sounded like you were angry about ...
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by ...
- Am I correct in thinking you meant ...
So long as it does not interrupt the conversation, or seem that you are condescending to the other person, metadiscourse can help to avoid misunderstandings. These questions also give the other person that you are paying close attention to the conversation - that you want to understand them correctly and make sure they understand you.
Loose Bits
There were some loose observations that did not fit into the sections where the author mentioned them, but were nonetheless interesting.
- Silence is an often neglected part of communication. Remaining silent when others are speaking is basic etiquette - to do otherwise is to convey disrespect. But silence can also be used communicatively - to convey uncertainty or disbelief, or in some instances disapproval.
- Asking closed-ended questions is a dominance tactic - they prevent people from having any real input into the conversation. It's better to ask open-ended question that give others an opportunity to contribute to the conversation, not just react to your statements.
- Cultural values are often expressed through the everyday language people use. In the US, everyday conversation is peppered with references to money and sports competition. In the UK, there are a lot of phrases that are about houses and real estate. On a personal level, the idioms tell much about the interests and experiences of a person.
- Be careful of mixing sensory metaphors. Responding to a visual metaphor with an audio metaphor or a tactile one gives a sense of disconnection. Responding to "Do you see what I mean?" with "I hear you loud and clear" is awkward.