Please read the article I attach below (Nonverbal communication in the workplace) then make a PowerPoint. The PowerPoint should contain these: – (please leave the first page for me so I can put my name and stuff like that on it) -article information (title/published date/or other must know information about the article) -bio information about the authors and co-authors (their background etc) -background about this article (synopsis of the literature review) -research questions (the most important part!!!!!!!!!! Just put whatever information in this article that you think is VERY important. It can be more than one. Like the main topics/problems/issues that are being discussed in the article) -conclusion Please cover the points I listed above and the PowerPoint should be about 10 minutes long. And as you know, as a good PowerPoint, every page should not contain too many words, just some main sentences. So the rest of the words I have to say while presenting, please type them down in a Word file. For example like page 3 in PowerPoint is to introduce the authors, then you can put some basic info about the author, his/her name, previous job, where he/she had work before and what books/article he/she had written before in PowerPoint file. Then in the Word file you can mark and type down what I have to say for the certain pages. Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks.
nonverbal_communication_in_the_workplace.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Ravi S. Kudesia and Hillary Anger Elfenbein
26 Nonverbal communication in the
workplace
Abstract: Nonverbal communication is an important but under-studied element
of organizational life. This chapter summarizes key insights into the functions,
applications, and ubiquity of nonverbal communication in the workplace setting.
The chapter is intended to provide an accessible and research-based resource by
which academics and practitioners alike can better understand the unique challenges and opportunities of nonverbal communication. The authors present an overview of nonverbal behavior, speak about the workplace as a communication context, and explore the details of relevant issues including: status and power,
physical appearance, interviews and performance assessments, sexual harassment, attire and uniforms, leadership communications, advertising and sales, emotions and deception, and computer mediated communication. Future directions in
organizational nonverbal behavior research are also discussed.
Keywords: nonverbal communication, workplace, organizations, status characteristics, appearance, interviews, facial behavior, vocal behavior, gestures, impression
management
Communication skills are among the most important skills for businesspeople. In
workshops aimed at honing these important skills, it is not at all uncommon to
hear, further, about the importance of nonverbal communication. Often speakers
confidently declare that research shows a full 93% of all communication is nonverbal – 55% comes from body language and 38% from tone of voice. Although such
an assertion seems suspect upon reflection, its widespread prevalence in industry
networking guides and repetition by presentation gurus lends it an air of credibility. However, the original research behind this much-abused statistic does not support these broad conclusions (Mehrabian and Ferris 1967). To counteract the misapplications of his famous equation, Dr. Albert Mehrabian, a pioneer in nonverbal
communications, even adds a bolded disclaimer on his website explaining that
these figures apply only to the very specific situation of communicating one’s own
feelings and attitudes (Mehrabian 2011).
Yet, like all good urban legends, the misapplication of this statistic persists.
And it provides a well-suited context to introduce the study of nonverbal communication in the workplace. We begin this section with the “Mehrabian Myth” anecdote
because it illustrates the extensive gap between research and practice. The subject
806
Ravi S. Kudesia and Hillary Anger Elfenbein
of nonverbal communication is widely acknowledged as being extremely important, but is vastly under-researched and thus often greatly misunderstood in business practice (Riggio 2005). And this should not come entirely as a surprise.
Although verbal behaviors such as writing are governed by well-defined rules that
are practiced for years, nonverbal behaviors are often dependent upon the relationship history of the people involved and can be performed with a degree of automaticity (Ekman 1965, 1985). For these and other reasons, it holds a special promise
and merits unique attention.
The aim of this chapter is to survey key insights into the functions, applications, and issues of nonverbal communication in the workplace setting. In doing
so, we hope to provide an accessible and factual resource by which researchers
and practitioners alike can better understand the unique challenges and opportunities in workplace life.
1 Survey of workplace nonverbal communication
1.1 Definition, components, and purpose
To begin with, it makes sense to qualify the scope of this domain. After all, there
exists a wide array of potential behaviors that qualify as nonverbal. A straightforward definition might read: Any form of communication that does not specifically
use words is considered nonverbal. This definition includes a speaker’s vocal tones
and inflections, but excludes the actual words used in the exchange (DePaulo and
Friedman 1998). To make this expansive subject more tangible and accessible, we
list on the next page seven primary components of nonverbal communication from
the relevant literature (Richmond, McCroskey, and Hickson 2011), paired with a
relevant and intuitive example from workplace life in Table 1.1.
