Whenever people mention about being a good orator or leader, many think of the traditional politician standing on podiums giving a rousing speech with various arm gestures. Such images undoubtedly carry the same significance nowadays as they have been since time immemorial. In the workplace, increasingly, non-verbal communication has been gradually supplanting the traditional verbal communication. What defines “clear communication” has shifted dramatically in recent years due to the introduction of technology, yet its essence remains. As a leader in the workplace, clear communication not only achieves what e-mails cannot—through the accompaniment of gestures, facial expressions etc.—but it also increases the leader’s credibility. Through clearly articulating the goals, criticisms, and even praises, employees enjoy the benefit of job security and predictability without inducing complacency. A mutual initiative from both the leaders and the workers to clearly express their desires and expectations helps retain the balance of power within the workplace without upsetting the intrinsic hierarchy.
While verbal and non-verbal communications occupy an essential place in an organization, an emerging factor that can hamper clear communication is an individuals unintentional misinterpretation of a colleague’s desires. Often such phenomenon is blamed on causing emotional distresses and decreased work capacity in workers. In a study measuring the impact that non-verbal communication have on people, it is discovered that over 90% of a message is interpreted through facial gestures, hand signs and the tone of the speaker. Leaders who have mastered these techniques can increase their appeal to workers. Typically, good communication styles include direct eye-contact, sincerity in maintaining the dialogue, and taking an initiative to actively sustain the listener’s attention. Surprisingly, bad communication styles do not diverge much from good conversation styles; the difference lies in the eye of the beholder. Mishaps in word choice and interpretation through the most discerning eyes compound to the problem of violating a confidence. As Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute of New York says, “the art of being a [leader] is to be able to take [different] perspectives [and look for the common ground].” Even enthusiasm and over-impassion cannot be pretexts for violating a worker’s confidence.
On the personal level I have experienced an occasion when my feelings were seriously hurt after a workplace leader’s comments. My workplace leader once commented on my English accent, saying not only does my Chinese-English accent should be avoided completely; it should also be eradicated with the help of a speech pathologist. At first, being impartial with regard to the comment, the workplace leader had made my accent problem sound very reasonable and logical, thanks to his unswerving and pretentious manner in his articulation. It seemed as if the workplace leader had been trying to carry across a benign message of the need to improve my accent using a paternal and didactic tone. Yet judging by the contents of the comment it was no suspicion that a racist connotation had been implied surreptitiously. Considering the impact of such a comment, had the workplace leader equivocated, stuttered or disconnected his eye-contact with me, in all cases I would have been tremendously provoked.
« return.