Body Language in Business Part 8

CONCLUSION: WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN FOR BUSINESS?.

The fact that body communication is in part culture-specific means that cross-cultural communication is fraught with potential problems. Argyle (1993) has noted that Westerners often find interacting with the j.a.panese difficult because they are bewildered by the j.a.panese people's blank facial expressions and unexpected bursts of laughter. Northern Europeans find that Southern Europeans (and North Africans) stand too close to each other and touch too much. In one celebrated study, an observer watched how many times couples touched each other in restaurants: in Puerto Rico, it was 180 times per hour; in Paris, 110 times per hour; but in London couples did not touch each other at all.

Cross-cultural body communication at work is particularly fraught with problems hence the many books on protocol, customs and business etiquette for particular regions. The lesson is often that one country's good manners are another's grand faux pas. Eating and drinking, greeting and the giving of gifts are all very culture-bound and require a knowledge of correct behavior. Gestures too do not travel: thumb joined to forefinger in a circle denotes OK in the USA, zero in France, money in j.a.pan, and is an obscene gesture in middle Europe. The depth and frequency of bowing carries meanings in j.a.pan, but nowhere else. Certainly, the "do's" and taboos of body communication in international business can lead to misunderstanding.

It is routine practice now for employees to be sent on cultural training courses before they are despatched on business trips to remote parts of the world. A few reasons for their popularity are listed below. They help to: * Appreciate the local mindset.

* Understand local business practices.

* Learn the "don'ts" and taboos.

* Be aware of the differences between the visitor and the host country.

Fons Trompenaars, a famous researcher in the field of international management, noted that in order to succeed in international business, cultural differences need to be recognized, gain respect and achieve reconciliation. While learning the verbal language of another culture is a huge advantage for communication in that culture, it is equally important to "speak" the body language and be aware of the cross-cultural variations in body language to become a convincing and competent communicator in business.

5.

LYING AND DECEPTION: REVEALING AND CONCEALING INFORMATION.

More than anything else, business people hope to detect the real, infallible truth and catch liars by carefully a.n.a.lyzing the body language of others. In sales and negotiations, in business beauty parades and in interviews, people conceal and reveal, bluff and bl.u.s.ter, fabricate and exaggerate. We use all sorts of euphemisms for lying: dissimulation, impression management, distortion. Most people believe that the body always betrays the mind, that the torso leaks the whole truth, and that the trained and perceptive observer can "spot the 'porkie pie' (a lie) a mile off". If only that were true!

Cheating, sabotage, stealing and whistle-blowing at work, almost by definition involve deception of one sort or another. This chapter will look at the difficult, but important, business of the nonverbal detection of deception. How easy and reliable is it to spot if people are lying? Are some people simply better liars and liar-spotters than others? And what of the conscience-free, psychopathic liars can they ever be detected? What are the best things to look for the sure signs of lying?

Lying is, and will always be, a hot topic. It is at the centre of ethical and moral codes. It is essentially a false communication that benefits the communicator. It is usually deliberate and may or may not be successful. To be accused of being a liar, as opposed to occasionally telling a lie is serious business. There is a bewildering array of words and concepts that deal with those who don't quite tell the full truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Fibs, fabrications, falsehoods and fudgings. Politicians "spin" the facts to the public. Organizations use public relations gurus to "s.e.x up" products, messages and services. Individuals, as part of daily intercourse and to save embarra.s.sment and hurt, say things directly or indirectly (possibly through euphemism) to each other. Notice the way that negative as opposed to positive feedback is dealt with at work.

One reason why the public is as well (or badly) informed about psychological issues is the number of popular articles on the topic. Some are based on interviews with authors, others on a sort of popularized precis of a book review.

Popular literature is full of advice on how to lie. Consider the following list of suggestions which can be often found in lifestyle magazines: 1. Keep calm. Avoid fidgeting, do not gesture or manipulate objects unless necessary.

2. Think ahead and prepare a plausible alibi. Do not over-rehea.r.s.e or memorise your speech. Avoid using unconventional words that are out of your ordinary vocabulary.