Thus we can see the ubiquitous ramifications of nonverbal communication in
the workplace. From preparing for the job interview to executing the position’s
responsibilities and eventually exiting the firm, businesspeople are constantly
exchanging and interpreting nonverbal behavior. This much is certain. However,
simply knowing the key components of nonverbal communication does not necessarily provide insight into the underlying purposes behind these behaviors. Why
do some colleagues stand far apart from each other? What does it mean when a
supervisor gives a blank stare? Does body posture play a role in perceiving who
has higher status? In short, we must ask ourselves two questions: Why do we
engage in nonverbal behaviors? And secondly, what do they tell us about the workplace life?

26 Nonverbal communication in the workplace
807
Appearance
The choice of heels worn by a pharmaceutical sales representative to a meeting with a physician.
Movement
The sweeping gesticulations of a visionary CEO presenting a keynote address.
Facial Behavior
The slight furrowing of an advertising copywriter’s brow upon
receiving critical feedback.
Vocal Behavior
The tone of an interviewer’s voice while telling a candidate,
“We’ll get back to you.”
Space
The distance between two standing coworkers when they collaborate on a project.
Touch
The firmness with which a supplier shakes a buyer’s hand after
the two sign a contract.
Time
The speed with which an account executive responds to a client’s
email.
Table 1.1: The 7 Key Components of Nonverbal Communication
There are four primary functions of nonverbal communication: identification,
relationship, emotion, and delivery (Patterson 1983). The key components and
workplace issues inherent in each of these functions are listed in Table 1.2.
– Identification: Signaling affiliation with or distance from a particular group.
– Relationship: Forming, modifying or broadcasting dominance or affection.
– Emotion: Expressing and interpreting feelings, attitudes and intentions.
– Delivery: Integrating verbal and nonverbal messages in listening and speaking.
1.2 Workplace as a context
As we previously mentioned, nonverbal behavior is context dependent (Ekman
1965; see also Ambady and Weisbuch 2010). The same “okay” gesture in the United
States means “money” in Japan and “zero” in France; it is a vulgar sign in Germany
and a meditation sign in India (Verderber, Verderber, and Sellnow 2007). Our nonverbal actions shift not only with cultural context, but also social context. People
are more likely to smile while watching a video if they watch it with a friend – or
are merely told a friend is watching the video (Fridlund 1991). The specifics of
social context are equally important. For example, people often show less emotion
around strangers than they do around familiars (Buck et al. 1992). We additionally
tend to utilize specific emotional displays, such as smiling, when we are seeking
to curry favors from others (Godfrey, Jones, and Lord 1986). So the people in a
context and our ambitions within the context are of great significance. Is it any
AQ43
808
Ravi S. Kudesia and Hillary Anger Elfenbein
Function
Components
Examples of Workplace Issues
Identification
■ Appearance
■ Space




Employee-Culture Fit
Work-Life Balance
Attire and Uniform
Workplace Discrimination
Relationship
■ Facial Behavior
■ Touch
■ Space




Status and Power Displays
Leadership Perceptions
Sexual Harassment
Organizational Culture
Emotion
■ Facial Behavior
■ Movement
■ Vocal Behavior
■ Employee Motivation
■ Workplace Productivity
■ Team Rapport
Delivery








Facial Behavior
Movement
Vocal Behavior
Time
Interviewing Techniques
Performance Assessments
Communication Effectiveness
Salesperson Persuasiveness
(Adapted from Remland 2006)
AQ45
Table 1.2: Nonverbal Functions, Components and Examples of Workplace Issues that are Relevant
to these Functions
surprise then that the workplace should be a context that provides a wide variety
of implications for nonverbal communication?
But the workplace is not a single entity that functions uniformly across firms
and industries. Not only do different workplaces exhibit a wide array of diversity
in terms of structure, power distribution, culture, etc., but there exists a great deal
of diversity within any organization as well. For example, even within a university,
academic departments differ tremendously. Daily life involves a wide variety of
interactions among people of different organizational positions: supervisors
addressing subordinates, employees communicating with clients, or peers speaking with peers. Within the complex matrix of organizational positions and interaction contexts, we find many interesting situations that draw significantly from
questions of nonverbal communication.
