The Articulate CEO

The Lie Behind The Lie Detector

The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.

The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.

The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.

The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through.

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail. Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.

Lie detectors don't work - and that is the truth!

The Ins & Outs of Lying

Lying is endemic in human society and from a purely evolutionary point of view the ability to lie is actually quite impressive. That is, of course, as long as you are not considering moral and ethical points of view. Not all lies are bad and many are told with a pretty good motive in mind but given how often it happens we all benefit from knowing why it happens and who is more likely to do it.

Some of the reasons that lies are told include:

• To conceal misdeeds and stay out of trouble. Wrongdoings often can't be undone, and it's rare that owning up to a misdeed will result in a positive outcome (at least in the short term). ­These lies are told to avoid responsibility and repercussions.

• To preserve reputation. A recovering drug addict may lie about time spent in a treatment facility, especially to a potential employer or romantic prospect. A lie like this is told to avoid shame or embarrassment.

• To avoid hurting someone's feelings. Children learn early on to be polite, not to point out physical flaws, and to say "thank you" even after they receive something they don't like. These "white lies" are distinguished from other types because they carry no ill will or bad intentions.

• To increase stature and reputation. Some lies are told without any obvious external stimulus, such as a demand for an answer to a specific question. This type of lie is often narcissistic in nature, told to make the liar seem more accomplished, skilled or gifted as a means of gaining favor in the eyes of others.

• To manipulate. These lies aren't evasive or defensive, but rather aggressive and malicious in nature. Such lies are told to gain wealth, love, favor or other assets by damaging another's reputation or spreading harmful untruths.

• To control information. As opposed to airing a falsehood, indirect lying is withholding or concealing important facts. This is often seen as a more acceptable form of lying, since a person doesn't actively construct lies, but only sits tightly on the truth. A missing piece of information can completely alter the understanding of an event, leading American courts to demand not only the truth, but "the whole truth."

Lies are told -- in some form or fashion -- by just about everybody. Some personality types, however, are more likely to lie than others:

• Pathological liars are generally sociopathic, lack a clear sense of right and wrong and show an absence of remorse when harming others. Sociopaths tell some of the best lies, since they don't feel bad about doing so and don't show signs of guilt or worry. Sociopaths lie for self-gain, and their lies veer heavily toward manipulation.

• Compulsive liars lie as the first option, even when there's no reason or advantage for doing so. Childhood experiences, such as living in an abusive environment where lying might be necessary for survival or emotional well-being, are often responsible for compulsive lying.

• Narcissists lie to gain undeserved glory and esteem in the eyes of others.

• Borderline personalities experience wild mood swings and out-of-control behaviors, like drug abuse, gambling or promiscuous sex. This type may tell lies in an effort to deal with the fallout from these behaviors.

• Histrionic personalities desperately crave love and attention and will tell lies that, though not accurate, may reflect the emotional truth of the situation. "I'm so sick I could die," and "If you leave me, I'll kill myself," are two examples of lies told by this type.

The more you understand the motives for lying and the people behind them the better equipped you are to deal with both the lie and the liar. After all, it is a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies.

 

Now You're Talking, Manager

In the following article by BRW's Leo D'Angelis Fisher I, along with Jon-Michail and the Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Management Susan Heron, discuss the problems plaguing executive communication in Australia.

 

 

Spelling Really Does Matter

Communication blogger David Wise sent me the following link and asked me to comment. It is an article citing the work of CQUniversity researcher Dr. Michael Cowling who states that "Spelling is overrated. As long as the meaning of something is clear, why does it matter how we spell the words?"

For the benefit of Michael, David and everyone else, this is why it matters.

How you say what you say has a huge impact on its meaning. As readers, we don’t set out to be judgmental. In many cases, however, the only knowledge we have of an author is through what we are reading—and, consequently, how that text is written greatly affects our opinion of both the writer and the message. If all you can see are misspelled words, you might start questioning the credibility of the writer. You might wonder about the author's age, education or intellect and just how seriously you should be taking that person. Forget 'might'... you will!

That is the reality of the situation. However, we live in an era where those who point out errors in grammar or spelling are quickly marginalized as "Grammar Nazis". Ignorance rules the day, and the social pressure encouraging good spelling and grammar has dramatically declined. Consequently, people are making the mistake of thinking they can get away with poor spelling and grammar.

Now, English may well be a very difficult language, with a tremendous array of conflicting influences, and a host of specialized rules and conditions. It is fair to say that it is very difficult to conform to all norms of grammar given that many of them are subjective and conflicting (and many self-appointed gurus have themselves made embarrassing errors). I have absolutely no doubt that this entry, for example, has over a dozen real or subjective grammar problems: From the incorrect placement of a comma, to the overzealous use of a compound adjective, to the use of a colon where a dash would suffice.

I am not making a claim of perfection nor am I requiring that of others. Mistakes of grammar are common and, given the complexity, understandable. However, spelling is standardized (with minor regional variations), so unless you are intentionally trying to extend or adapt the language, some effort should be exerted to check it. To do otherwise is simply being lazy.

