The Significance of Nonverbal Communication for Business Success - Essay Example

? Business Nonverbal Communication of the of the School/ Nonverbal Communication Introduction In contemporary times, the crucial connection between nonverbal communication and business success is becoming increasingly important. Verbal communication as opposed to written modes of interpersonal contact, enables the simultaneous employment of nonverbal channels through the reading of body language and tone of voice. Successful managers are required to be skilled in interpersonal relations, because a key element of their successful performance is “the ability to motivate others, to resolve conflict, and to promote cooperation” (Fatt, 1998, p.1). Similarly, executive success is dependent on intuition, hunches, or judgement, which “may have been derived from very specific information communicated nonverbally” (Fatt, 1998, p.1), although the manager may be unaware of the source of information. Environments cannot be easily distinguished because of their invisibility based on their ground rules, all-encompassing structure, and general patterns. However, this invisible environment is made discernible through nonverbal communication (Fatt, 1998). Further, service encounters involving interactions between employees and customers lead to customers’ evaluations of their service consumption experiences and perceptions of service quality. Hence, managerial implications include the identification of employee behaviors and approach that generate favorable responses from customer (Sundaram & Webster, 2000). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the importance of nonverbal communication in the business environment. The Significance of Nonverbal Communication for Business Success The term communication style covers a wide range of both vocal and verbal attributes including “pitch, volume, and word choice, and nonverbal attributes such as gestures and facial expressions” (Fragale, 2004, p.94). The assigning of status based on communication behaviors occurs because these behaviors are frequently subtle, however they apply considerable influences on individuals’ status positions. Research evidence reveals that various factors such as individual speech style (Erickson et al., 1978), emotional expressions (Tiedens, 2001), and subtle patterns of eye contact (Rosa & Mazur, 1979) may affect the way in which the individual is perceived by fellow group members. This consequently influences the individual’s status position within the group, states Fragale (2005, p.94). For a thorough comprehension of the assigning of status in task groups, it is essential to determine how specific communication behaviors impact individuals’ status positions. Examples are questions related to the status consequences of speaking loudly, or putting one’s feet on the desk. Similarly, for the purpose of “gaining status in a group, should an individual interrupt others, or wait quietly for a turn to speak?” (Fragale, 2005, p.94). The communication styles both through verbal and nonverbal behaviors, impact the status positions they achieve in their task groups. Earlier studies have demonstrated that status is more enhanced by being smart than by being social. On the other hand, Fragale (2005) argues that in some task groups status imrovement may occur through being social rather than smart. The author advances the idea that the characteristics of the group to which an individual belongs leads to status benefits through particular communication styles, based on structural and process differences between groups, and how the members’ words and actions are assessed (Fragale, 2005). The theory of Berger et al. (1986), of status cues argues that “task cues which contradict expectations based on categorical cues may reduce or overcome the effects of the latter on status processes” (Foddy & Riches, 2000, p.103). Two studies investigated the comparative influence of verbal fluency and ethnic accent on perceptions of competence, and on acceptance of influence in a group task. Study 1 using rating scales on intelligence, competence, and solidarity, on Greek and Anglo-Australian speakers revealed that fluency of speaker impacted rater’s judgments of confidence and intelligence, not solidarity, while the ethnic identity of speaker affected only ratings of intelligence. In Study 2, tape recorded versions of a fluent and stilted conversation were employed, using a computer controlled joint decision task. With the subjects and their partners of Anglo-Australian or Greek-Australian ethnicity and fluency, it was found that “fluency would have a stronger impact on deference toward the partner than ethnic accent, and fluency affected post-task ratings of confidence” (Foddy & Riches, 2000, p.104). According to Fatt (1998a), the theory of certain areas of the body being less monitored than other areas, states that these areas are therefore more subject to leakage. This is modified by the two factors of gender and degree of communication dominance. Particular nonverbal behavior patterns are associated with women, such as absence of leg movements during truth telling. Hence, the anxiety of lying may compel women to reveal deception through leg movements during lying. Contrastingly, it is more likely for men to suppress these movements during anxiety, in an attempt to control the outwardly-perceived signs associated with deception. Today, a better knowledge of nonverbal communication in lie detection is required, with wit increasingly winning over the gullible and the naive (Fatt, 1998a). Research evidence indicates that deception is related to several nonverbal cues such as “speech disturbances, a higher-pitched voice, a slower speech rate, a longer latency period, more gaze aversion, less smiling, more movements, and shorter response length” (Fatt, 1998a, p.1). The ground-breaking theory of Ekman (1989) and Ekman and Friesen (1979) is that