Native speakers always score high when it comes to trust

Using confident voice compensates potential disadvantage due to the speaker´s accent. A powerful organ therefore is key whether people are granted trust or not. These are the results of recent experiments conducted by the McGill University, Montreal. In these experiments voice and language and their influence on trust building between English speaking Canadians, Australians and French were analysed. The ranking set forth is clear: doubtful voice always gets the worst results, even native speakers who seem to enjoy a basic benefit not speaking with any accent scored poorly with doubt in their voices.

The researchers point out, that to speak with accent obviously reduces trust and credibility even in the in-group. Even there in all phases of the experiments native speakers received the highest rates for trust.

Caballero/Pell, „Implicit effects of speaker accents and vocally-expressed confidence on decisions to trust”, In: Decision, Vol 7(4), Oct 2020, 314-331

From the practice:

I am glad about these results. 1. Because I am regularly asked by clients who don’t speak German as their mother tongue if and if yes, how problematic their accent is here in Austria and Germany. This question is on their mind particularly when they are preparing for a hearing or a presentation or when they are approaching a critical interview. 2. Because it´s good news for myself. I am glad to hear that with a confident voice I may also compensate potential disadvantages due to my German accent when dealing with English speaking clients. It goes without saying that I, too, want to be judged and evaluated based on my professionalism and not according to an accent.

What does “confident voice” mean in detail, though? To convey power and strength of course, but then first and foremost positive thinking, leadership and serenity.

Native Speaker erhalten immer höchste Vertrauenswerte

Wer mit selbstbewußter Stimme auftritt, kompensiert Nachteile, die das Sprechen mit Akzent mit sich bringt. Damit wird ein kraftvolles Organ zu einem entscheidenden Faktor, ob Menschen Vertrauen zugesprochen wird oder nicht. Das ergaben neue Experimente am McGill University in Montreal, in denen untersucht wurde, wie Vertrauen unter englischsprechenden Kanadiern (Native Speakers), Australiern und Franzosen aufgrund von Stimme und Sprache entsteht. Das Ranking dabei ist eindeutig: Zweifel in der Stimme führt immer zum schlechtesten Ergebnis, selbst Native Speakers, die scheinbar aufgrund ihre Akzentfreiheit einen Vertrauensvorteil genießen, schnitten mit zweifelnden Stimmen schlechter ab, als Menschen, die mit Akzent, aber mit selbstbewußter Stimme kommunizierten. Für die Forscher außerdem interessant: Mit Akzent zu sprechen reduziert selbst in der eigenen Gruppe Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit. Denn sogar von dort wurden den Native Speakers in allen Momenten des Experiments jeweils die höchsten Vertrauenswerte zugebilligt.

Caballero/Pell, „Implicit effects of speaker accents and vocally-expressed confidence on decisions to trust”, In: Decision, Vol 7(4), Oct 2020, 314-331

Aus der Praxis:

Ich freue mich über dieses Ergebnis. 1. Weil ich immer wieder von Klient*innen, deren Muttersprache nicht Deutsch ist, gefragt werde, ob und wenn ja wie problematisch denn nicht ihr Akzent hier in Österreich oder in Deutschland sei. Vor allem dann, wenn sie sich für ein Hearing vorbereiten, eine Präsentation in Angriff nehmen oder ein wichtiges Interview vor sich haben. Und 2. Weil es mir selbst gut tut zu wissen, dass ich mit einer selbstbewußten Stimme bei meinen englischsprachigen Klient*innen meinen natürlich hörbaren deutschen Akzent kompensieren kann. Schließlich möchte auch ich wegen meiner Professionalität beurteilt werden und nicht mit einem Stigma des Akzents auf der Stirn von vornherein gegenüber Native speakers benachteiligt sein.

Was heißt selbstbewußte Stimme aber im Detail? Kraft zum einen, aber vor allem Zuversicht, Souveränität und Gelassenheit zu vermitteln.

First movers can screw up negotiations with the wrong framing

Opening negotiations with an offer will significantly more often succeed than wrapping the very same issue into a request. The offer focusses on potential gains, the request on the contrary on potential losses. Within 5 experiments the majority of 900 test subjects heavily stood up against the latter, whereas having been exposed to an offer they were motivated to be conciliatory. So the assumption that socalled first movers in negotiations were unlimitedly more assertive has been refuted. This was the key result of a recent study conducted by the University of Lüneburg in cooperation with Columbia/NY.

Lacking the right framing even those who set the anchor by articulating their intentions first can still screw up their negotiations.