3. Appear tired and disinterested. Give the impression that you do not see the point in answering absurd questions.

4. Seem preoccupied with some other activity.

5. Dodge challenging questions. Say "I do not know" instead of "I do not remember".

6. Appear irritable and bad-tempered: you are clearly insulted by the false accusations.

7. Try not to touch your face. If you do it by accident, cover up face with a fake yawn.

8. Do not cross your arms or legs. Keep the palms of your hands open 9. Maintain good, steady eye contact.

10. Try to believe what you are saying is actually true.

As we shall see, some of the above is simplistic, wrong and misleading. Indeed, these articles reinforce ignorance and explain why people are such poor lie-detectors themselves.

Verbal clues * Response latency the time elapsing between the end of a question and the beginning of the response. Liars take longer. They hesitate more than they do when not lying.

* Linguistic distancing not saying "I", "he" or "she", but talking in the abstract even when recalling incidents in which he or she was involved.

* Slow but uneven speech the individual tries to think while speaking but gets caught out. He or she might suddenly speak fast, implying something is less significant. It is the change in pace in response to a particular question that gives a clue that something is not right.

* Over-eagerness to fill silences to keep talking when it is unnecessary. Liars overcompensate and seem to show cla.s.sic signs of insubordination as if caught out. Uncomfortable with what are often quite short pauses.

* Too many "pitch raises" that is, instead of the pitch dropping at the end of a reply, it rises, as in a question. It may sound like "Do you believe me now?"

Nonverbal cues * Squirming/shifting around too much in the chair.

* Having too much rather than too little eye contact, as liars tend to overcompensate. They know that liars avoid a mutual gaze so they "prove they are not lying" by a lot of looking ... but "a tad too much".

* Micro-expressions or flickers of expressions of surprise, hurt, anger. These are difficult to see, though, unless the frames of a video are frozen.

* An increase in comfort gestures touching his or her own face and upper body.

* An increase in stuttering, slurring and, of course, "Freudian slips". Generally an increase in speech errors.

* A loss of resonance in the voice it becomes flatter, less deep, more monotonous.

For many observers, the problem is in distinguishing between lying and anxiety. The well-trained and arrogant liar may thus look innocent, while the truthful but nervous witness may look like a liar. The fast, nervous tics of the latter may be seen as cla.s.sic signs of insubordination as if they have been caught.

We know that people prefer, and are better at, concealment rather than falsification. It is easier to forget than to distort the truth. Falsification means "making up" things that are not true. It is self-evidently much easier to say things did not happen at all rather than to invent a "new story". It is also true that people do have more problems lying aboutemotionsparticularlypowerfulemotionssuchasterror, rage,fear and despair. Recounting a story of events fifty years ago, some people cannot suppress their emotions, which manifest in their tears and trembling voice. The more ego-involving the activity, the more likely it is that people in all walks of life will have difficulty in disguising the truth.

Regular and sophisticated liars have found the best mask, or cover, for their lie is the smile. Smiling has numerous advantages: it is an easy and natural expression to make voluntarily; it is polite; but, most importantly, it conceals opposite emotions (dread, fear, anxiety).

Liars tend to be most careful, thoughtful and involved in their choice and use of words. They can rehea.r.s.e, practice and become word perfect. They are also very conscious of their facial expressions during the lying episodes. But it is the voice and body that perhaps give most away, and therefore the cues to watch to catch both the naive and the sophisticated. People are betrayed by their words if they are careless, if they make a (Freudian) slip of the tongue, or an emotional tirade when the words pour, rather than slip, out. We also know that there are various vocal indexes of deceit relating to lying pauses, hesitations and tone and pitch of voice.

Finally, there are a number of important, subtle body indexes of deceit, including gestures, emblems, ill.u.s.trations and manipulations. Emblems are well-known gestures with precise meanings: ill.u.s.trations are movements that accentuate speech: manipulations are movements like grooming, ma.s.saging, rubbing, holding, pinching, picking, scratching. The autonomic nervous system changes with emotional arousal. Certain body changes occur sweating, blushing, pupil dilation, breathing pattern, frequency of swallowing, all of which are difficult to inhibit. These changes are the basis of the lie detector/polygraph, as we saw in a previous chapter.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIE.

There are different types of lie. First, there is the white, social, "harmless", flattering, expedient lie: this is supposed to result from a desire to improve social intercourse by protecting another person's feelings. It is thought of as common and even beneficial and is unlikely to cause the teller embarra.s.sment. For many, white lies do not count as lies and are even considered a sign of social skill.

Second, there is the professional, entertaining, necessary, salesman's lie: expedient lying that distorts or omits facts in the cause of business. For some, this is good business practice but that really depends on whether one is the buyer or the seller. Certainly a case can be made for not telling patients or subordinates the seriousness of a situation, if this would only make things worse. However, a salesperson not mentioning the very unhappy provenance of a particular product for example, a car that has been in a major crash may be considered a serious lie of omission.

But it is the third type of lie that is naturally of most concern to those in business the illegal, pathological trickster's lie, the lie of omission, in which vital truths are omitted; and the lie of commission, in which facts are distorted. It is difficult to ascertain the numbers of these types of lie that occur in business. Suffice to say that the consequences of these can be great.

One of the latest and most painful issues in business has been the issue of redundancy. Whether voluntary or forced, it is never painless to deliver the news of job loss. It is stressful for both the messenger and the recipient: one is "in the know", and the other either in ignorant bliss or anxious antic.i.p.ation of the coming storm.

An urban legend goes that, at the peak of the latest financial crisis, an auto manufacturer announced redundancies in a shocking manner. The employees were tricked into leaving the main building and then informed that the company had to cut the manpower. After that, the workers were encouraged to try to go back in to the warehouse: those whose swipe cards worked kept their jobs, while those who could not gain entry had to go. Their rationale for staging such a performance was to eliminate any possible (and very likely) protests. Obviously, this story has to be taken with a grain of salt. No company, however large or influential, would have been able to get away with such a redundancy practice, even when times were bad. However, this example ill.u.s.trates how tense and dramatic laying-off can be, and how far some would go to avoid presenting it personally.

Nevertheless, it does not have to be so bad. There are "good" ways of letting go of people or delivering any bad news, and it is possible to do it with due respect and dignity: * Be tactful and considerate; separate the person from the problem.

* Be very clear and straightforward about the decision; vagueness only intensifies the situation and gives false hopes to the recipient. Give reasons, not justifications.

* Do not attempt to negotiate or "sugar the pill". Say it and shut up.

* Expect a shock response: anger, tears, disbelief. Normalize and validate the emotional response.

* Don't rush it. Give time for the information to sink in.

* Do it at the beginning of the week, not the end.

* Have someone else available immediately for advice legal, financial or career guidance.

* Try to create a counselling atmosphere: a quiet room where emotions are allowed to escape without fear of embarra.s.sment.

Many professionals doctors, the police, lawyers, teachers have to deliver bad news. It's neither easy nor pleasant telling people they are dying, a relative has died, they are going to prison, or they have failed an exam. It requires skill, tact and timing. Still, some do "duck out" of their responsibilities and, in effect, lie.

But this chapter is not about this type of lying. It is about deliberate dissent, dissembling, dissimulation. Telling "bare-faced" lies not to prevent hurt in others, but to prevent the teller from personally being caught. It is about self-serving untruths aimed at cover-up behavior. It is about denying things that happened (or were planned). It is frequently morally, legally and ethically indefensible. Liars can choose not to lie. It is a deliberate act which may be done by a good or bad person, with or without adequate justification.

Because to accuse another of being a liar is a serious social accusation, there are a range of synonyms and distinctions that are made either to refer to the motive of the person telling a lie or the way in which they lie.