Indeed, workplaces manifest their own unique standards about what nonverbal displays are appropriate (Ekman, Sorensen, and Friesen 1969). Workplaces
often tend to suppress negative displays that create social distance and encourage
integrative displays that support organizational goals such as customer service
(Wharton and Erickson 1993). Such display rules can be described explicitly and
are even enumerated in many corporate manuals (Van Maanen and Kunda 1989).
For these reasons, the workplace provides a rich environment to document the
vast challenges and opportunities of nonverbal behavior. Now let us look in depth
at some of the field’s most salient points of analysis.
26 Nonverbal communication in the workplace
809
2 In-depth discussion of workplace nonverbal
behavior
Instead of arranging our discussion around the particular nonverbal functions or
components, we chose to instead formulate functional topics that align with broad
areas of research interest. We then explore the full breadth of nonverbal concerns
related to each topic. This makes for easier readability and more insightful commentary – as real-life issues seldom fit neatly into a single function or component.
For example, sexual harassment is a relationship issue, but has components of
delivery and identification. Under which should it be categorized? The extant
research has focused on several such issues, which we address here: status and
power displays, physical appearance effects, job applicant behaviors, interview
structures, performance evaluations, gender differences, sexual harassment, attire
and uniforms, effective communication, advertising and sales, and computer mediated communication.
2.1 How to know who’s in charge: Nonverbal displays of status
and power
Among some of the most important nonverbal relationship cues are perceptions of
leadership, status, and power (see Hall, Coats, and Smith LeBeau 2005; Chapter 19,
Schmid Mast and Cousin, this volume). In fact, some nonverbal displays such as
those of pride may function primarily to transmit messages of deserved high status – a message that others interpret automatically and unambiguously (Shariff
and Tracy 2009). Some leaders are not aware of the overt nature of these status
signals. They thus often unknowingly degrade the time, territory, or physical presence of subordinates through nonverbal displays of their high status, which erodes
the quality of unequal relationships (Remland 1981). However, leaders can consciously manage their status displays through the use of posture, body orientation,
and vocal dynamics – notably, leaders whose nonverbal cues suggest less status
difference between them and their subordinates are considered more considerate
(Remland 1984). This observation holds whether leaders decrease their own status
displays or allow subordinates to increase their status displays. As such, there
is a significant need for increased awareness of how status is communicated in
organizational settings.
Consider the status cues evident as one walks into an office building. In many
cases, the layout of offices makes superiors harder to access and more insulated
than subordinates (Remland 1981) – particularly within Western cultural settings.
Even within a conference room, for example, leaders tend to exercise dominant
status by voluntarily sitting at the head of tables (Heckel 1973). Interestingly, those
who assume such leadership seating positions also tend to maintain a greater
810
Ravi S. Kudesia and Hillary Anger Elfenbein
internal locus of control (Hiers and Heckel 1977). Yet, perhaps the richest source
of nonverbal status information comes less from the environment and more from
the individual. For example, when interacting with students, teachers – who have
a functional role of higher status–tend to occupy more direct space with their
bodies and use gestures such as touching other’s possessions and pointing to
intrude disproportionately upon the space of others (Leffler, Gillespie, and Conaty
1982). Although this is confounded with the sharing of information inherent to the
teacher role, they also speak more frequently, even if that means interrupting others (Leffler, Gillespie, and Conaty 1982). In other studies, those in higher power
positions also tend to speak with louder volume (Ridgeway, Berger, and Smith
1985). High-status individuals maintain lowered brows (Keating, Mazur, and Segall
1977) and have a higher visual dominance ratio: looking proportionately more
while speaking compared to looking while listening (Dovidio et al. 1988).
Anecdotal evidence suggests it is not at all unusual for superiors to lean back
in their chairs, look around the room while being spoken to, and arrive late to
meetings (Remland 1981). Needless to say, such behavior would be deemed completely inappropriate for subordinates. High status, thus, is actually less associated
with formality and more associated with an easygoing, relaxed, and inattentive
demeanor (Remland 1981).
