Mis-use of Mehrabian statistics

Do not mis-represent the Mehrabian statistics on non-verbal communication

I would be very surprised if some presenter has not trotted out Mehrabian's statistics about not verbal communication is only 7% of the communication.

99 times out of a 100, when I hear this, the person talking is using the research out of context and mis-representing it.

Typically they draw a circle and say that only 7% of communication is verbal, 38% is how it is said and 55 % is visual.

Then they say that this applies to all communication!

They are talking rubbish.

If you want to de-bunk it quickly, ask them to tell you the time without saying anything?

You can't (unless they show you their watch).

The actual experiment was about about communicating feelings and emotions. Not facts. It fact the experiment only used SINGLE words that carried an emotional context and looked for congruence between the word, voice and face.

Note FACE only. NOT the whole body as many claim.

The actual work concluded:
· Words
· Voice/Tone
· Face and expression
Total liking = 7% verbal liking + 38% vocal liking + 55% facial liking

The work was actually about feelings and attitudes. Not Facts.

What the peddlers of the urban myth version of Mehrabian’s statistical story don’t make clear – or perhaps don’t know themselves – is that Mehrabian’s research was concerned with a very specific, and limited, aspect of nonverbal communication – it’s not about communication in general.

His work relates only to inconsistent messages about feelings and attitudes, that is, face-to-face exchanges in which the meaning of what we say is contradicted by our body language and tone of voice.

Mahravian himself says in a later paper, “Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable."

You can find a useful reference to his papers on wiki-paedia. I strongly recommend that if you are going to refer to these statistics then
a) read the original work
b) ensure you refer to single emotional words when explaining it.

Please please please, only ever use these statistics in context, or don't quote them at all.

Don't get me wrong. Non-verbals do matter. Congruence does matter. Belief in the information does matter. Confidence in your story, does matter. A good presented will put emotion and expression into what they say. But please don't miss use these statistics to make the point. It will undermine your credibility with those in the know.

Phil Jones
Author
Communicating Strategy

When communicating strategy, sometimes you just have to be yourselk

If you are not a natural presenter, just be yourself...

Recently I was working in an insurance company and one of the top directors was an Actuary. I don't know if you know many actuary jokes, but most centre on them not being great communicators. Typically,

"How do you tell an extrovert actuary? He is looking at YOUR shoes!"

This gentleman was presenting the company strategy and direction to a group of 180 staff. He had his powerpoint presentation, but was honest enough to say at the start that the last time he presented he got some feedback. It was simply to be yourself and just talk to us.

So he did. He simply sat in a chair at the front of the group, put down his papers and started talking about the company, the environment, the financial situation, solvency, pressures, take-overs and the future. It was as if he was chatting across the dinner table.

What was delightful about this was that he was being himself. he was talking to friends and telling things as he saw it. It wasn't a "Professional" presentation in the sense of well prepared, slick, big messages, but it was far better than that. After 20 minute "conversation" he decided to wrap up by running through the slides he had prepared (or had had prepared). He did these in 10 minutes, skipping over the "say nothing" slides and only picking up the salient points that he may have missed from the slides that had graphs, figures and real content.

It was an object lesson in conversational presentation. He treated the audience as peers and colleagues and allowed then to ask him questions in the same way.

Most importantly you knew he was telling the whole story as he saw it in an honest and open way. I think he communicated the strategy as well as any I have seen. A lesson in congruence, integrity and openness when communicating the strategy.

Phil Jones
Author, Communicating Strategy
http://www.communicating-strategy.com/