“Open to offers, but resisting requests: How the framing of anchors affects motivation and negotiated outcomes”, Journal for Personality and Social Psychology, Sept. 2020, pg. 582-599.

From the practice:

It was never very charming when a negotiator started by confronting his/her interlocutors with a request. How often have I advised my clients to evade the pressure by simply not taking it if they were confronted with this technique?! These have been my recos: a) to speak up with their own request, b) to comment on a meta-level that this was such an unmoralic request and c) to ask in detail what sort of motivation lies behind the request so as to work with this offensively afterwards.

I do admit: I am happy to learn that the constructive method – to open with an offer – has now gained also the scientific seal of approval. Furthermore this approach not only satisfies by the ethic component but is much more efficient after all. You are saving with the offer-opening time, nerves and very likely also money.

First mover können bei Verhandlungen durch falsches Framing viel verpatzen

Wer eine Verhandlung mit einem Angebot eröffnet, hat deutlich mehr Chancen auf Erfolg als dasselbe Anliegen in eine Forderung zu verpacken. Bei einem Angebot steht nämlich das, was der Verhandlungspartner gewinnen kann, bei einer Forderung das, was er/sie verlieren kann im Vordergrund.  Um nicht zu verlieren, setzte die Mehrheit der 900 Versuchspersonen in insgesamt 5 Experimenten heftig entgegen, die Aussicht auf einen Gewinn machte hingegen durchgehend konzilianter. Die oft strapazierte Annahme, sogenannte First mover wären in Verhandlungen von vornherein durchsetzungsstärker, ist damit widerlegt. Das ergab eine rezente Studie der Universität Lüneburg in Kooperation mit der Columbia/New York.

Ohne das richtige Framing kann auch der- bzw. diejenige, der/die als erstes seine Vorstellungen ausspricht und damit den Anker setzt, noch immer sehr viel verpatzen. Majer/Trötschel/Galinsky/Loschelder, “Open to offers, but resisting requests: How the framing of anchors affects motivation and negotiated outcomes”, Journal for Personality and Social Psychology, Sept. 2020, pg. 582-599.

Aus der Praxis:

Sympathisch war es nie, wenn der/die erste in einer Verhandlung den/die andere/n gleich von Anfang mit einer Forderung konfrontiert hat. Und wie oft habe ich meinen KlientInnen, für den Fall dass ihnen das passieren würde, geraten, sie mögen dem Druck ausweichen und gar nicht darauf eingehen?! Meine Empfehlungen liefen immer darauf hinaus, a) entweder mit einer Gegenforderung aufzuwarten, b) auf der Metaebene zu kommentieren, dass das eine unmoralische Forderung wäre oder c) sich im Detail zu erkundigen, welche Motivation hinter der Forderung stecke, um mit dieser dann entsprechend offensiv arbeiten zu können.

Ich gebe offen zu: ich freue mich, dass die konstruktive Methode – mit einem Angebot zu eröffnen – nun auch mit dem wissenschaftlichen Gütesiegel versehen wird. Dabei hat dieser Zugang natürlich nicht nur eine ethische Komponente, sondern ist viel effizienter. Sie sparen auf diese Weise Zeit, Nerven und ziemlich sicher auch Geld.

Mind the “openness-paradox”, though

If scientists want to reach with their data and facts even underserved audiences they have to pay attention to some more aspects in their communication than usually: a) to approach people proactively and b) to look for cooperation partners who are trusted by the groups yet. These can be institutions which are regularly dealing with them or opinion leaders within these groups who help to overcome barriers and fears. In addition to these findings a new article by the department of science communication at the Institute of Technology in Karlsruhe (KIT) points out that whenever scientists are communicating to underserved audiences they should mind the so-called “openness paradoxon”, though: this happens when well-intended offers like to have a choice between various packages of information or to have the opportunitiy to question and comment in any moment might not satisfy, but overwhelm the target groups since they are culturally not used to that. Beside this anything which works with all lay people applies also to students in a vocational school, muslim youths with a migration background or socially disadvantaged people in marginalized neighborhoods which the scientists of Karlsruhe have analysed: Here scientists have to a) listen, b) facilitate the access of information, c) be relevant for everyday life and d) set longterm activities.

Humm, C/Schrögel, Ph., „Science for ALL? Practical Recommendations on Reaching Underserved Audiences”, in Frontiers in Communication, 7.7.2020, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042/full

From the practice:

Corona amplified the pressure onto researchers, particularly from the natural-scientific branch, to communicate their contents simply, eye-catchingly and still substantiatedly. Looking around among clients from universities or research institutes I do observe an interesting mixture between Hurray-mood – i.e. with the PR professionals (“Finally!”) and with those who have succeeded in front of a microphone yet (“That´s mine!”) – and a controversion between intellect (“Unfortunately we have to live with it – it has to be done”) and emotional defensiveness (“Still I don´t like it at all”) with those who have difficulties.

In this context scientists are in a couple of aspects a similar clientel to facts- and data-driven experts from different professional fields: lawyers, auditors or technicians, just to name a few. Still, the shyness regarding non-factual language can be dissolved pretty well because professional communication also works with factors like goals and structure. And the empathy needed for any target person or group we also elaborate on together

It´s the positive contextualization and the frequency

Prejudices against women do exist everywhere on this planet. They are significantly stronger, though, where language differentiates between men and women (gendered languages) regardless whether economic prosperity, religion or a numeric unbalance is being met in the respective culture. These are the results of a study recently published where for the first time 45 languages representing more than 50% of the world´s population have been compared and analysed.

Most essential: male terms (i.e. words with male articles) are being more positive contextualized and more frequently used where it is basically possible. The female aspect in these gendered languages is not given a serious chance. French and Russian demonstrate this phenomen „best“, German ranks in the middle range.

„How language shape prejudice against women: An examination across 45 world languages.“ DeFranza/Mishra/Mishra in: „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology“, 119 (1), S. 7-22.

From the praxis:

Language shapes culture and culture shapes language. Not to adapt anything in male oriented German is therefore fundamentally counteracting the equality of men and women. In this course due to my observations most of us consider the strategy of visualization where „in“ or „innen“ is added whereever possible as lengthy, sometimes even ridiculous when the neuter „Mitglied“ (member) becomes a female „Mitgliederin“. On the other hand the second strategy, neutralization, demands more creativity: „Mannschaft“ (workmanship) becomes „Team“ and „GeschäftsführerInnen“ (managers) is turned into „Geschäftsleitung“ (management).

Still I don´t see any alternative: who is persistently struggling to integrate half of the population into her/his language, supports a traditional mindset of society. Usually I recommend to follow both strategies given: „in“ and „innen“ wherever it is easily done, but to favor „Studierende“ over „StudentInnen“ (which in the natural gendered language English is covered by a not-gendered word only: students). Finally: please delete the word „man“ (one) out of your vocabulary. You not only contribute to the quality of gender, but make your language clearer and preciser. Since „man“ simply concerns nobody.

Only 16% have policies how and when to use powerpoint

Leaders make it too easy when blaiming powerpoint alone for their bad meetings. It is the lack of their professional planning and steering, which results predominantly in the lack of effectiveness. Hence there is a huge deficit when it comes to the strategic question how and when powerpoint is to be used in the business world: referring to a recently published US-study 84% of the organisations involved don´t have anything like a policy for the usage of powerpoint and authorize with their eyes open that topics are presented complex, lengthy and hostile to dialogue.

What an enormous potential is waiting to be kissed awake when 55 million meetings which cost more than 1 trillion USD take place annually and in parallel 70% of the participants do consider them not productive. The scientists recommend managers to initiate change at themselves and to think about strategies for added values in their meetings instead of a trivial powerpoint bashing.

From the practice:

For years I am annoyed how pretty quickly organizations of any kind try to push their efficiency by cost cuttings and dismissals. Instead of changing their bad meeting cultures sustainably. Huge amounts of time, money and nerves could be saved to the benefit of all, I am deeply convinced. To bring the overkill of ppt onto more professional tracks is only part of that, though a part with which you may start right now:

1. Anticipate before your meeting if ppt is the best tool at all. Flipcharts, demos, interviews or videos might bring content equally to the point, but foster dialogue tremendously better.
2. Issue that no presentation in any meeting is to be longer than 10 minutes and should consist of not more than max. 5 slides including the start and the end.
3. Encourage your team to present the key messages of their presentation right at the beginning in one single minute. This procedure supports a clear focus and makes the presentation more interesting.

And I hope it goes without saying that you as the superior are leading by example, isn´t it?

Worldwide 1. study surveys eye contact in different settings

Direct gaze generates always the highest emotional response – in personal meetings as well as in online telcos even more than via videos or in webinars. SCR (Skin Conductance Response) and facial muscle activity were measured – both crucial parameters for determining emotional reactions. These results can be taken as evidence that regardless whether you communicate in person or by any video online tool, there will be significant emotional impact. Regarding the difference to the data of one-way-media the researchers explain: To be seen or be observed, leads to more emotional arousal, whether it is stress or joy, in contrast to moments with presenters of videos or webinars on our screens where we know that we cannot be seen or observed.

The Finnish authors describe their paper as the worldwide 1. Study of eye contact in different settings.

„Psychophysiological responses to eye contact in a live interaction and in video call“, Hietanen/Peltola/Hietanen, in: Psychophysiology, April, 22nd, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13587.

From the practice:

Where do you look at when talking to people? Into their eyes or somewhere left, right or behind them, into the camera or onto the notes you have prepared? The correct answer is: whenever you want to score emotionally – negatively or positively – you should directly look into your interlocutor´s eyes. There is no too much here! Only a too little! Please rearrange in these Corona times your screen so that you can look into the camera easily. Two additional recos: 1. In Telcos please have a look from time to time still onto your interlocutor if you don´t want to miss important signals of body language. 2. In videos and in webinars please be in the picture instead of your ppt: in the beginning, at the end and when you are delivering your key messages. Otherwise people cannot see your eyes well enough in these emotionally decisive moments.

The worst you can do is to look frequently onto your notes. We are – again as so often – ending up finally with professional preparation…….

Coaching experiences from the corona crisis

Any crisis has its chances. Here are some for managers in times of Corona:

1. Meetings are much shorter. Online-communication is merciless when it comes to longueurs due to poor preparation or attentiveness. This was apparent shortly after the retreat into the home offices. Consequently each participant and particularly the host of the meeting was tremendously better prepared and more concentrated than usual. If this keeps going on even after Corona companies and organisations will save quantities of time, money and nerves.
2. Strength of character as well as incompetence are much clearer identifiable. Superiors, peers and staff experience in the face of financial, health and social threats how people at the working place really tick, whom you can count on and whom not. With that cumulated stress nerves are lying naked. (Certainly we do recognize all this in times of normal working mode, we have to look at it more closely and can ignore it more easily, though.
3. Contacts are currently almost always heartier. Corona is enabling a completely new situation valid for everyone on earth: each call, email or meeting starts in these days with personal issues and people seem to be seriously interested in the wellbeing of others. Let alone unknown waves of cultivating contacts which bring all of us in ongoing business relations closer to each other unforgettably. Crisis welds together.
4. Andrew Cuomo is after Obama the new star in Political Leadership. How the governor of NY State since March 21st is setting standards for crisis communication with his daily press briefing is highly inspiring: ruthlessly open, details to Corona we have not even heard of her, pictorial, wise, unmistakable, personal, sometimes even humorous and all the time perfectly aligned with simply great powerpoints.

A drop of bitterness still is out there: constantly making calls with or without video is

exhausting. What ´s missing are the small relaxing breaks on the way to and from

any meeting.

So let´s look forward tot he days, weeks and months beyond Corona! Take care and

stay healthy!

Employees need courage, space and clarity, though

Who wants to profit from ideas made by the team or team members, should not wait and hope but proceed proactively: 1. Establish an environment where employees can articulate themselves fearlessly and 2. Support ideas and consider them seriously. Otherwise the staff still – according to a recently published academic survey article from the US – is overly reticent. They still calculate with negative consequences, even where actually not reason for worry is necessary. And they still anticipate it will not pay off anyway. Therefore enormous amounts of potential are staying unused furtheron.

The scientists recommend urgently to focus on managerial trainings how to set up and steer opinion building and decision processes in teams. Additionally, they continue, any organisation is well off in hiring only those superiors who are capable to build trustworthy relationships between themselves and their teams.

Perspectives on employee voice: A primer for managers. Butler/Whiting. In: The Psychologist-Manager Journal, vol. 22 (3-4), Aug-Nov.2019, 154-167.

From the practice:

No modern leader dares to take innovative ideas of employees into question basically. Without convincing the staff regularly, though, that you and your organisation really really really do want to hear what people think, it still does not work yet.

So what can you do exactly? 1. Talk offensively about your serious interest in ideas, suggestions and opinions – and do this again and again at any given occasion, not only once. Talking is here the key to success, don´t email and think you are off duty. 2. Provide space by reserving a fixed time slot for collecting ideas (and don´t bring across this only takes place if everything else has taken less time than scheduled) – either within your meetings or in setting up a venue for that on its own. 3. Accept only ideas for solutions, not further descriptions of the problem. 4. Communicate in advance what you will do when with all the ideas – this is to demonstrate that it is not due to your personal taste or simple arbitrariness if ideas are followed up or not. Mention limitating factors now and not later. Nobody likes to bring up anything which might go bad in your drawer or is not feasible from the start.