The 7%, 38%, 55% Myth

You may be familiar with the above statistics which are regularly rolled out by communication trainers to make the point that tonality (38%) and body language/facial expressions (55%) are important in getting your message across. The irony is that people, who I believe should know better, are promoting a myth by quoting statistics without knowing what they mean.

Think about it. If verbal communication only accounts for 7% of a message then we could all communicate by mime, charades would be easy and we could watch foreign language films with the sub-titles turned off.

Try this: Turn to a friend or colleague and try to communicate without words, “I feel deeply about global warming because I feel as humans we have a responsibility to our environment and the generations that follow us.” It’s not possible but according to some so-called specialists we should be able to get 93% of this message across.

Words are very important, they create meaning. We can use words to inspire, motivate and to reframe toxic or unresourceful mindsets. As a professional speaker and executive coach I would be lost without words.

The Truth about Tonality and Facial Expression

I am grateful for ad article published in Anchor Point by Dr. C. E. “Buzz” Johnson who investigated the origin of the the 7-38-55% myth.

The originator of the 7-38-55 theory was Albert Mehrabian, Ph.D of UCLA. He speaks of it in two books, Silent Messages published in 1971, and Nonverbal Communications published in 1972. In these two books, he refers to research projects which were published in various professional journals.  .

Mehrabrian was interested in how we decode inconsistent messages such as whether we like or dislike something and found that the facial component of communication carried a 2/3 waiting to the verbal 1/3.  Consider having to say you like your hosts cooking when it tastes like burnt rubber.

The Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, Vol. 31. No. 3 contains a description of an experiment using the neutral word “Maybe”.

Three female speakers were tape recorded saying that word while varying their tone of voice so as to communicate three different attitudes (i.e., like, neutral, and dislike) towards an imagined addressee. Then the tapes were listened to by 17 female subjects with instructions to imagine that the speaker is saying this word to another person and judged by the tones what the speaker’s attitude is towards that imaginary addressee. So there was no direct feedback by anyone who was being addressed. It was a number of third-party listeners who were asked to mind-read, guess, interpret, imagine, etc., how the speaker felt towards someone who wasn’t even there and, in fact, didn’t even exist. There was no way to see or hear the reactions of this phantom individual, about whom someone was going to make several long-lasting and powerful speculations.

Next, black and white photographs were taken of three female models as they attempted to use facial expressions to communicate like, neutrality, and dislike towards another person. Then photos were shown to the same 17 subjects with the instructions that they would be shown the pictures and at the same time hear a recording of the word “maybe” spoken in different tones of voice. “You are to imagine that the person you see and hear (A) is looking at and talking to another person (B).” For each presentation they were to indicate on a rating scale what they thought A’s attitude was toward B. Again, third-party mind-reading with no direct contact with the person addressed, B, because that person was non-existent. The conclusions from this experiment were that the facial components were stronger than the vocal by the ratio of 3/2. This research combined with another from the Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 1967, Vol. 6, No. 1 on Decoding of Inconsistent Communications created the .07, .38, and .55 coefficients.

Improving your Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication

Remember the research projects were limited to a single word not words but when communicating we must remember that our facial expressions and tone give listeners clues as to how to decode our message.

The old addage – “It’s not what you say it’s how you say it.” Should be updated to, “It’s what you say AND how you say it.”

To get you message across; get your facts right, make a connection between your facts and what they mean to you and your audience, and let your face and hands show you believe it.

If you are interested in developing your communication or presentation skills you can visit www.selfleadership.com.sg

In 1990 Peter Senge published a book that has become a classic, a book that most people in leadership and management roles in business, most who consult or coach within organizations, and those who seek to stay on the cutting edge of business have read.  I’m speaking, of course, about the book The Fifth Discipline. The theme and central focus of this book is on learning to think and work systemically.

Senge was convinced that the key to business success rested in five disciplines, which when synergized by leaders and managers, will launch an organization or business into a creative mode and take it to a whole new level of effectiveness.  Like the five critical component technologies that came together in 1935 for the McDonnell Douglas DC-3 and which ushered in the era of commercial air travel— Senge argued that the five components he discovered would create great companies.

