How referee body language affects the perception of performance

August 27, 2011 3 Comments

How referee body language affects the perception of performance.

I recently watched the new documentary “The Referees” which follows a number of FIFA referees through the Euro 2008 finals. The film is a great record of the stresses and pressures put on the top officials in the modern game at the highest level. It also reveals some mighty large egos!

As a referee at a local level, I can identify with the challenges of getting it right in every game. The film gives some insights into what is in the minds of the officials at key moments in games as we can here their miked up conversations. Yet the top officials keep their doubts (for the most part) hidden. How do they do this? Through confident non-verbal communication.

In the Empire Magazine review of the film, the reviewer says the defining shot in the movie is “an Italian linesman practising his flag-waving in front of a dressing room mirror. Absolutely priceless.” The reviewer has got it completely wrong. The assistant referee is actually checking that his flag technique is clear, unambiguous and, most importantly, delivered with confidence. Every decision that assistant gives is going to be scrutinised. He has to convey that he is absolutely sure of the decision (even if some of the conversation we hear suggests he is not).

Check out this clip of research into what footballers want from a referee;

 

The research confirms that players want the referee to be;

  • competent
  • dependable
  • respectful

Notice how players decide on this based on a number of verbal and non-verbal (mostly visual) clues. This is consistent with the work of Albert Mehrabian, who showed that body language and tone of voice are the most important factors in someone hearing the right message and,crucially, believing, it.

So, how do we do this? Here are a few tips to help;

  1. Make strong eye contact when you are speaking to a player.
  2. Once you have made a decision, be quick and clear with your flag or hand signals.
  3. Talk to players as you expect them to talk to you – be firm but respectful. Never swear. Use your tone of voice to convey authority, not arrogance.
  4. Where you can, give players clarification on your decisions, but state this as fact from your point of view. Don’t allow your doubts to surface. Then move on, whatever you have decided it has gone.

Follow these few rules and we can all be perceived as more competent, dependable and respectful referees. Whether we are or not depends upon accurately knowing and applying the Laws of the game.

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with , , , , , ,

Apprentice Week 9 – Getting in tune with Lord Sugar

June 30, 2011 1 Comment

Apprentice Week 9 – Getting in tune with Lord Sugar

I think I’ve been missing the point in this series of The Apprentice. Lord Sugar is not looking for someone who is a good team player, has persuasive, influential communication and is a natural leader. He’s looking to back an entrepreneur, someone who is so driven and single minded that they won’t allow anything to get in their way. Meet Melody, who seems to fit the bill. If this is what Lord Sugar is looking for, then she is tailor made. I’ve obviously been singing from the wrong hymn sheet in this blog. Time to get in tune with Lord Sugar and understand the Melody.

According to Lord Sugar’s autobiography, “What you see is what you get”, entrepreneurs are born not made. It comes from within, not from outside. Natural entrepreneurs see opportunities where others don’t, and have the drive to see it through. Lord Sugar must see something in Melody that I don’t, because she represents everything I despise in business; she’s been shown to change the facts to suit herself and she doesn’t care about anyone else. Notice how she always positions herself at the front when Lord Sugar is present. Last night, she even insisted on quickly getting dressed and looking presentable when Lord Sugar descended on the house unexpectedly. It amazes me that Lord Sugar’s lap dogs, Nick and Karen don’t seem to see what the TV audience sees. Perhaps they do ,and it’s me who’s got it wrong?

And yet, Melody does have some good business instincts. She was quite correct last night that Zoe’s team Logic biscuit “Bix-Mix” had unclear marketing – the messages were contradictory, and the target customer confused. However, Melody contributed to Logic losing the task. She and Tom were despatched to a biscuit factory to produce a recipe and try it out on a focus group. The pair could not agree on a recipe, so took several choices to a focus group. Melody’s idea of “biscuits are the new popcorn” bombed and she sulked. Tom’s second choice of a 2-in-1 biscuit prevailed. Melody declared “I don’t like that”. She was right; it was poor, but her abrassive style failed to get her point across, and Melody was this week’s most hated person for Zoe (she has a new one every week) so she was over ruled.

Zoe, as PM had wanted to go to the factory, after all this is what she has been successful with before The Apprentice (a drinks factory). Zoe allowed herself to be bullied out of this, and when team Logic lost the task, it was due to a poor product. I suspect that Zoe and Melody were happy to be as far apart as possible. The decision not to go to the factory ultimately cost her, as none of the 3 supermarkets placed any orders and Zoe was fired. The fact that Logic had used a bizarre role play to start their pitches, another of Melody’s ideas, didn’t help.

Tem Venture were led by the redoubtable Helen, now undefeated in 9 weeks and outright favourite. Helen has the drive of Melody, but has the influential communication skills to bring others with her. Helen and Jim seemed to be on the same wavelength, but Natasha seemed to be pushed to the margins. Ultimately, the task to design and sell a biscuit was won by Venture thanks to some outrageous promisess made at a pitch to Asda, who demanded exclusivity and ordered 800,000. Lord Sugar seemed unhappy with Jim’s tactics, but he couldn’t disagree with the outcome.

Was it right that Zoe was fired? Yes, because she never got to grips with Melody. She should have put personalities to one side and gone with Melody to the factory. She would have been in an environment she is familiar with, and could have kept an eye on Melody. But Zoe is very emotional, and quite prepared to challenge others. Except Melody, who she disliked but couldn’t bully.

So, the series is shaping up ino a battle of the driven ladies. The contrast in styles between Helen (influential communicator, assertive) and Melody (single minded, win at all costs) is plain to see. But which style is best suited for Lord Sugar’s business partner?

Time will tell.

　

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing Tagged with , , ,

The Apprentice Week 8 – See Paris and get fired

June 23, 2011 Leave a comment

The Apprentice Week 8 – See Paris and get fired

The most amazing thing about this week’s Apprentice, was trying to work out who would get fired. Most of the candidates were in the firing line. Only Helen looked truly safe.

The task this week was to identify 2 items to sell in Paris. Tom got his first chance as team leader of Logic. Helen joined Venture, where team leader was Susan. Half of each team headed to Paris, to find retailers to sell to. The PMs and one colleague stayed behind to choose 2 items 10 products currently not on sale in France.

Susan managed to demonstrate how young, naive and ignorant she is, and gave us the quote of the week; “Do people in France love their children?”

Melody, part of team Logic demonstrated that she is not a good team player. She influenced PM Tom’s choice of preferred product because she did not fancy it (despite not seeing it) – a car seat that could be carried by the child as a rucksack. Melody didn’t like this and backed it up with some very dubious market research (sample of 4) suggesting no one in Paris drives their children! Melody wanted the teapot / light, not the rucksack. Melody also lied about how the teapot would be received, so rucksack rejected. Leon, who was with Melody did nothing because of language problems(most people spoke English, but he still did not do anything!)

So Venture took the rucksack and a device for attaching a phone / iPod to car vents. Logic took the teapot and some postcards that folded out into 3D models and cress was produced from.

Once the teams were reunited, Melody bullied Tom and gave him and Natasha only 1 out of 8 appointments. She and Leon had also done no research on La Redoute, the lead set up for them by Lord Sugar. Melody went off and did a good job selling to her appointments, with Leon doing virtually nothing. Tom and Natasha played “rock-scissors-stone” for the honour of pitching, and promptly made a mess of it. They did not realise how big an outfit LaRedoute is (the minimum order they asked for was 10. La Redoute expected to order thousands). Helen, on the other hand, did a brilliant job with the rucksack (yes that rucksack) for Venture.

Susan, for all of her naivity, had a good team and especially Helen, the only decent candidate, to save her and she did, gaining the biggest order in Apprentice history from La Redoute, worth £240K!

Tom was very democratic, clear in his instructions and laid back. His biggest problem was not raining in Melody, who both cost the team the task, and was also the only person to sell anything of note!

So to the Boardroom. Venture gave good feedback on Susan, but for Logic, Leon complained about Melody taking over the team. Melody defended her “market research”.

In the end, it was Helen’s success at La Redoute (Tom and Natasha sold nothing there) that won Venture the task. Tom chose to bring Leon and Melody back to the Boardroom.

Tom put the blame on Melody. Lord Sugar said he should have gone with his gut instinct over the rucksack. Lord Sugar then rounded on Melody for her approach to the task, and on Leon for not contributing. Things looked bleak for all 3, but surely Melody was most vulnerable? After all, she had contributed most to the team’s failure. But no, Lord Sugar praised Melody for this and she was saved. Tom was given a reprieve and told to be more assertive. Leon was sacked. Even his defence in the boardroom was weak and his cumulative failure (3rd visit to the boardroom, vs 1 for Tom) proved decisive.

Once again, Lord Sugar went with his gut instinct and contradicted previous things he has said about team work. Melody did not perform well, but maybe her unscrupulous approach (win at all cost and damn the consequences) is what Lord Sugar is looking for in a business partner. Time will tell.

Favourite: Helen’s position seems even more certain now, as she is the only decent candidate.

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with , , ,

The Apprentice Week 6 – Leading from the front.

June 9, 2011 Leave a comment

Edna finally made a reappearance in Week 6 of the Apprentice after hardly being seen for the last few weeks. It is clear to see why Executive Business Coach and Multiple Degree holder Edna has been missing, as she promptly got fired amidst claims of her taking credit for other people’s successes. Many people would say that this is exactly what an Executive Coach does!

Edna was part of team Venture, and had never lost a task. Venture was lead by Zoe, who assumed the role of leader as she wasn’t prepared to spend time discussing it. This proved to be indicative of Zoe’s approach to this task and her leadership was found wanting. Zoe misunderstood the strategy for securing the contracts on Day one, Consequently Venture failed to get either of the 2 contracts. It was noticable that Glen, not Zoe, gave the motivational talk to get the team focused for Day 2. Zoe had ended Day 1 in tears. Ultimately, Zoe survived despite admitting her mistakes, but its the last chance saloon for her.

Team Logic adopted a high risk strategy of paying nothing to remove the rubbish in the hope of maximising profit from the sale of recyclable items. Led by Helen, who also hadn’t lost a task, they secured both contracts. In the end they were lucky to win  (by only £6).  Jim, severely criticised by Lord Sugar last week, adopted a low key, low risk approach. He and Tom gave great impressions of Rag and Bone men as they scoured the streets of London in search of metal.

So, in summary, Helen’s team Logic had focus, took risks and apart from nearly overstretching themselves finally got Tom his first victory. Zoe’s team Venture lacked a cohesive strategy on Day 1 and Zoe’s leadership style was at best questionable, especially where Susan was concerned. Susan DID understand the strategy for securing the contracts, but was shouted down by Zoe. To lose by £6 from this setback ( the lowest gap in The Apprentice history) shows how well Venture did on Day 2, when the team pulled things back.

In the boardroom, Zoe appeared to align herself with Glen.  Zoe chose to bring Edna and Susan back in front of Lord Sugar. Zoe came out fighting, and in the end Edna’s bandwagon-jumping approach and MBA speech (Lord Sugar seems threatened by highly educated candidates who try to use their qualifications as a reason to stay) rescued Zoe. As leader, Zoe  probably should have been fired, but at least she owned up to getting it wrong on Day 1. Lord Sugar gave her credit for this, but warned Zoe he would not be so forgiving again. Edna dug herself into a hole, when she tried to justify her part in the task with “coach speak”. What Lord Sugar is looking for is a business partner, a do-er, not a coach or consultant. Edna never looked like the right type of person for this task.

From an Action-Centred Leadership Approach we can see that Helen scored highest on the three parameters of Task, Team & Individual:

Task – Helen was clear and focused, Zoe was not.

Team – Neither leader did particularly well, but both were strong in the face of challenge. Unfortunately, whichever leader lost was likely to find the team turn against them.

Individual – Zoe should have listened more to Susan, as she was the only one who understood what was needed to secure the contracts. Helen allowed Melody to challenge both herself and Natasha, but remained strong throughout.

So poor leadership from Zoe should have resulted in her being fired. She survived because everyone in the team agreed that Edna had a tendency to claim glory from other people’s successes. This had already been pointed out by Nick and Karen. Lord Sugar said he couldn’t see how he could work with someone like Edna. In the end this probably counted most. What Edna failed to realise is that it may be ok for a coach to sit in the back seat, but a leader has to lead from the front.

Favourite to win : Natasha, but Susan’s stock has risen this week.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership Tagged with , , , , ,

How marketing uses influential communication

May 7, 2011 Leave a comment

I love the following video. It features Robert Cialdini explaining his Principles of Persuasion, and illustrating it with examples from American TV advertising. This is a great way to understand how to be more influential. How can you use these approaches to get your message heard, and more importantly, believed? More on this soon.

Filed under Influential Communication, Sales & Marketing Tagged with

Refereeing, influential communication, and sins of the father

April 18, 2011 3 Comments

You may not know this, but I spend a part of my spare time as a football referee. Now, we are getting to the business part of the season where titles are won and promotion or relegation issues are decided. This can lead to a degree of tension in football matches, and the referee can easily be hated by both teams.

The aim of this post is not to issue a plea on behalf of referees, but rather to share some insights into influential communication that I have learned from recent matches.

Last weekend, I refereed 2 matches. On Saturday, the match was between 2 teams of Under 12 boys. It was a competitive affair, played in a good spirit, but not without its incidents. What impressed me was the calm way that the coaches and spectators (mostly parents) conducted themselves. There was very little, if any, negativity from the sidelines, and this was reflected in excellent behaviour from both teams. Even when a player got injured and crawled off the pitch, both coach and player accepted it as part of the game. It was clear to me that the players of both teams reflected the culture and approach of their coaches.

The following day, I refereed an open-age (adults to you and me) match. This time, one of the teams was quite relaxed and easy going. They were already relegated and accepted it for what it was. They contested some decisions, but always in a polite and respectful way. Some may say that this is why they ended up relegated, but that’s an argument for another day.

It soon became apparent that the other team took a different view, commenting or challenging every decision that I made as the referee. Eventually, I took the captain of this team to one side and warned him that I would have to caution someone for dissent if this behaviour did not stop. It didn’t, and so I ended up booking one of the team. This young lad had been offering me his opinion throughout the game and was the most frequent offender, so it was no surprise that he ended up in my book. I took his name and was about to restart the game, when another member of the same team stepped across the line and was cautioned. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this player not only had the same surname as the first offender, but was the father of the lad I had just booked!

So, 2 matches, 2 days, 2 contrasting atmospheres. What are we to conclude from these events?  Well, as children we learn how to behave from significant parental figures in our lives (Eric Berne, Transactional Analysis, TA). Mums, Dads, teachers and football coaches all contribute to ensure that we get the children we deserve; that is, reflections of ourselves, our values, and our behaviours. This is sometimes called sins of the father. So, keep this in mind when you are in any kind of man-management position. Treat others how you want to be treated, or live with the consequences.

 

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with ,

Semantic links, NLP and embedded commands

April 7, 2011 Leave a comment

We are all familiar with semantic links. They are words in electronic media which are highlighted, often in a different colour to the main text. When you move your cursor over the word, it is revealed to be a hyperlink (a link that takes you to another web page) with more information the author wants you to read. Sometimes the sentence that the semantic link appears in is a pretext to get you to click on the link. This can be to link you to adverts or web pages, but it is also the trick used to infect your pc with trojans or viruses. You recognise the set up – a screen pops up looking like Windows Defender with scary threats that your PC is infected. You are then encouraged to activate an antivirus package, possibly one you believe you already have or one you have to purchase. The problem is that once you do this, you allow the trojan access to your pc where it can wreak havoc.  

What you may not be so familiar is that there is a linguistic (the L in NLP) trick that is used in influential communication to get people to do what you want them to. This is at the heart of the work of stage performers such as Derren Brown or Paul McKenna. In NLP it is called an embedded command. Here is how it works; the command is hidden or embedded in a longer sentence.

For instance:

“You may or may not decide to sign up to my blog site”

In this example, the embedded command is written in italics. The conscious mind hears the full sentence, but the subconscious mind replays the words and can be inclined to hear the embedded command. This is particularly true if you like the speaker (another of Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion) and want to please them. This is a key basis of hypnosis.  Notice, all of this is happening at a sub-conscious level.  

Embedded commands are even more effective when they use ambiguous language, such as in the following example:

“You, like me, are probably a very reasonable person.

The embedded command is, again, in italics. The subconscious mind ignores the grammar and looks at the various possible meanings of the sentence. One interpretation, possibly the desired one, tells your subconscious mind that you like me. So you do.

The learning here is that by building up a stock of choice embedded commands you can develop as a more influential communicator. In this way you are more likely to get the outcomes you deserve.

You are probably now aware of the embedded commands you already use.

Share some of your examples below.

Filed under Influential Communication, NLP Tagged with , , , ,

Cialdini, Principles of Persuasion and April Fools’ pranks that are believed

April 1, 2011 1 Comment

As today is the first day of the fourth month, there is a lot of influential communication to be observed in the form of April Fools’ pranks. Clearly, the aim of a prank is to influence another person to believe an absurdity.

But what makes one of these pranks more likely to be believed than another?

Well, the Principles of Persuasion, devised by Robert Cialdini, can give us some clues. One principle is particularly effective; Authority.

Basically, people are more likely to be influenced in their behaviour from someone to whom they attribute relevant expertise or authority.  Think about the most famous pranks, reported or perpetrated by the BBC such as;

 1957: Hoax BBC Panorama reveals spaghetti harvest in Switzerland

1976: Patrick Moore tells BBC Radio 2 listeners that at 0947 a planetary event would lessen Earth’s gravity and if people jumped in the air at that moment, they would float.

What made these pranks so successful was the fact that authorities such as the BBC or Patrick Moore, a leading expert on Astronomy and well known TV personality, were involved.

Of course, fun as this is – or not depending on your perspective – many organisations make use of the Authority Principle in their promotion, as indeed am I.

What’s your experience of this?

Comments welcomed

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with , , , , , ,

Sales – the oldest profession

March 31, 2011 2 Comments

We have all been told what the oldest profession is, but of course, it is actually sales. Think about it, before someone can pay for your services they have to be sold!

When I was a wet-behind-the-ears young salesman (long, long ago), I was introduced to a simple concept that had an amazing effect on my sales success. Here’s how it goes…

The world is full of problems and one way of looking at selling is as a form of problem solving. As sales people we aim to use our products or services to overcome problems the customer may be having.

However, obviously we can’t fix every problem. A problem that our product can fix is called an opportunity in sales and marketing terms. Now, many inexperienced sales people are good at recognising opportunities, and they go straight for the jugular with a feature-benefit volley. But they don’t get the sale. Why not?

Well, successful sales people know that it’s meeting a customer need that persuades the customer to buy. A need is a problem that your product can fix and the customer wants fixing.

So, next time you are in front of your customer and you recognise an opportunity, take a breath and just confirm with the customer that it is actually a need. A simple question like, “and is having that important to you?”, answered in the affirmative tells you all you need to know and now is the time to let rip with the features and benefits. Of course, if the customer says “no” then you will have to find a new angle to explore.

If you are struggling with getting sales, try this approach and you’ll be amazed at the results. If you are still not convinced, why not contact me for some one-to-one coaching or attend my next Sales and Marketing Master Class.

Happy selling!

Filed under Influential Communication, Sales & Marketing Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Influential communication – does body language matter?

March 31, 2011 7 Comments

The fundamental purpose of influential communication is to persuade others to behave the way you want them to. This has numerous applications in sales, marketing, leadership and management. A key question in trying to do this is “does body language matter?” The simple answer is “yes it does!”

The Social Styles model was developed over 40 years ago and has been refined and expanded since that time. Social Styles can be used to influence the behaviour of others, and at the heart of this model is the reading and adaptation of behaviour; first our own, then that of other people. But where does the evidence come from that adapting body language is important?

Back in the 1970s, a researcher at the University of California in Los Angeles identified the importance of body language to verbal communication. Now, the work of Professor Albert Mehrabian has often been misquoted and used to explain / justify much beyond his original work, but the gist of what he found is as follows: getting our message across to other people is about much more than just choosing the right words.

In fact, Mehrabian showed that words only contribute about 7% to the effectiveness of communication, with tone of voice (38%) and body language (55%) being much more important. In particular, it seems that we need more than just the words to decide whether we believe the speaker (or even to decide if they believe what they are saying ).

That is not to say that the words are unimportant. Change the words and you change the meaning. However, the words are not enough on their own.

Still not convinced? Well, just think about how the intent behind the words becomes more ambiguous as we move from face-to- face communication, to telephone, to e-mail and txt!

Notice that according to Mehrabian, over half of the message we take from verbal communication comes from reading body language. Now, most of this is going on at a subconscious level, but it does make sense. For instance, we are able to discern possible danger to ourselves by interpreting body language, and this has been a vital survival mechanism throughout human evolution. You disagree? Well, next time you see someone coming towards you with a bloody knife and a deranged expression on their face what will you do; take precautions, or wait to confirm your worst fears with a simple verbal, “do you intend me some harm?”

So, body language does matter and Social Styles allows us to maximise the 93% of communication that Mehrabian says is vital to understanding and influencing other people. Clearly this is key to successful sales, marketing, leadership and management.

Learn more about Albert Mehrabian

Filed under Influential Communication, Social Style, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Newer posts →