However, nonverbal signals may not merely reflect power. They might also help
create power. Simply holding expansive body postures for two minutes shifts an
individual’s neuroendocrine profiles to one conducive to leadership: increased testosterone and decreased level of cortisol, the stress hormone (Carney, Cuddy, and
Yap 2010). Conversely, the same research shows that low-power postures decrease
testosterone and increase cortisol. As a result, those who hold high-power poses
experience an increased tolerance for risk and feel significantly more “powerful”
and “in charge.” Research shows that body posture has a greater effect in determining an individual’s thought and behavior patterns than hierarchical role: those
with an expansive posture think of more power-related words and are more prone
to act in situations (Huang et. al 2011; see also Hall, Coats, and Smith LeBeau 2005
for a general review, and Chapter 19, Schmidt Mast and Cousin, this volume).
2.2 How looks can literally pay off: Workplace effects of
physical appearance
Although the promise of posture shifts in increasing the personal power of individuals is compelling, many significant nonverbal cues are less malleable. For example, elements of physical appearance such as facial structure, attractiveness, and
height are largely determined by genetic components and early exposure to hormones such as testosterone, and cannot be easily changed. Yet they have notable
impact on workplace perceptions. Attractive individuals typically receive greater
26 Nonverbal communication in the workplace
811
compensation than the unattractive (French 2002) and are viewed as more intellectually competent (Jackson, Hunter, and Hodge 1995), dominant, mentally healthy,
intelligent, and socially skilled than unattractive people (Feingold 1992). Additionally, they are less lonely, less socially anxious, more popular, and more socially
skilled (Feingold 1992). Those with attractive faces and likeable voices are also
considered better nonverbal communicators (Larrance and Zuckerman 1981). However, it seems that as the quality of work increases, the bias towards physical
attractiveness diminishes: the unattractive are not discriminated against if their
work is impressive, whereas unattractive people performing average or sub-par
work are judged lower than their more attractive counterparts (Sigall and Aronson
1969).
Managers find highly attractive candidates better suited for hire and promotion
than marginally attractive candidates (Marlowe, Schneider, and Nelson 1996). One
study even found that physical appearance had a larger effect on interviewer ratings than impression management, verbal behavior, and other nonverbal behaviors
(Barrick, Shaffer, and Degrassi 2009). This could be because of the primacy effect –
appearance may be given disproportionate weight in applicant assessments
because it is among the first cues that an interviewer receives. Attractiveness, a
significant component of appearance, has a complicated relationship with hiring
intentions, especially for women. Use of eye contact, smiling, and head movements
were more significant than attractiveness in assessing whether female applicants
deserved a job (Young, Beier, and Beier 1979) – suggesting that interviewers cared
not only about an individual’s appearance, but also about interpersonal cues indicating the quality of their relationship. In organizations with masculine cultures
and job responsibilities, attractive women are actually seen as less qualified and
less likely to be hired than unattractive women (Cash et al. 1977). Although there
are certainly biases towards hiring and promoting attractive and male candidates,
these biases decrease as the experience level of hiring managers increases (Marlowe, Schneider, and Nelson 1996).
An interesting and relatively understudied bias is that towards charisma, especially in CEOs (Khurana 2004). For example, in discussing the reasons why a wellqualified internal candidate was bypassed in favor of an external candidate, a
firm’s director explained: “A top executive must have stature and poise. Someone
needs to move with focus, crisply and gracefully. They need to make the first move
to shake hands…” (Khurana 2004). Needless to say, vague perceptions of charisma – which are largely nonverbal – do not necessarily translate into competence. It is also worth pointing out that the realm of nonverbal behavior is complex
enough to have conflicting findings in the literature on questions as basic as
whether high versus low status individuals are the first to shake hands (c.f. Hall
1996).
Other nonverbal elements of appearance also have significant impact on workplace-related outcomes. For example, the obese typically receive less compensation
812
Ravi S. Kudesia and Hillary Anger Elfenbein
than their thinner counterparts (Cawley 2004) and daughters who are overweight
tend to receive less money from their parents during college than do sons (Crandall
1995). Height is positively related to social esteem, leader emergence, performance,
and success – it too was correlated to income after controlling for sex, age, and
weight (Judge and Cable 2004). Height is also a key factor affecting promotions of
managers (Melamed and Bozionelos 1992) as well as election of politicians. In fact,
not since 1896 have US citizens elected a president whose height was below average (Judge and Cable 2004).
Facial appearance is another extremely influential nonverbal cue. For example,
the facial dominance of West Point cadets in their graduation portraits relates not
only to their ranks at the military academy, but also to promotions in their late
care …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment