If you struggle with putting a name to a face, there is a technique that can ease the process of name recall. The tip is simple: you either a.s.sociate the name with a particular facial feature of the person that is most striking (Mark has a beauty spot or mole or freckles, Jane has a big jaw and so on). However, it is obvious this approach would not work all the time, since some names are more popular than others and their frequency in the population varies. Alternatively, one could draw in their "mind's eye" the first letter of a person's name over their face. Connect the facial features eyebrows, eyes, nose, chin, cheekbones into the letter and keep the image as interactive as possible. This method of memorization relies on a well-known technique of mnemonics. It links two or more pieces of unrelated information into one whole, builds an a.s.sociative bridge between them which is at the heart of successful learning.

The role of gesture in speech.

Speech memory also seems to be connected to gestures. Patients with speech impairments, for example, gesticulate more when they cannot retrieve the right word to express their thought. Further, fluency of speech seems to worsen if people are not allowed to use their hands to gesture. Consider the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: there is evidence supporting the fact that gesticulation helps in successful information retrieval.

Gesturing while learning new information aids recall, perhaps by utilizing and forming another link between the environment, experience and the learning material. As noted earlier, one piece of advice frequently dispensed by speech-giving experts is to rehea.r.s.e the speech with the gestures one will be using. Not only does it make the flow of presentation more natural, but also helps the recall of speech contents that need to be mentioned by creating kinaesthetic markers and engaging procedural memory.

What type of nonverbal body language do we remember the best?

Some research point out to the significance of eyes and eyebrows in the formation of memories of faces. Their uniqueness aids memory formation and subsequent retrieval. Shape of the jaw and the size of mouth also influence how well the face is remembered. Memory for a person's ident.i.ty is affected by their facial expression, with happy faces being better remembered and better recalled. Smiling faces are also better remembered, even if the attention is not directed explicitly to the target's emotional state. This is backed up not only by experimental work, but also by neurological research, with FMRi (functional magnetic resonance imaging): studies showing the brain areas responsible for rewarding behavior light up whenever names of smiling people are memorized.

This finding has a clear implication at work. Joyful, cheery faces are easier to recall, since we want to remember people who are nice to us and are nice people in general. It could make all the difference for that promotion or career move opportunity.

Remembering what you read, hear and see.

Imagine the following scenario. A large group of people with very similar backgrounds is randomly divided into three smaller groups. One group watches a 15-minute television programme (say a news broadcast); another listens to the identical programme, but without the benefit of pictures; while the third group has 15 minutes to read through the news broadcaster's script. They all get the same information: the television group gets visual, vocal and verbal (audio-visual) data, the radio group gets vocal and verbal (audio-only) data; and the print group gets verbal (script-only) data. Shortly after the exposure, members of each group are asked questions testing their free recall of all they can remember, and their recall of answers to specific questions. Which group remembers the most and is most accurate? In short, who shows better recall? Many studies have shown, to people's surprise, that the print group (those who read) remembered most, and the television group (those who watched) remembered the least. Put another way, having additional body-language information leads, paradoxically, to poorer memory. We are constantly told of the "power of television" and yet studies are fairly consistent on the point that we remember least of what we see, and more of what we read. What is the explanation for this somewhat paradoxical finding?

* Depth of processing.

Reading requires more mental effort, and more processing of material. Reading the words, and when appropriate conjuring up mental images, involves more concentration, which can and does result in better memory. Looking at the television is a.s.sociated with relaxation rather than learning, even when we are told to concentrate.

* Speed of reading.

While radio and television presenters are taught to read at a particular pace and in a style that is maximally intelligible, not all people like this pace. When reading one's own material, one can select the pace. Difficult material, unfamiliar jargon or reading in a second language all demand a slower pace to make the text comprehensible.

* Visual interference.

Except in some advertis.e.m.e.nts, it is often the case that the pictures and the storyline are not perfectly synchronized. This is often the case with the news, but occurs very frequently in television as a whole. Particularly when the pictures involve violence or emotional anxiety, people pay little attention to the storyline! Thus while they may remember a great deal about the color of the newsreader's tie, or the images of people tending graves, they do not recall salient features of the story.

* Paragraphing and textual chunking.

