4
Dealing with the unsaid stuff
Ensuring maximum leverage from your non-verbal communication

We have all heard the statistics about how much of our communication is non-verbal. Some researchers say that up to 90 per cent of communication is non-verbal. Regardless of the validity and reliability of these statistics, two things are certain: we absolutely communicate with others without speaking, and non-verbal communication makes a huge difference to how a message is both sent and received.

The correct use of non-verbal communication techniques is a game-changer in tough-stuff conversations. We can achieve great levels of clarity through our language; there is little doubt that an array of well-positioned phrases and key words will get us better outcomes in the key conversations. But we can undo all of this with an incorrect or inopportune use of our eyes, hands or body posture at a critical point. Non-verbal communication is like baker's yeast: all of the base ingredients can be present, but the end product can rise to great heights or fall flat if the non-verbal component is left out of the mix.

Non-verbal communication

Human beings have an incredible capacity to identify and gauge situations based on reading non-verbal communication and body language. We know that a large percentage of our communication happens non-verbally, and yet very few of us are conscious of how our body language affects a conversation.

The world's pre-eminent non-verbal specialist is, we believe, Michael Grinder. Having conducted more than four decades of specialised research into behavioural dynamics in and around education, and more than 6000 individual classroom observations of teachers' non-verbal communication, Michael is quite simply ‘the man' when it comes to understanding how to establish the difference between using non-verbal communication effectively and using it ineffectively. We strongly encourage you to visit his website at www.michaelgrinder.com and attend one of his workshops or read one of his books. Without question it will change how you communicate with others — for the better.

Approachable versus credible

Our hands are incredibly powerful in our spoken conversation for a couple of reasons, and those reasons are mainly around our voice control. Why are we talking about non-verbal communication techniques, when we are about to talk about voice tones? The fact is that our hands and our head (non-verbal) drive the type of voice tone we use (verbal). Not only is it fascinating, it has a huge impact on how you deliver a key message.

When we speak with our hands up (particularly coupled with a moving or bobbing head), our voice tends to finish on an upwards inflection and the result is a bouncy voice pattern. This is called an ‘approachable' voice pattern. It's the voice pattern we use when building rapport or when meeting someone for the first time. It's a ‘hey-there-nice-to-meet-you' voice pattern that is very likeable. Next time you do a bit of people-watching, take note.

When our hands are down and our head stays still and back on our shoulders, we deliver a different voice pattern: the ‘credible' voice pattern. Two things happen when the credible voice pattern is engaged: our voice tone dips at the end of sentences, and we tend to pause more often and breathe more deeply. This produces a serious, measured voice pattern that is eminently believable. In fact, when the credible voice pattern is used effectively you can be talking nonsense and people still want to believe you!

A useful analogy when considering approachable and credible voice patterns is taking a trip on a plane. The pilot uses the credible voice tone: ‘This is your captain speaking', whereas the cabin staff use an approachable voice tone: ‘We hope you have a pleasant flight'. It would be disconcerting if the two were swapped, wouldn't it? We don't care too much if the pilot is a people person — we just want to know everything is under control. On the other hand, we want the cabin staff to be engaging and approachable rather than abrupt and serious.

According to Grinder, a lot of men struggle with approachability because they traditionally tend to talk with their hands down. Women, on the other hand, can sometimes struggle for credibility. This is because most women naturally use a facing-up hand position when they are talking, so they tend to talk approachably. It is easy to see how this can be a double-edged sword. Sometimes you are seen as too harsh (using credible instead of approachable), while at other times you may be viewed as flaky (using approachable when credible was needed).

Let's look at an example of voice tones at work. Have you ever dealt with someone on the phone over a period of time, and finally you meet them face to face and say, ‘You are so different from what I expected!'? Generally speaking, we use credible voice tone while on the phone. Our hands are down (on the computer or writing) and our head is still (it has to be because we're on the phone), so we end up using a credible voice tone. Then, when we finally meet, we tend to use an approachable tone because that's natural when first meeting or greeting someone. This is why someone can seem so different when we change from phone to face-to-face communication.

When considering the use of approachable-versus-credible voice patterns in the tough-stuff conversations, assess whether your primary focus is on being taken seriously — if so, use the credible voice pattern — or on building rapport, in which case you should use the approachable voice pattern.

Making your point

In chapter 3 we looked in detail at how to depersonalise tough-stuff conversations by using behaviour-based language rather than trait-based language — this works incredibly well to help you separate the person from the behaviour, while achieving clarity. When this strategy is used alongside the correct non-verbal patterns, however, your success moves to a whole new level.

In delivering our Dealing with the Tough Stuff training program to thousands of people across Australia and North America, we educate participants on the effect of our non-verbal communication methods on personalising and depersonalising a conversation. Most people have an a-ha moment. Usually that's for three reasons:

  • It just makes sense.
  • We realise we have been educated the wrong way.
  • It isn't difficult to remedy.

A closer examination of non-verbal communication, in particular where we direct our conversation, reveals four points of communication that we use every day. Primarily driven by the direction of our eyes, these four points have a considerable impact on how verbal messages are sent and received. Let's look at each of them in detail.

One-point communication

One-point communication is typically when our eyes look downwards into our personal space. This form of communication usually accompanies reflective practice: for example, when we say, ‘The other day I was thinking to myself' we almost always drop our eyes and look into our personal space.

One-point communication serves us well for clearing the slate — that is, moving from closing off one section of information to starting the next. Next time you watch a television newsreader, observe how they look down at one point between news stories.

One-point communication is a very effective strategy for leading staff members to reflect on their actions. In using one-point communication, we do not enforce personal judgement, but when role-modelled effectively, one-point communication allows the other person to reflect on themselves.

Two-point communication

Two-point communication is characterised (particularly in the Western world) by the use of direct eye contact. It should not be simply defined as eye contact alone, though. A better definition would be ‘looking into someone else's space'. In most Western workplace cultures two-point communication takes place as an eye-contact scenario. If you are having conversations with people from certain cultures, such as some Indigenous Australian and some Asian cultures, you may not find as much direct eye contact, owing to cultural norms, but two-point communication is still taking place. Regardless of the cultural role of direct or indirect eye contact, two-point communication is looking into another's space.

Two-point communication is the most personal communication, and it is mostly used for positive exchange. Yet we tend to overuse two-point communication, especially when we are having the tough-stuff conversations. In fact we've been taught to look the person in the eye and deliver our message. And yet, given the rapport nature of this point of communication, this is how tough conversations become personalised very quickly.

Three-point communication

Three-point communication is where the speaker and the listener both ‘share' an independent visual medium. For example, they both look at a whiteboard, or they both look at the agenda for the team meeting. By doing this, they do not look into each other's space (eye contact or two-point communication), but use a shared space to conduct the conversation.

Three-point communication helps us to talk about ‘it' rather than talk about ‘you', and directs the conversation towards a process, which depersonalises the conversation.

Four-point communication

When we use four-point communication we're referring to something that is not present. In four-point communication our eyes usually look up-and-out, or up-and-behind, signalling something outside of the space that we're currently in, off into the distance. For example, if we were to mention how great it would be to double our profits next year, we would use four-point communication because what you hope for hasn't been achieved yet.

The game-changer

‘I don't know why they took it so personally? It was just a work conversation …'

If you have ever uttered this phrase, then we suggest you probably communicated the information using a two-point communication process, where you were giving negative or challenging feedback and probably using direct eye contact.

By using two-point communication, or direct eye contact — the most personal communication medium — the person on the receiving end has no other way to take the message than personally!

Here's the problem. We were taught, ‘Look them in the eye: it shows them you're serious, it's respectful'. And, ‘If you can't look them in the eye, then you're lying' or, worse still, ‘you're a coward'. There are many other social rules that are not founded on science or even on simple cause and effect.

Using two-point communication as your dominant medium when communicating the tough stuff is likely to lead to escalated conflict or personal anguish.

Direct eye contact in tough conversations simply doesn't work. View the cause and effect and it is easy to leave it behind and move to a much better form of communication.

Using three-point communication is the better alternative for tough-stuff conversations.

The single greatest effect that using the three-point method in the tough stuff achieves is creating a sense of distance from the issue. Both the speaker and the listener are allowed to refer to the problem rather than the person. It's incredibly powerful in achieving behaviour change, which is the aim of the tough-stuff conversation.

When it comes to addressing the tough stuff at work, here's the golden rule: have more of the tough-stuff conversations using three-point communication and fewer using the two-point.

We understand that this can be enormously challenging. For some readers our suggestions will compete with a lifetime of learnt behaviour, but sometimes we can get very good at something that actually doesn't serve us well.

The most comfortable place for a tough-stuff conversation to take place is in the three-point medium because it allows you to stay calm — and it allows the other party to stay calm as well. Both are critical states to stay in, in order to achieve an effective outcome.

Watch the contamination

Whenever we're conducting a tough-stuff conversation, we're at risk of contaminating a space — of corrupting it by contact or association. There's always an element of infecting a space when we have less-than-great conversations. Interestingly, the contaminated space can be both physical and personal at the same time. That means you have a choice: which space do you choose to contaminate?

If you use two-point communication, you contaminate the personal space. If you have eyeballed someone while giving negative feedback, the result is usually people walking down hallways trying not to look each other in the eye because the personal space has been contaminated by two-point, and therefore unsatisfactory, tough-stuff conversations. If you have given someone both barrels in your office, they may avoid coming into your office in the future — they will stand in the hallway beyond your door, but they won't step in. It's because you have contaminated the space.

If you use three-point communication, you contaminate only the shared visual space, so three-point is the best place to conduct the conversation.

Grounded in science

Our confidence in three-point communication being a real game-changer is not based simply on our own observations and teachings, nor is it based on four decades of study by Michael Grinder. Its value is also backed by science.

When we use two-point communication, we engage our emotional brain more rapidly, and as a direct result our long-term memory storage also. These bodily responses are fantastic for positive conversations, but they are not productive for the tough-stuff conversations. We all want to be remembered for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.

Studies show that direct eye contact automatically raises our heart rate and our metabolism. Our pupils dilate, our temperature rises and our cortisol (stress hormone) levels rise. There is a lot of chaos starting in our bodies when eye contact takes place.

What is the one thing we look for when leading a conversation that's crucial? The ability to stay calm: three-point communication helps you (and the other person) stay calm.

Conclusion

Non-verbal communication can strengthen or prevent even the best theory from being practised successfully. Conversely, when you use your eyes, body and hands consciously you can take the same theory and get outstanding results. Yet even with the promise of extraordinary results, many people ignore working on their non-verbal patterns in favour of their existing behavioural patterns. Changing the way you use your non-verbal patterns with others will feel strange. For some readers it may go against decades of learnt behaviour. Our request to you is to examine whether your current non-verbal pattern usage is getting you the best possible results. If not, it's time for a change. When you couple the correct non-verbal means of communication with the learning from the rest of this book, your success rate in dealing with the tough stuff will be incredibly high — you will become a leader worth following.