How we write is a direct reflection of our intelligence, knowledge, education, experience, and personality. Even if you are not intending your writing to be such a reflection it is how you are judged. So does proper spelling really matter? Of course it does! It helps make your voice more powerful and, in some respects at least, more meaningful.

Formality Stifles Clear Communication

The business world has an unfortunate habit of confusing hierarchy with formality. In other words we teach people that the higher the status of someone within an organisation the more formal our language should be in dealing with them. Yes, of course there will be differing levels of respect depending on who you’re talking to – whether the CEO or the colleague you share a cubicle with – but formality leads to rigid communication channels that are inflexible and inefficient.

For example, if I disagree with a colleague, I’m likely to let him know directly and unambiguously. But the higher up the chain you go, the less people ‘give it to you straight’; fine if you have a fragile ego, but not useful if you want honest feedback about yourself and the business in general. Also, as employees feel they must communicate formally with superiors, leaders feel compelled to talk back to them in the same way – which leads to the scourge of homogenised and bland internal communication.

Leaders should encourage people to express their disagreement the same way regardless of the level at which that disagreement is occurring. That is, not through arguing, but by registering their protest through sensible discussion. This should happen at all levels of the organisation – which, of course, is best achieved by starting at the top. That means we should all simply talk to people as we would want to be spoken to – which for a true ‘leader’ should be in an open, honest and respectful manner.

 

Authenticity - The Key To Communication And Everything Else

Authenticity lies at the heart of success in communication and, arguably, at the heart of success in anything. We all achieved whatever success we have by being us.  Sure you may have honed your skills, gathered experience, even stolen some ideas along the way but you have remained the person you were from the start.  No one becomes successful by being someone other than who we are because we can’t maintain the charade long enough.

You are who you are.

And success doesn’t change you either.  It simply highlights whatever traits existed in the first place and allows them to flourish.  For example we often hear people say that money has changed someone and turned them into an asshole.  Not true - they were an asshole in the first place!  Money just allowed you to notice.

The most successful people in the world are those who have the strongest grip on who they are.  They are acutely aware of their values and they are not afraid to articulate them to anyone who will listen.  Consequently they gather like-minded people around them and that collective power breeds success for as long as those values have currency.  Those values are not always popular to begin with or they may not be popular towards the end but the person who believes in them, sticks with them, and we remember them for that reason.  If you want an individual example of this then look no further than Nelson Mandela.

Mandela's words, "The struggle is my life," are not to be taken lightly.

Nelson Mandela personifies struggle.  He continued to lead the fight against apartheid with extraordinary vigor and resilience after spending nearly three decades of his life behind bars.  In prison Mandela never compromised his political principles and was always a source of strength for the other prisoners.  

He sacrificed his private life and his youth for his people, and remains South Africa's best known and loved hero.  He stands for something.  It is the stand that people rally to not the man.

It is the same in business.  To be truly successful you and your business have to stand for something.  There have to be guiding principles and values that people can identify with and rally to.  There has to be a way for people to determine if you are like them and if they can trust you to fulfill your promises.  The way is simple.

Tell people what you are like. 

Tell people what they can expect from you in their business dealings.

Tell people what they can rely upon to be a part of every transaction.

Live up to it.

Why Missions, Values and Visions Fail

The common mission statement or vision, supposedly the bedrock of an organisation is often nothing more than a foundation of sand. Most corporate visions are too broad to be useful and too vague to be implemented. It isn't that the vision doesn't mean anything so much as it could mean anything. Too much is left open to interpretation and the result is our people, unsure of performance expectations, start working at cross-purposes. Where organisations have tried to go a dstep further by developing values statements there are often similar issues. The values are either poorly defined and open to interpretation or they merely reflect what an organisation thinks people would like to see rather than the reality. Look at this example:

Our Values

Communication
We have an obligation to communicate. Here, we take the time to talk with one another… and to listen. We believe that information is meant to move and that information moves people.

Respect
We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. We do not tolerate abusive or disrespectful treatment.

Integrity
We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly and sincerely. When we say we will do something, we will do it; when we say we cannot or will not do something, then we won’t do it.

Excellence
We are satisfied with nothing less than the very best in everything we do. We will continue to raise the bar for everyone. The great fun here will be for all of us to discover just how good we can really be.

They sound good don't they? Until, that is, you realise they are the stated values of a company you may have heard of - Enron. Do they in any way reflect the reality of that particular company? Of course not. But they are the perfect example of how values and mission statements have become nothing more than rhetoric. Now, here is a test for you.

Make a copy of your corporate values, a copy of Enron’s corporate values, and a copy of corporate value statements from a couple of other companies. Remove the company names from all documents. Take these lists to a random cross section of your employees and ask, “ Which of these corporate value statements best describes our company’s actions?” “Which least describes our company?” While you are at it also ask several suppliers and several customers.

Each time, as an afterthought, ask each group “By the way, do you happen to recognize which – if any – of these is actually ours?” Chances are that none of your suppliers, none of your customers, and very, very few of your employees will be able to tell the difference between Enron’s corporate values, your corporate values, and the values of any other random company.

What does this mean to you?

