You may not recognise the name, but Albert Mehrabian authored some of the most famous studies in communications research. His most well-known hypothesis: When two people communicate face-to-face, how much of the meaning
is communicated verbally, and how much is communicated non-verbally?
First published in 1971, his research is almost a quaint idea today, considering that a lot of organisational and personal communications uses decidedly non-face-to-face methods of social media.
Despite using Twitter, Facebook, blogs to communicate (and I’m as guilty of it as anyone), there's something in Mehrabian’s research that continues to fascinate.
He concluded there are three parts to face-to-face communications – sometimes called the 3 V’s – and these three elements determine how much a receiver “likes” the speaker:
- Visual, or body and facial expressions, accounting for 55% of the liking
- Vocal, or tone of voice, accounting for 38% of the liking
- Verbal, or words, accounting for 7% of the liking
If you take these figures on face value alone, it suggests that the receiver overwhelmingly trusts the non-verbal aspects of the speaker – 93% vs 7% – or, that the facial/body/tone components are "more important" than the actual words.
The research also suggests that the three elements need to be congruent or work in tandem. As anyone who’s listened and watched a presenter, it’s not uncommon that one aspect – Visual, Vocal or Verbal – doesn’t match the others, and therefore, detracts from their credibility and relevancy.
Am I the only one who finds this 40-year-old research enlightening, scary, insightful, damning and frightening - all at the same time?
IF that much of face-to-face communications is dependent upon non-verbal aspects, what does it mean for the messages themselves? I stereotype here – not smart, I know, but it's provocative for the sake of argument – veterans of the communications industry say messages are even more vital in today's communications environment, while younger people in my workshops say it's not as much. Which is it?If so little emphasis is placed on message development, wouldn’t it suggest that it’s even more important to ensure the words, tone and style are properly crafted? I was reminded of this last week when the eyes of workshop attendees glazed over when I mentioned the words “active voice.”
What does this research say about how a spokesperson is trained and placed in today's environment? My gut reaction: it’s even more important to ensure a spokesperson’s facial and body gestures are ‘neutral’ to be compelling, and thus memorable to the audience.
It's one of the reasons why I don't take media training jobs, when the client doesn't want to be filmed giving an interview. It's also why I shudder as the spokesperson writes their own messages, but then doesn't rehearse saying the messages aloud. ("I know them because I wrote them.") When I was in the communications department at MasterCard, I believed that myth too. Then I saw the light - or rather, a video tape of my performance after a TV interview. Writing and reciting messages are two different skills, and are complementary training workshops - not the same one.
This research also shows why one of the biggest trends in "soft skills" training for executives is a workshop on "talking." I was a bit shocked when ANZ Bank asked me to develop one a few years ago, but now I'm a total convert. It's a skill to be learnt and practiced, like every other: to be concise, relevant and engaging when caught by the CEO for a hallway conversation lasting no more than 2-3 minutes. The same is true for when the executive has to inspire, motivate and lead their teams in staff meetings, small group settings and most of all, one-on-one, face-to-face.
Finally, I can’t let the percentages go by without asking the obvious question. In 1971, the office desktop was a Smith-Corona, people sent big documents to a steno pool, and employees spoke the party line and used one too. Can you imagine what the figures 55-38-7 would add up to nearly 40 years later?