Is your internal communication consultant really a communication expert?
It is critical that you ensure that the consultants you hire are actual experts in the field in which your business is paying them for their advice. This principle applies even more so in communication consulting, because an astonishing number of the people who are selling themselves online as communication experts simply aren’t.
You might think that being a communication expert is a basic requirement for working in communication. You would be wrong. For some reason, the corporate world has largely accepted the premise that anyone who claims to be a communication expert is one, whether or not they have any qualifications in communication[1]. I suspect that this problem originates with the fact that communication is an activity – much like driving - that nearly everyone thinks they are above-average at. Many communication consultants have simply realized it’s a pretty small step from “I think I’m good at this” to “I can convince people to pay me for advice about this.”
If your internal communication consultant ever bases a decision on this widely-mentioned study, they aren’t a communication expert.
To give you an example of why this is such a problem, let’s use one of the key indicators I use (and that you can use, too) to determine the veracity of claims of expertise by anyone writing about communication in the business world, in this case specifically regarding non-verbal communication.
This example starts in 1967, with a study by Mehrabian and Ferris, who were investigating the impact of facial expressions and verbal messages on emotional reactions to a speaker’s message. They concluded that. "the combined effect of simultaneous verbal, vocal, and facial attitude communications is a weighted sum of their independent effects-with the coefficients of .07, .38 and .55, respectively (p. 252).”
What started as one study has, in the 50+ years since, proliferated into tens of thousands of references to an almost-magic “7-38-55 estimate”, suggesting that communication is 7% verbal, 38% vocal, and 55% non-verbal. Google gives endless articles referencing this claim in some form or another. Why the “7-38-55 estimate” has become so popular is another whole blog post, but it probably has something to do with the mathematical simplicity and precision of 7-38-55. If you’re looking to emphasize the importance of nonverbal communication in your writing, this looks like a tidy little factoid to throw in.
Unfortunately, the “7-38-55 estimate” is very, very wrong. Lapakko (1997; 2007) goes into great detail as to why this is, but a few key reasons are worth mentioning here:
a) Mehrabian and Ferris’ sample for these studies were two convenience samples of first-year female psychology majors with total N of 17 & 20,
b) The study was designed for the verbal message to have a little impact as possible, and
c) The oft-cited “7-38-55 estimate” was actually from two separate studies that were combined into one ratio, which is a mathematically dubious procedure using the methods Mehrabian and Ferris employed.
An incredible number of people who are selling themselves as communication experts (including some who have written numerous books on the subject and really should know better) are citing this dubious fact, and making important decisions based on it.
Why is it such a problem for a consultant to base their advice on this study?
Imagine hiring a communication consultant to train your sales staff on persuasive speaking techniques, expecting that you were getting expert training for your people. But that consultant, who doesn’t know the literature, who is a self-declared “expert”, spends some time on google and locates the ubiquitous “7-38-55 estimate.” It’s easy to see how this consultant might decide that they should spend most of their time training your people in non-verbal delivery skills, instead of in the construction of a persuasive message. The verbal message is only 7% of communication, right? So it’s far more important to train people in nonverbal delivery skills, isn’t it?
Well, no. Crafting a successful persuasive message to fit your product/service, your audience, and the employees who will be doing the persuading is a complex task, one that will require significantly more time and attention than nonverbal delivery skills.
Although hypothetical, this is the kind of erroneous decision that costs valuable dollars and will have real implications for the future success of the business that hires this “expert.” It’s a mistake that could have been prevented by hiring someone who has the credentials, has read the research, has done the research, and is an actual expert in communication.
Communication has significant consequences for your business. Make sure you are hiring a communication expert.
References
Lapakko, D. (1997). Three cheers for language: A closer examination of a widely cited study of nonverbal communication. Communication Education, 46, 63-67.
Lapakko, D. (2007). Communication is 93% nonverbal: An urban legend proliferates. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 34, 7-19.
Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248-252.
[1] Imagine a company evaluating a new design for a building and contracting with someone whose educational background is in Medieval Literature, but is claiming to be an expert in structural engineering. It sounds ludicrous on its face, and yet companies all around the country do this exact thing every day when they need a communication expert.