Newspaper and magazine editors are very concerned with layout because they know this helps to present information in easily comprehensible "bites". However, this chunking of stories is more difficult on radio and television.

The lesson to be learnt is this; when meeting people face-to-face we are privileged to obtain verbal (what they say), vocal (how they say it) and visual cues (what they look like). But paying close attention to foot-tapping or changes in the pace or tone of voice can mean that we pay less attention to equally interesting and important material what is being said. Conjurors know the importance of distracting attention. Being over-sensitive to nonverbal behavior also has its drawbacks not remembering very well what was said.

CONCLUSION.

Various work contexts present a rich, fertile ground for the application of knowledge on body language. Nonverbal information about the dynamics of the situation or the att.i.tudes or intentions of other people inescapably feeds into the decision-making in business. Indeed, it seems that there is no getaway from nonverbal communication at work.

This is especially true of novel or threatening situations where we are very likely to resort to over-trusting nonverbal information. Salespeople, for example, have to be adept at dealing with many different people every day and try to appear to each of them as personable and likable. Since one of the factors that affect likability is the degree of similiarity, faking or unconsciously imitating the other party's body language seems to give leverage to these commission-paid professionals and often be a part of their work repertoire. Successful politicians and their PR teams are also renowned for their ability to take advantage of the nonverbal channel of influence over their const.i.tuents. Further, job interviews are often designed to put hopeful applicants under pressure: what stress signs do they exhibit, how do they handle challenging questions, what is their strategy to cope with excessive praise or sneer?

The next chapter will look more closely at emotions and their nonverbal components at work. Since emotions underlie most if not all body language expressions, we think it is useful to consider a number of significant and curious areas of work contexts where emotions run high, or indeed, low. We will scrutinise the body language of the bully; the victim, the frustrated, the stressed, the in-love, the winner; the follower and the gossiper. Hopefully, it will make you more aware of the hidden and often heated emotions at work.

7.

APPLYING THE THEORY: EMOTIONS AT WORK.

BODY LANGUAGE AND BULLYING AT WORK.

It seems from reports that physical, emotional and verbal bullying is on the increase at work. This may be simply because of over-reporting by incompetent, lazy, vengeful staff eager to punish their bosses and sue their organizations, but it could also be because of the stress and complexity of modern business life. The demanding environment produces stressed figures of authority who then bully, hara.s.s and victimize innocent and vulnerable workers.

Bullying is usually defined in terms of the duration, frequency and intentionality by people in positions of power to unduly accuse, criticize or humiliate others. For most adults, bullying is a psychological rather than a physical process, though of course it can be both. In essence, work bullying is the product of power abuse, rooted in power inequality, though victims can also be bullied by peers and subordinates. Customers can also be bullies, but they vie for a different type of power. Bullying often involves anger, frustration and fear, all selfevidently strong, negative emotions. Thus the nonverbal expression of bullying is triggered and explained though this emotional connection.

Explanations for bullying.

The central question for those interested in the issue of bullying at work is whether can or should be explained by organizational, personality or social factors. One hypothesis suggests that it is the structure of organizations that should be held responsible, arguing that certain business models seem to condone or even promote bullying as a management technique. The individualistic explanation runs along the lines of the "deadly attraction" premise, which suggests that the make-up (personality, intelligence, social skills) of both bullies and their victims leads them to seek each other out for their bizarre and beastly rituals. Further, the social theory seeks to understand the issue of bullying by studying the "people" factors at work (that is, compet.i.tion between groups, power struggles, the dynamics of interaction) which lead to, or equally prevent, bullying. Imagine a line-up of working people. How easily could one correctly identify the bullies and the bullied? Do they look different? Do they behave differently?

Certainly, bullying is more likely to occur in some environments than others; where there is role conflict or ambiguity; where there is acute or chronic work overload; where workers have little autonomy; where there is an atmosphere of fear of redundancy or dismissal, or whole organization collapse. In these circ.u.mstances, bullying is more likely to happen. Whenever there is winlose rather than winwin as a philosophy, there is conflict and, often, in the shadows, lurks bullying.