What are those five components?  Systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning.  Together “each provides a vital dimension in building organizations that can truly ‘learn,’ that can continually enhance their capacity to realize their highest aspirations” (p. 6).  Then unlike most contemporary organizations that are reactive, companies can become responsive or even generative.

Senge focuses on enabling companies to become “learning organizations.”  He writes about organizations going beyond the old traditional hierarchical structures to an enlivening vision, people collaborating and experiencing team learning, a whole new level of openness, and leadership that evolves beyond being politically power oriented.  Now does that sound like self-actualization or the self-actualizing leaders and companies that I describe in Unleashing Leadership? That’s what I also thought!   The Fifth Discipline is about self-actualization in organizations.

Yet because Senge did not use the term self-actualization or frame things in terms of moving beyond Theory X to Theory Y of management, I did not make the connection.  In spite of not using the language, throughout the work the vision and premises of self-actualization psychology informs his argument for the emergence of a whole new kind of organization— self-actualizing organizations.

In fact, for Senge “systems thinking” and “personal mastery” are two of his expressions for self-actualization.  What I suddenly now realize in re-reading The Fifth Discipline is that “personal mastery” in this model is what we call “self-actualization” in Maslow’s model!  Here’s my evidence.

Senge described “personal mastery” as a high level of proficiency in an area that deeply matters to you.  And to develop that level of mastery, you need to do two things: 1) Clarify what’s truly important to you and 2) See current reality more clearly. (p. 141).  Senge says that personal mastery goes beyond competence.

“It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth.  It means approaching one’s life as a creative work, living life from a creative as opposed to reactive viewpoint.” (p. 141)

In an amazing paragraph where he described people of personal mastery, Senge’s description sounds very, very similar to how Maslow described self-actualizing people.

“People with a high level of personal mastery share several basic characteristics.  They have a special sense of purpose that lies behind their visions and goals.  For such a person, a vision is a calling rather than simply a good idea. They see ‘current reality’ as an ally, not an enemy.  They have learned how to perceive and work with forces of change rather than resist those forces.  They are deeply inquisitive, committed to continuing seeing reality more and more accurately.  They feel connected to others and to life itself.  Yet they sacrifice none of their uniqueness.  They feel as if they are part of a larger creative process, which they can influence but cannot unilaterally control.

“People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode.  They never ‘arrive.’ … Personal mastery is not something you possess.  It is a process.  It is a lifelong discipline.  People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas.” (p. 142)

“People with high levels of personal mastery are more committed.  They take more initiative.  They have a broader and deeper sense of responsibility in their work.  They learn faster.  For all these reasons, a great many organizations espouse a commitment to fostering personal growth among their employees because they believe it will make the organization stronger.” (p. 143)

And systems thinking?  Senge describes this as “contemplating the whole as a pattern,” being able to see the unity of snapshots of isolated parts and how they work together.  He describes the building blocks of systems thinking as feedback loops and delays in the system and from there the recognition of patterns that arise that indicate specific kinds of systems (archetypes).

When we apply systems thinking to human beings, we recognize that our experiences are made up of multiple systems—our mind-body system, our meaning-making system, our neuro-semantic system.  And within these systems are reinforcing processes, limiting processes, balancing (stabilizing) processes.  And as in a business or political system, we also experience problems at various levels.  Some of our problems are mere symptoms of the system rather than the fundamental causes.  That’s why the symptoms keep resurfacing over time.  That’s why “solutions” which work at one level or for the short-term, never actually takes care of the real problem.

So what do we discover when we “contemplate the whole” and look for patterns in human beings?  We discover that there is within us an inner drive to self-actualize and that this is itself our most fundamental inner dynamic system.  This is our primary system for growing, developing, and actualizing our highest meanings and performances.  And Self-Actualization Psychology is the psychology that describes this whole.

It is more than a year ago that I walked through the door of the Self Leadership International office for the first time. I was a young graduate of psychology, coming all the way from Romania to learn about training and leadership development in Singapore; with very little idea of what my internship will bring about.

Now, one year later, I can whole heartedly say that it was the greatest learning experience of my life.