the most expressive parts of the body are considered to be high in ‘sending capacity’. Being easiest to control, it is less possible for them to leak deception. Thus, the area of the face is low in deception leakage. Other parts of the body such as hands and legs are used less frequently in conscious communication, and are less controllable. Therefore, they release greater leakage than the face. Further, certain paralinguistic dimensions of speech, including “tone, pitch, vocal stress, and vocal latencies” (Fatt, 1998a, p.1) such as hesitations and pauses may be less controllable than either the face or the body, hence they are more inclined to display leakage. It is evident that in the workplace today, instead of direct communication, there is increasing use of technology such as the Internet. Most interpersonal or group communication through the Internet “involves people who are not co-present and are not interacting at the same time” (Hollingshead, 2000, p.157). Messages contain only text and graphics; hence “people cannot use tone of voice or nonverbal signals to judge the accuracy of messages” (Hollingshead, 2000, p.157), or sometimes even to know the other’s true identity. These characteristics of computer-mediated interaction are considered to have a radical impact on the ways people communicate, and their ways of making judgments regarding the truth or deception in the messages of other group members. Hollingshead (2000) investigated the effects of computer mediated communication on the composition, transmission, and detection of truthful and deceptive messages. With development in the sophistication of computer hardware and software, as well as support audio and video, knowledge of the impact of “variables such as anonymity, group identity, visual access, co-presence, on truth telling, and lying behavior” (Hollingshead, 2000, p.171), will become increasingly significant. Sundaram and Webster (2000) examined the importance of service employees’ nonverbal communication during service interactions. A conceptual model connects nonverbal communication such as kinesics, paralanguage, proxemics, and physical appearance, along with “customer affect, and consumers’ assessments of service providers” in relation to their “credibility, friendliness, competence, empathy, courtesy, and trustworthiness” (Sundaram & Webster, 2000, p.378). Studying the importance of nonverbal features, and their implications on managers’ method of functioning demonstrate that understanding the effect of nonverbal cues on customers’ evaluations is essential for service employees for closing the psychological distance, and in improving the sense of pleasantness between the interactants. Further, it is evident that nonverbal communication “modifies and reinforces verbal communication” (Sundaram & Webster, 2000, p.388). Additionally, customers’ perspectives on service providers’ nonverbal aspects of communication is likely to profoundly impact their subsequent marketplace behavior. Conclusion This paper has examined the significance of nonverbal communication in the business environment. Research evidence reveals that business success depends not only on direct, verbal communication between different stakeholders, but it also relies on nonverbal communications conducted both directly, and through technology such as the Internet. Status in task groups is determined by both verbal and nonverbal communications. The theory of status cues argues that fluency of the speaker as opposed to stilted speech, positively impacted their status in the task group. Deception is identified through various nonverbal cues. The theory of some areas of the body being more susceptible to leakage of nonverbal communication, is modified by the two factors of gender and degree of communication dominance; specific nonverbal behavior patterns are attributed to women. Further, the strong impact of service providers’ nonverbal and verbal communication on clients, necessitates the establishment of a pleasant system of interactions between them. Barriers to communication such as fear or distrust have to be overcome by utilizing the information from nonverbal interactions, thus promoting unity and ‘resonance’ peopleReferences Berger, J., Webster, M., Ridgeway, C., & Rosenholtz, S.J. (1986). Status cues, expectations and behaviors. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes. Vol.3. (pp.1-22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1972). Hand movements. Journal of Communication, 22, 353-374. Ekman, P. (1989). Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. In J.C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp.71-82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Erickson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C., & O’Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279. Fatt, J.P. (1998). Nonverbal communication and business success. Management Research News, 21(4/5), 1-10. Fatt, J.P. (1998a). Detecting deception through nonverbal cues: Gender differences. Equal Opportunities International, 17(2), 1-9. Foddy, M. & Riches, P. (2000). The impact of task and categorical cues on social influence fluency and ethnic accent as cues to competence in task groups. Advances in Group Processes, 17, 103-130. Fragale, A.R. (2005). To be smart or to be social? The context-dependent effects of communication styles on status conferral in task groups. Status and Groups Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 7, 93-119. Hollingshead, A.B. (2000). Truth and lying in computer-mediated groups. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 3, 157-173. Rosa, E., & Mazur, A. (1979). Incipient status in groups. Social Forces, 58, 18-37. Sundaram, D.S. and Webster, C. (2000). The role of nonverbal communication in service encounters. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 378-391. Tiedens, L.Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 86-94. Read More