The term "deception" does not have to involve lying. Camouflage, be it on animals or on soldiers' tents, is an attempt to deceive. Make-up and plastic surgery are also attempts at deception. False hair, false teeth, false padding are used not only by actors, criminals and spies, but by all sorts of ordinary people in an attempt to disguise their real appearance. Many of these attempts at deception are considered to be socially acceptable, sometimes even necessary. There are essentially only two ways of lying: to conceal or to falsify. As noted earlier, concealment is easier than falsification.

At interviews, giving speeches and in viva-voce examinations, people strive to "hold their nerves": to appear more confident than they feel. They may do this with the help of drugs, the use of particular thought-patterns, or other tricks that may or may not be successful. All this is considered to be normal, healthy even desirable.

But there is, of course, another less acceptable, but no doubt equally common form of deception: telling lies. There are as a result all sorts of synonyms that attempt to normalize the act and make it more acceptable. But a lie is quite simply a falsehood; an untruth.

A broken promise, a failure to recall and a misinterpretation of an ambiguous statement are not really lies. Note what Ekman (2001) writes: I have come to believe that examining how and when people lie and tell the truth can help in understanding many human relationships. There are few that do not involve deceit or at least the possibility of it. Parents lie to their children about s.e.x to spare them knowledge they think their children are not ready for, just as their children, when they become adolescents, will conceal s.e.xual adventures because the parents won't understand. Lies occur between friends (even your best won't tell you), teacher and student, doctor and patient, husband and wife, witness and jury, lawyer and client, salesperson and customer.

Lying is such a central characteristic of life that better understanding of it is relevant to almost all human affairs. Advice columnist Ann Landers has a point when she advises her readers that truth can be used as a bludgeon, cruelly inflicting pain. Lies can be cruel too, but all lies aren't. Some lies, many fewer than liars will claim, are altruistic. Some social relationships are enjoyed because of the myths they preserve. But no liar should presume too easily that a victim desires to be misled. And no lie catcher should too easily presume the right to expose every lie. Some lies are harmless, even humane. Unmasking certain lies may humiliate the victim or a third party. (p. 23) Psychologists distinguish between several categories when looking at lying in interviews. One is between attribution a tendency to attribute only desirable characteristics to oneself, and denial the tendency to deny undesirable characteristics. In effect, both may occur together, though people do seem to prefer one over the other. Another distinction is made between self-deception when people believe their own positive self-reports or lies, and impression management when respondents consciously dissimulate to create the "right" impression.

There are a number of distinctions that can be made in this area: * Errors of omission versus commission. Omission refers to leaving out facts (usually undesirable ones). Thus a job applicant may choose not to mention his/her age, education, jail sentences or bankruptcy. People believe that failing to declare something is quite different (and more acceptable) than telling a deliberate lie. That, of course, depends on the situation and the ethical code of the judge. In contrast, errors of commission are quite simply telling lies. These may involve exaggeration or fabrication and are done consciously with a specific purpose in mind.

* Self-deception versus impression management. Some people cannot, as opposed to will not, tell the truth. Self-deception involves conscious deception that a person does not believe is a lie. It is people believing in their own positive reports: some genuinely believe they are intelligent, insightful, humorous and so on, when all the evidence suggests that they are not. Alternatively, a person may falsify an exam grade they felt they deserved or hoped for rather than the one they received, to make a better impression. They may also as they would say "in all honesty" report feelings, intentions and behaviors that are patently at odds with those of others. And they feel this to be a quite an acceptable act: certainly not a lie. In this sense they are not lying, but neither are they telling the truth.

Self-deceiving is different from "giving a good impression", and may involve serious lies of omission and commission. Self-deceivers are in a sense deluded, but they do not have to have a mental illness to be in this position. Impression management is about what is now called "spin". Reports may be "s.e.xed up" to make them more appealing.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIE?.

Ekman (2001) believes there are essentially nine main reasons for lying. They are: 1. Punishment avoidance. Whether for an accidental misdemeanour or a genuine offence, everyone tries to avoid being caught. This is the most frequently cited reason among both children and adults.