Further, some organizations have a history of autocratic leaders whose style becomes not only acceptable but required. They eschew consultative, democratic management and favor an authoritarian approach. Authoritarians demand rigid adherence to rules, an uncritical acceptance of authority, and a strong, open, aggressive condemnation of the weak, the outsider or those who do not obey the rules. Many project their inner emotions and impulses on to others and have a sort of free-floating, generalized feeling of anger and hostility. Authoritarian leaders admire power and toughness. They have a preoccupation with dominance over others.

Next, is the question of the personality make-up of both bullies and their victims. Various groups do not want this to be discussed or researched because it might do two things they do not want. First, it might indicate that the bullied, as well as the bully, is to blame for the situation. Second, it might imply that very little can be done to remedy bullying, because personality is difficult to change.

There has been a lot of research, both in schools and the workplace, on the vulnerable personality, who is likely to be bullied, and the provocative personality, who is likely to end up being a bully. The investigations seem to be conclusive. Bullied people tend to be less emotionally stable more anxious and depressed. They also tend to have low emotional intelligence and few social skills, which means they find it harder to make and keep friends. They tend always to avoid conflict, to be submissive and to be pa.s.sive. They appear to have poor coping skills, which exacerbates the problem further: they are both supersensitive to any sort of bullying and unable to cope adequately when bullied. They look sacred and nervous. They avoid eye contact, they slouch and they move away from other people.

And, yes, bullies are everywhere in the playground, on the shopfloor and in the boardroom: aggressive, compet.i.tive and impulsive. Note that it is aggressiveness rather than a.s.sertiveness that underlies the issue. What is more, lack of self-confidence is attributable to both bullies and the bullied. Bullies are hostile, the bullied are pa.s.sive; neither seem very a.s.sertive.

Does the bullying experience change the individual? Is the neurosis of the bullied a consequence rather than a cause of bullying? Does this personality research amount to blaming the victim and condoning the perpetrator? While it is true that the victims of bullying do appear to share various personality traits, there are differences between them. As for the cause-and-effect relationship, only longitudinal studies can determine the direction of the link and there have not been any such studies as far as we are aware.

Everyone agrees with three issues. First, bullying is a serious problem that blights people's lives and affects workplace efficiency. Second, there are many things we can do to prevent it, though one must point out the difficulties a.s.sociated with competing solutions: some just mask the problem, others might actually increase it, and some genuinely help. Third, it is a problem with multiple causes. Bullying is likely to arise from various factors arising at the same time, thus interventions also have to reflect that.

The body language of the bully and the bullied.

What is the body language of the bully and the bullied? Can subtle, nonverbal clues give early warnings of a likely victim and the potential aggressor? One needs to distinguish between the nonverbal behaviors displayed as a warning of future conflict and those taking place during the bullying itself (see Table 7.1).

Bullying can be verbal; however, there is a powerful nonverbal component to it as well. Obscene gestures, exclusion from the group's social activities or damage to the victim's possessions convey the message of threat and attack very clearly. At work, such undercover bullying is more likely to take place than overt confrontation.

TABLE 7.1 Body language of the bully.

TABLE 7.2 Body language of the bullied.

The body language of the bullied is that of a distressed person: confused (why me?); angry (how dare they?); powerless (I can't do anything about it). The victim would, for example, slouch to make themselves less visible to the a.s.sailant, or avoid eye contact (see Table 7.2).

Nonverbal behaviors of a bully vary between the stages of intimidation and aggression. Similarly, the victim can show either discomfort or defence through their body language. Note the pairing of threats and responses to them: excessive staring on the part of the bully is usually met with reduced eye contact from the victim's side; rude gestures result in a distressed facial expression and so on.

But there is another party in the bully bullied interaction that has been omitted so far: that is, the bystander. Because bullying usually takes place in the presence of other people, the bully relies on the "silent" agreement of the crowd, if not reinforcement. The behavior of the group witnessing the aggression largely determines its outcome. Equally, support for the bullied can be especially invaluable at the earlier stages of conflict. It is thus easier to prevent bullying and aggression at work than to deal with the consequences of employees' disengagement.

THE BODY LANGUAGE OF FRUSTRATING AND FRUSTRATED CUSTOMERS.