Not only did I learn tremendously in the area of leadership development, but even more importantly I developed myself imensely on a personal level. I can’t possibly name all the things I learnt, as it would be a post too long for anyone to read…but I do want to share with you three of the most important ones:

1. The importance of open and honest communication

A lot of companies actually have this somewhere in their guidelines, but in the Self Leadership office this was indeed a ground rule. And it was great to realize how saying things openly and directly can make so much of a difference in my working relationships, in the way I related to my colleagues and in the overall atmosphere in the office.

It also leads to no politics, as everybody knows pretty much everything and there is no need to hide anything. Plus, the most powerful breakthrough for me was to start saying what I thought, even if I was afraid. I especially refer to giving negative feedback or to stating opinions contrary to the others.

I was asked to comment on the statement, “NLP is dangerous as it pigeon holes people and their behaviour.” The author of the statement feels as NLP is based on models and assumptions and a certain set of conditions then the user of that model cannot understand its limitations and the assumptions made.

It is a truism that people fear what they don’t understand and the statement show little or no knowledge of Neurolinguistic Programming or NLP for short.

NLP is Language

NLP evolved as a model of language. The conditions of that modeling were the observation of effective therapists such as Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Milton Erickson. These therapists were able to create transformations in the thinking, feeling and behaviours of their patients through just conversation. Richard Bandler (a student of computer science) and John Grinder ( a linguistics professor) were curious about how changing language creates change and came to the conclusion that language is the software of the mind.

The first model of NLP is the Meta Model, which is a series of challenging questions to ill-formed sentences. For example, if someone says, “She makes me angry!” we can ask, “Who is she?” “What is it that she does that causes you to choose to feel angry?” “Does this always happen?” “What if it didn’t always happen?” “What might you choose to do instead?”

Through the use of the Meta Model we are able to bring awareness to the individual about how they have re-presented reality and then languaged that representation. This last sentence highlights a principle of NLP that pre-dates its founders and goes back to Alfred Korzybski , who said “The map is not the territory.” More simply put we respond not to reality (the physical world) but to our mental map of reality or how we perceive the physical world. This is demonstrated when you interview two or more witnesses to an event such as a car crash, each witness represents the event through their own perception and creates their own representation of the event.

Building on this principle the founders of NLP discovered that different people had different preferences as to how they pay attention to the physical world. Some people pay more attention to visual information, some to auditory information, some to Kinethetic (sensation) information and some people emphasise their thinking about the information and so respond only rationally or logically (Auditory Digital response).

NLP builds rapport and communication

This information is useful in building rapport and increasing communication effectiveness. If someone prefers visual information and you spend your time telling them about your idea, you will be less effective than if you show them some pictures or charts.
How we filter and then respond to information is known as a Meta Program. The representational Meta Program I have just described is the first of sixty such cognitive filters that advanced students of NLP and its newest development, Neuro Semantics, have available to understand how people operate.

It has been my experience that when people are first introduced to NLP and the representation system, they may over generalise and make pidgeon holing statements such as, “oh he is a kinesthetic so that’s why he behaves like that.” I can fully appreciate how such a statement might lead to some incredulity on the validity of NLP, but to label NLP ineffective base on such a novice expression is akin to labelling Einstein Theory of relativity invalid on a high school student’s inability to explain a physics experiment.

In my last paragraph I just demonstrated two techniques of NLP, pacing and metaphor. Pacing is used to establish rapport by agreeing with some element of a person’s representation of the world and metaphor is used carry over meaning from one context to another to create a new meaning.

So is NLP dangerous and does it pidgeon hole people?

“Dangerous to who and how? ”

NLP is a Model

NLP is a model of human thinking and communication; it is based on several principles that include: the map is not the territory, people are not broken – they work perfectly well (according to their maps) and that behind every behaviour is a positive intention.
Is it dangerous to want to understand how people are representing their reality, to acknowledge that they are not broken and therefore have the resources to see the world anew, or to want to understand intention so that behaviours create the result required?

I don’t think so.

Can NLP be misused and misrepresented by novices or by those bent on doing evil? Then the answer is yes. This is also true of money and power which can be forces for good and evil.  My personal belief is that ignorance breeds evil, ignorance of the outcome of our behaviours. In NLP we have a safeguard for such ignorance; it is known as the ecology frame. The ecology frame asks the question, “will this thought/action be useful, safe and beneficial for self and others, in the short and long term?”