1. Most corporate value statements are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

2. Actions are what count – not what’s on paper.

3. If there’s a disconnect between what you say is important and what people do, you need to fix that right away. Rather than building a series of rules, build a series of examples. People learn from examples and role models – not from a list of words.

It’s all about alignment. What you say you want, what you really want, and what you reward all have to be in alignment. If not, then you are doing nothing more than trading in rhetoric and you will be undone by your actions... much like Enron.

 

Qantas Finish 2011 A Winner - For All The Wrong Reasons!

The list that stops a nation - Australia's Biggest PR Disasters of the Year - is out and in an unprecedented achievement, Qantas won three of the top 10 gaffes of 2011 when the list was released by social networking tracking site Cyber Chatter. It's never been done before and it is hard to see how anyone could ever do it again but, then again, Qantas is still with us and 2012 is a brand new year. Who would bet against them? So, here it is, Australia's Biggest PR Disasters of the Year together with links to news.com.au for anyone who missed the stories first time around.

1. The Qantas grounding inconvenienced and angered a nation. People are still waiting for refunds yet CEO Alan Joyce still has a job.

2. "Qantas Luxury" Twitter scandal. The plan was to get people tweeting good things about Qantas. They got thousands of complaints.

3. Troubled footballer Brendan Fevola's contract termination with the Brisbane Lions ends up in court.

4. Tony Abbott freezes during a TV interview with Channel 7's Mark Riley in the "shit happens" tape.

5. Qantas "golliwog" social media promo causes a race brouhaha.

6. Ricky Nixon and the fallout from his unseemly association with a teenager.

7. Indigenous writer Larissa Behrendt describes bestiality program as "less offensive than Bess Price", an Aboriginal woman in favour of the Northern Territory intervention.

8. Kyle Sandilands goes on a personal vendetta against a journo. Austereo loses more than 20 advertisers and the shock jock is forced into a humiliating apology.

9. Australian Defence Force cadet is violated when she is filmed having sex.

10. Gasp Jeans become a mockery after their startling email response to a customer complaint goes viral.

Something For Everyone - The Barnum Effect

Ever wondered why people seem so easily conned by slick talkers? The answer may lie in a phenomenon known as the Barnum Effect. The Barnum effect is the name given to a type of subjective validation in which a person finds personal meaning in statements that could apply to many people.

For example:

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. At times you have serious doubts whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.

If these statements sound like they came from a news stand astrology book, that may be because they did. Such statements are sometimes called Barnum statements and they are an effective element in the repertoire of anyone doing readings: astrologers, palm readers, psychics, H.R. Managers and so on.

When statements like this appear on things like personality inventories that people believe have been especially prepared for them alone, they often validate the accuracy of such statements and thereby give validity to the instrument used to arrive at them. If Barnum statements are validated when they have originated during a psychic reading for example, the validation is taken as also validating the psychic powers of the medium.You see the same kinds of statements and conclusions for that matter in things as diverse as economic analyses, school reports and performance evaluations.

Incidentally, "Barnum effect" is an expression that seems to have originated with psychologist Paul Meehl, in deference to circus man P. T. Barnum's reputation as a master psychological manipulator who is said to have claimed "we have something for everybody."

And that about sums it up - they are statements in which there is something for everyone.

The Truth About Graphology - Another Communication Con

Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character and personality traits. The people who practise it will often claim to be handwriting experts. They are not. Real handwriting experts are actually known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists. Forensic document examiners consider loops, dotted "i's" and crossed "t's," letter spacing, slants, heights, ending strokes and so on. They examine handwriting to detect authenticity or forgery i.e. is that a real signature on a document?

Graphologists examine the same things but for a different reason. They believe the loops, dotted "i's" and crossed "t's," letter spacing, slants, heights, ending strokes and so on are physical manifestations of unconscious mental functions. In other words, they believe handwriting can tell us about personality, aptitude and attitude. It doesn't. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the unconscious mind is a reservoir of truth about a person, much less that graphology provides a gateway to that reservoir.

Graphology is claimed to be useful for everything from understanding health issues, morality and past experiences to hidden talents and mental problems. However, in properly controlled, blind studies, where the handwriting samples contain no content that could provide non-graphological information upon which to base a prediction, graphologists do no better than chance at predicting personality traits.

The techniques of these "experts" are really nothing more than guesses or deductions based not so much on such things as the pressure exerted on the page, spacing of words and letters, etc but rather the content of the writing itself and background information about the writer. Though graphologists deny it, the content of the writing is one of the more important factors in graphological character assessment. Likewise, it is easy to offer up an analysis of the handwriting of a famous person about whom much information is already in the public domain. If handwriting can really tell us so much then the blind studies mentioned earlier should have no trouble backing it up. The fact that they don't and worse, that any one of us can have the same kind of hit rate in these studies that the so-called handwriting experts have tells us all we need to know.

Graphology is another pipe dream for those who want a quick and dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis testing. If you want results and you want them now and you want them stated in strong, certain terms, graphology is for you. If, however, you can live with reasonable probabilities and uncertainty, you might try another method to pick a spouse or hire an employee... like flipping a coin.