2. Reward ripping. If the "forbidden fruit" is too irresistible and can only be obtained through a lie, most people would engage in misbehavior. This is the second most frequently quoted rationale for lying.

3. Protection of others from punishment. The altruistic nature of human beings makes it the third most popular motive for lying.

4. Protection from physical threats. Ekman notes this is different from punishment avoidance. A girl lying about having a boyfriend who is picking her up from a nightclub to avoid unwanted attention from other males would be an example of such a lie.

5. Approval of others.

6. Excuses that grant us leave in uncomfortable social situations. Examples are numerous: pretending to have very important business to attend to, or an imaginary phone call to make or answer. Some are canny enough to supply an excuse from the very start of the meeting that lets them escape without the need for another explanation.

7. Embarra.s.sment avoidance. Supplying a socially acceptable excuse for your behavior instead of revealing a real, perhaps humiliating, one.

8. Confidentiality preservation. However, because no warning is given about such an intention, this would count as a lie.

9. Control and influence over others by deciding which information should or should not be revealed to them.

According to Vrij (2000) people lie to make a positive impression on others; to protect themselves from embarra.s.sment/disapproval; to obtain advantage; to avoid punishment; to benefit others; and to facilitate social relationships.

Clearly, some people lie better than others. Actors and politicians are skilled at this activity. Machiavellian manipulators are good too, as are adaptable and social people. Various factors, other than the liar's personality, increase their effectiveness and the probability of not being caught. But the chances of catching liars rise if the individuals are known to the lie-catcher; if they are familiar with the topic; if the liar is young, introverted or self-conscious; and if the liar is from the same ethic background as the lie-detector.

CATCHING LIARS: WHY THEY FAIL.

Psychopaths rarely get caught lying in everyday life. Politicians, doctors and salespeople have to learn to disguise emotions and present their case in a particular way. But other people are unable to keep a "straight face" and so may get caught out telling the most innocent of lies.

According to Ekman (2001), there are essentially five reasons (listed below) why liars get caught out. They leak cues to their deceit in their body, voice or words.

Lack of preparation (bad lines) A good lie requires preparation, rehearsal and memorization. A good liar should be able to antic.i.p.ate when it is appropriate or necessary to lie; when to be inventive; that they must remain internally consistent; and that the story must fit the known/revealed facts. The right words must be used, but the liar must not take time thinking about what to say. Lies take rehearsal and being word-perfect. Curiously, where people are over-rehea.r.s.ed, over-consistent and overwhelmingly convincing, they too may be caught out through their over-preparation. Con-men, for example, are used to telling the same series of well-prepared lies over and over again. They, however, often look too confident, their story appears too coherent. They do not display enough anxiety that one would a.s.sociate with the occasion. Thus, while a lack of preparation is surely going to get you caught out by an inquisitive questioner, an over-rehea.r.s.ed alibi coupled with unemotional confidence is also very likely to arouse further suspicion.

Lying about feelings (emotional escapes) Lies that involve emotions are more difficult to carry off than lies about actions, facts, intentions, plans or thoughts. When a person is made angry, frightened or sad, physiological changes occur automatically (in the central nervous system), without choice or selection. Strong emotions triggered by particular memories are hard to conceal or control. Sadness, anger and so on return in the re-telling, but if they are not present this may indicate lying. Trying to look angry when one is not or calm when frightened is not easy. Portraying the feeling of being upset or angry takes considerable acting skill. Perhaps even harder is the concealment of strong emotions or sustaining a lie about a powerful emotional experience such as an accident or a crime.

Feelings about lying (old-fashioned guilt) If a person feels guilty, silly or vulnerable about their deception (tax evasion, embezzlement, plagiarism) appropriate emotions are triggered which may be difficult to conceal. The more people realize or believe they are telling a serious lie, the more likely they are to show guilt. Such deception-guilt arises more from the action of lying than from the lie itself. It increases when the lie is selfish, when the deceit is unauthorized, when the liar is ill-practiced, and when the liar and his or her target are similar in terms of personality and social values. Guilt leads to shame, which is manifested in eye contact, body posture and so on.