If one had to rank-order daily ha.s.sles, then certainly high on the list would be such things as queuing. Everyone is becoming more and more time-conscious and time-urgent, so we seem to have to wait longer for service: at the bank, at the supermarket, at the airport, at the post office, and at the doctor's surgery.

Managers in banks and supermarkets struggle with this problem. Serving staff are expensive: demand is variable. Managers know that if you really want to annoy cash-rich-time-poor professionals you force them to wait in line with no alternative for something they want quickly: they want it now, if not sooner.

Road rage, air rage, hospital rage are triggered by the frustration of waiting. Such anger is exacerbated by drinking alcohol, childlike impulsivity and other factors. How does one spot the angry, timeconscious customer? It isn't difficult: the scowl, the finger tapping, the constant checking of the time.

Waiting is an essential ingredient of most service experiences. Time is a resource. It adds to the cost. However what is a long, unacceptable wait: the point at which customers will walk away?

Service providers have various options. The most expensive and possibly the most unreliable is to utilize more service personnel. The favored option is time-saving technology such as self-ticketing, but that has its limits. Next, customer service managers turned their attention to ways of making the wait seem less unpleasant. There are a whole range of these: * Give people explanations for why they are waiting.

* Provide them with information about the antic.i.p.ated length of wait.

* Keep them distracted with music, television and so on.

It is said there are four popular ways of helping the waiting process: * Animate: television distractions, mirrors in elevators, playing recorded music.

* Discriminate: frequent-customer (Goldcard) treatment.

* Automate: use computer scripts to address 75 percent of questions.

* Obfuscate: fudge the cause and the solution.

There are some principles of waiting: * Unoccupied time feels longer.

* Pre-process/post-process waiting feels longer than in-process.

* Anxiety makes waiting seem longer.

* Uncertain waiting feels longer than known, finite waiting.

* Unexplained waiting seems longer.

* Unfair waiting seems longer than equitable waiting.

* People will wait longer for more valuable services.

* Waiting alone feels longer than in groups.

* Physically uncomfortable waiting feels longer.

* Waiting seems longer to new or occasional partic.i.p.ants.

Take one of these hypotheses: Uncertain waiting feels longer than known waiting. Here, the anxiety and frustration of waiting is compounded by not knowing how long the wait will be. The suggestion posits that it is not the delay and waiting per se, but rather the uncertainty and ambiguity that evoke anger and stress. Thus, if you give people a "reasonable" estimate of waiting time, they will calm down, experience less tension, and accept events as inevitable. Yet, experimental studies testing this theory showed that giving waiting-time estimates caused more, rather than less, negative affective reactions among customers. They were more, not less, angry, possibly because it was yet more evidence of the incompetence of the organization.

It may well be that waiting-time estimates help organizations with a good time-keeping record, while they just confirm the reputation of a bad one. Results show the effects of being given waiting-time information are quite modest but nevertheless significant.

What of the benefits of providing an explanation (often seen more as an excuse)? As we have all learnt at airports, explanations offered serve best to push the blame down the line. That is, it is not the fault of the service provider standing in front of you.

There are three options to appease frustrated waiting customers. The order of their effectiveness is: explanation without blame; no explanation; explanation as a personal fault.

Watch queues at airports, banks and supermarket. Note what the restless, increasingly angry customer does. Note how s/he attempts to gain the support of those around them, which can be done in two ways. One is to solicit the backing of other unfortunate bystanders, while the other vents the frustration on the service staff.

It is thus clear that front-line customer service staff have a tough job on their hands. Even before any verbal interaction they can spot customers' frustration by observing their body language. Calm, relaxed people tend to project non-confrontational, composed body language, whereas frustrated, rushed customers exhibit nonverbal signs of impatience and irritation (see Table 7.3). The challenge for the employees here is to deal effectively with the query in a rea.s.suring and soothing manner.

Frustration and anger only escalate if both the customer and the service representative are on the defensive. On the other hand, professional, calm, rea.s.suring body language can help to deal with the customer's dissatisfaction. A calm but firm tone of voice sends a message of support. Open body posture and steady eye contact project authority, competence and appreciation of the customer's difficulty. Empathy is the key emotion to deal successfully with frustration: let your customer know they are valued, let them feel taken care of and listened to.

TABLE 7.3 Body language of frustrated people and how to deal with it.