What if our politicians were to ask such ecology questions? Now then the world would be a safer place

If you want to learn NLP visit out website and learn how to become an NLP Master Practitioner.

I have defined Self leadership as having a developed sense of who you are, what you can do, where you are going coupled with the ability to manage your communication,  emotions and behaviour on the way to getting there. Another definitions is, “the process by which you influence yourself to achieve your objectives.”

Self leadership equates to the leadership competencies of Self Observation and Self Management but most importantly Self-leadership impacts all aspect of  your life, your health, your career and your relationships.

Listen to Self leadership podcastFor Self leadership to occur we have met our survival needs of food and shelter and begin to look for meaning in our lives. The first skill of self leadership is to STOP and STEP BACK from the things that trigger us to react; because when we react we are being controlled by the trigger. The second skill is to consider our INTENTION. Intention is what is important to us, our values and what we are trying to achieve. By being intentional we can start to live a life of choice.

The above diagram can serve as simple illustration of the points of leverage for developing our self leadership. Intention precedes any behaviour (action). Actions have effects which we evaluate via feedback. A difference between the expected outcome (intention) and the feedback causes us to feel emotions. The meanings we make of these emotions can reinforce, reduce or distort our intentions.

To make sense of this in your own life, consider something you are trying to achieve right now such as getting healthy, increasing your wealth or developing a relationship.

Start with translating your intentions into appropriate actions.

• What is it you want to achieve?
• What actions do you need to take to achieve this?

Once action has been taken it is necessary to be receptive to the feedback that the world will give in response to your action/s. The quality of the feedback is essential – the sooner you receive it, the sooner you can make adjustments. Beware your conditioned filters that might cause you to interpret feedback as criticism or to be selective about what you take notice of.

• What are the results of your actions?
• Is this feedback accurate?
• Am I filtering the feedback?

The feedback we receive causes us sensations/emotions from which we make meaning.

• What am I feeling?
• What does this mean?
• What else could this mean?

By asking these self coaching questions you pave the way for a rapid feedback loop that will enable you to make the adjustments required in your communication/behaviour to achieve your outcome. If problems arise start first by checking your intention, then your behaviour, then the feedback and finally your emotions.

(This blog is copyright Andrew Bryant. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

NLP allows you to do jut this because NLP (Neuro linguistic program) is an instruction manual on how to run your own brain. It also allows us to communicate effectively with others even if they have a different software configuration.‘Neuro’ refers to our mind-body system and recognises that communication is so much more than words. When we give or receive information our neurology and our physiology is affected. We re-present reality on the screen of our mind.

‘Linguistic’ refers to the way that words create meanings when they are used to communicate. Humans are meaning making machines and are eager to make ‘sense’ of any communication. In the urgency to make meanings from events or communication, dis-empowering conclusions are often drawn.

‘Programming’ infers that we can take control of this process and run it more effectively, just like computer software. With NLP, if something is not working for you it is possible to re-program your neurology and physiology to behave in a different and more empowering way.

The term Neuro Linguistic has been around since the 1930′s but in the late 1960′s and early 70′s Richard Bandler and John Grinder modeled some the language patterns of three effective therapists (Satir, Perls and Erickson) and coined the term Neurolinguistic Programming or NLP for short.

NLP is essentially a model of learning and demonstrates that we can model human thinking, behaviour and communication.

Initially the Neuro Linguisitic Programming model was used in therapy, but today NLP has many applications:

* NLP for business
* NLP for sales
* NLP for coaching
* NLP for communication
* NLP for training and education
* NLP for personal development

NLP takes a very different attitude from some of the old psychologies. In NLP, we do not start from the assumption that people are broken and need to be fixed; instead, in NLP, we assume the opposite – that people work perfectly well, that they have all the resources that they need, and that the only problem isn’t with them, but with their programming which can be changed (updated).

NeuroSemantics is a new model of NLP that emerged in 1995, but more about this in another post.

(This blog is copyright Andrew Bryant. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)