Fear of being caught Also called detection apprehension, this concerns being fearful about being caught and punished for the deception in the first place. This fear is a function of a belief in the apt.i.tude and skill of the lie detector. Some people are believed to be particularly good at detection: police officers, psychologists and psychiatrists, customs officers. They have a reputation for being suspicious and difficult to fool, thus are likely to increase fear in the liar, which may show up in a variety of emotional expressions.

Some people seem to be natural liars, but others are easily detected when telling any lies. Natural liars (excluding psychopaths) tend to be individualistic and compet.i.tive. Another factor of importance is how high the stakes are (what is involved for the liar): the more at stake, the greater the detection apprehension. There are two punishments for every lie: that for telling the lie and that for the lie failing. The latter is about losing trust and being labeled a liar.

According to Ekman (2001) apprehensiveness about being detected in telling a lie is the greatest under eight very specific circ.u.mstances: * the target has a reputation for being tough to fool; * the target starts out being suspicious; * the liar has had little practice and no record of success; * the liar is specially vulnerable to the fear of being caught; * the stakes are high; * both rewards and punishments are at stake; or if it is only one or the other, punishment is at stake; * the punishment for being caught lying is great, or the punishment for what the lie is about is so great that there is no incentive to confess; * the target is no way benefits from the lie. (p. 641) Deception guilt This refers to feelings about lying, not feelings about guilt. At extremes, this guilt can induce shame and affects feelings of self-worth which can very quickly manifest themselves physically. People with a strict, moral upbringing naturally tend to be the most guilt-p.r.o.ne. The psychopath, of course, does not suffer from this problem.

There are a number of highly specific conditions which seem either to exacerbate or to reduce deception guilt depending on the individual in question. It has to be pointed out that lying is an extremely idiosyncratic behavior. While some patterns of behavior are common to most lying situations, they are not necessarily exhibited by all liars. Moreover, these behavioral patterns might not have anything to do with lying but be caused by completely different and unrelated sets of factors. Again, Ekman (2001) has specified eight of these most common deception guilt conditions: * The target is unwilling; * The deceit is totally selfish, and the target derives no benefit from being misled and loses as much as or more than the liar gains; * The deceit is unauthorized, and the situation is one in which honesty is authorized; * The liar has not been practising the deceit for a long time; * The liar and the target share social values; * The liar is personally acquainted with the target: * The target can't easily be faulted as mean or gullible; * There is reason for the target to expect to be misled; just the opposite, the liar has acted to win confidence in his trustworthiness. (pp. 756) Duping delight Some liars get caught paradoxically because of the observable and puzzling post-lie relief, pride, even smugness. Again, if these feelings are not concealed and this can be difficult it can lead to the liar getting caught. People can tempt fate, enjoy "misleading others" and play games, only to be caught by duping delight. This problem occurs particularly, according to Ekman (2001) under three circ.u.mstances: * The target poses a challenge, having a reputation for being difficult to fool; * The lie is a challenge, because of either what must be concealed or the nature of what must be fabricated; * Others are watching or know about the lie and appreciate the liar's skilful performance. (p. 79) Yet people remain bad at detecting lies, for many reasons. Vrij (2000) lists seven. First, people do not actually want to know the truth. Second, there are no typical deceptive behaviors applicable to all people. Third, the difference between liars and truth-tellers are very small. Fourth, the rules of conversation prevent lie detectors from carefully a.n.a.lyzing an accused liar properly. Fifth, observers' judgment is often affected by their personal biases, misbeliefs and systematic errors. Sixth, nervous behavior does not mean lying behavior, though many believe that to be true. And, finally, most observers fail to take individual differences into account.

Helpfully Vrij (2000) provides the guidelines shown in the box below to uncovering deception via nonverbal behaviors.

1. It is only possible to detect a lie via nonverbal clues if the liar experiences some emotion such as fear or guilt, or if the lie is too complicated or complex to concoct.