The Impact of Nonverbal Communication in Organizations: A Survey

Five hundred and five respondents, from a wide variety of business organizations,were surveyed to gather information on their perceptions (^nonverbal communication.Dividing the sample on the basis of perceived decoding ability and gender revealedseveral differences between the groups. Nonverbal communication was more importantto self-rated good decoders than to other decoders. Better decoders relied most on facialexpressions for accurate information while less skilled decoders preferred iKHce level ortone. Women, individually, rated themselves higher than men in decoding abUity and,as a group, were perceived by both men and women to be better decoders and encodersof nonverbal cues. Women working in the education field rated themselves higher indecoding ability than any other group.Recommendations for improved communication in businesses included paying more at-tention to nonverbal cues, especially the facial expressions, engaging in more eye con-tact, and probing for more information when verbal and nonverbal cues arediscrepant. Managers should be aware that most employees feel frustration and dis-trust when receiving conflicting signals from their supervisors, and should try tomodify their behavior by being more honest when conimunicating their emotions.

The Impact of NonverbalCommunication in Organizations:A Survey of Perceptions

Gerald H. GrahamThe WicWa State UniversityJeanne UnruhNatixmal Institute Jar ManagementPaul JenningsThe Wichita State University

The plethora of literature on nonverbal communication includes manystudies of university students but few studies of persons in business

organizations. Moreover, much of the literature is comprised of ex-perimental data collected in contrived situations with role-playing as amajor component. Very few studies have attempted to gain informationabout self-rated abilities to decode nonverbal cues.

Perceptions are important because they make up or influence ourinternal organization of data Further, evidence siaggests that a person'sperceived ability to accurately decode nonverbal cues is positively as-sociated with the person's actual decoding skills (Graham, Unruh, &Jennings, 1990; Zuckerman, DeFrank, Spiegel, & Larremce, 1982).

One ofthe major objectives ofthe study was to gather information onthe perceptions of the respondents on the importance of nonverbalfeedback and their ability to decode nonverbal cues from their co-workersand managers. The other major objective was to compare those findingswith the existing body of knowledge on nonverbal communication and to

45

46 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

use these findings as a basis for recommendations on how to improvenonverbal communication in business organizations.

Ninety-four percent ofthe respondents in this study felt that nonver-bal communication in the business world was either somewhat or veryimportant. Some professionals might find this surprising. But, as Rem-land (1981) asserts. There is little doubt that effective managementrequires good communication." Communicating well is known to be acritical success factor in such things as increasing productivity, improv-ing employee satisfaction, and being recognized as an outstandingleader.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The large volume of research data on nonverbal communication canbe, for the most part, categorized under several broad headings. Theseheadings include studies underlining tbe importance of nonverbal com-munication, studies on encoding and decoding differences in relation totypes of nonverbal cues, studies exploring very discrepant verbal/non-verbal cues, and studies investigating demographic (usually gender)effects on nonverbal communication.

Importance of Nonverbal Communication

In 1967, Mehrabian was one of the first to draw attention to thesignificance of nonverbal communication with his conclusion that non-verbal channels such as facial expression, body movement, and voice tonecontribute 93 percent ofthe "attitudinal" message to the receiver. Sub-sequent research (Hegstrom, 1979) has shown that it is not the sum ofthe individual channels, but probably the blending of one channel withanother that contributes most to the total impact of the message.However, Mehrabian's findings were so dramatic that they inspiredmany researchers to investigate the power of nonverbal communication.

Many of these studies came to the same conclusion as Honeycutt,Knapp, and Powers (1983): 'The availability of nonverbal signals has animportant bearing on accurate judgements of another's communication."For example, Woodall and Folger (1981) speculated that when nonverbalcues are not "in sync" with the rhythmic pattern of speech, decoders mayquestion the honesty and motivation of the speaker. Addington (1971)also showed that decreases in vocal variations had a negative impact onsource credibility.

Many studies that underscore the importance of nonverbal com-munication are focused on discrepant verbal/nonverbal cues. Burgoon,

Nonverbal Communication • Graham/Unruh/Jennings 47

Coker and Coker (1986) found that eye contact is important and thateven in the case of a "positive" verbal message, gaze aversion led thereceiver to perceive an overall negative message. Specifically, gazeaversion conveyed nonaffection, superficiality, lack of trust and non-receptivity.

Studies have also found that the effects of voice tone (especiallynegative voice tone) make a disproportionately stronger impact ondecoders than verbal content (Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967; Bugental,Daswan, & Love, 1970). Other studies demonstrate that nonverbalbehaviors can be used to predict truth or deceit in the sender (Mehrabian,1971; Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974; Ekman & Friesen, 1974; McClintock& Hunt, 1975; Feldman, Devin-Sheehan, & Allen, 1978; O'Hair, Cody,& McLaughlin, 1981). Apparently, deceitful communicators maintainless eye contact, talk less, offer fewer specifics, either make more or fewerbody movements than usual, and either smile too much or too little.

In an experiment by Forbes and Jackson (1980) real job interviewswere observed and the nonverbal behaviors in accepted candidates werecompared to those in rejected candidates and candidates put on a reservelist. The accepted candidates engaged in more direct eye contact, morehead movements, and more smiling than did the rejected or reservecandidates.

All ofthe studies discussed so far underscore the power of nonverbalcommunication and the influence it has on our interactions with others.

Types of Nonverbal Cues

Other studies are more focused on identifying which types of nonver-bal cues are most accurate or informative. For example, considerableresearch has produced data supporting the notion that facial expressionsare more influential and give more information than other nonverbalchannels such as voice or body movements (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967;Zaidel & Mehrabian, 1969; Bugental, Daswan, & Love, 1970; DePaulo,Rosenthal, Eisenstat, Rogers, & Finkelstein, 1978; Rosenthal & De-Paulo, 1979; Forbes & Jackson, 1980). Coker and Burgoon (1987) ex-amined 59 tjnpes of nonverbal behaviors categorized into 21 groups. Fiveofthe 21 emerged as significant predictors of degree of conversationalinvolvement. At the top ofthe list was facial animation followed closelyby vocal warmth and then vocal pitch and body movements. Accordingto the cited studies facial characteristics seem to be the most accuratepredictors of attitudes and feelings and, therefore, of the true meaningofthe communication.


Extremely Discrepant Verbai/Nonverbai Cues

The data on very deceptive communication (when a person lies) tell aslightly different stery. In DePaulo's study (DePaulo, Rosenthal,Eisenstet, Rogers, & Finkelstein, 1978) when visual cues didn't agreewith audio cues, subjects were more influenced by visual than audioexcept in extremely discrepant cases where they attended more te theaudio cues. Perhaps the best explanation for the perceived difference inextremely discrepant cases can be found in two studies done by Zucker-man (Zuckerman, Larrance, Spiegel, & Klorman, 1981; Zuckerman,Amidon, Bishop, & Pomerantz, 1982). Zuckerman discovered that facialcues can be either suppressed or exaggerated more easily than vocalcues. Therefore, when a person lies, true feelings are more likely te berevealed in the vocal channel than in the facial channel. The authorsconcluded that when there is extreme discrepancy between vocal andfacial cues the decoder suspects the sender is lying and is, therefore, moreinfluenced by the tone of voice which is more likely te reveal the truththan by the more controllable facial cues. However, in honest com-munication, facial cues gave more information.

Demographic impact on Nonverbai Communication

Of all the demographic variables that have been investigated, genderseems to have the most impact on ability to decode or encode nonverbalcues. Women appear to be better than men at nonverbal communication(Hall, 1978; Isenhart, 1980; Blanck, Rosenthal, Snodgrass, Depaulo, &Zuckerman, 1981).

Hall (1978) surveyed 75 studies of gender's impact on decoding non-verbal cues. She concluded that females have an advantage over men indecoding nonverbal communication and that this gender effect did notvary with the sex of the sender. In other words, women were better thanmen at decoding nonverbal cues fi-om both male and female encoders.Hall also concluded that the age of the encoder or decoder made nodifference. Females of all ages were better decoders than males of allages. Not only are females better decoders, they appear to be betterencoders as well (Buck, Miller, & Caul, 1974; Hall, 1978; LaFrance &Mayo, 1979; and Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979).

Other ways males and females differ in nonverbal communicationinclude the observation that females pay more attention to facial cuesthan males do. In fact, one study found that women showed less supe-riority in decoding nonverbal cues when heeding nonverbal channelsother than the face (Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979). Tbe same study also

Nonverbal Communicatipn • Graham/Unruh/Jennings 49

found that women were markedly more accurate in readingnondeceptivecommunication but less so when reading deceptive communication.There could be two expleinations for this. One is that since the voice ismore revealing than the face during deception, tbe voice may be a bettersource of accurate information than the face. Another possible explana-tion is that those who are too good at decoding of nonverbal communica-tion that "leaks" the sender's true feelings are less effective in theirinterpersonal relationships.

The present study was an attempt to compare these literature find-ings with the perceptions of respondents in business organizations.Perceptions can influence behaviors and if the perceptions ofthe respon-dents parallel the measurements of actual skill and behavior found inexperimental data, recommendations for improving nonverbal com-munication in the work place can be made.

IMETHOD

The researchers identified the top 50 employers in a midwest city asa possible sampling pool. The organizations were considered to be arepresentative mix of employment in the region with regard to technol-ogy, products/services offered, size, and industry. Managers in all 50organizations were contacted and permission was obtained to surveydepartments in 35 ofthe organizations. Department size ranged from 5to 33 employees. In the five largest organizations, 3-5 departments(totally unrelated to each other) were surveyed. Only 1-2 departmentswere surveyed in the remaining 30 organizations. The researcherstrained a team of graduate students to distribute 1200 surveys to theseorganizations. Seventy-five percent ofthe surveys went to organizationswith more than 1000 employees. The following industries were repre-sented: manufacturing, health care, finance, retail, and government.

Five hundred and five usable surveys were retrieved yielding a returnrate of 42 percent. Subjects were 217 males and 288 females. Themajority of the sample (67%) was between the ages of 25 and 45.Seventy-seven percent had at least some college education. Seventy-onepercent had at least 6 years full-time work experience. Seventy-ninepercent had an annual income of less than forty thousand dollars. Fourpercent of the respondents categorized themselves as top level execu-tives; 13 percent as middle managers; 29 percent as staff; 7 percent asfirst-line supervisors; 40 percent as employees; and 7 percent as "other."


instrument

The survey was divided inte two parts. Part 1 consisted of questionsinvolving perceptions about the importance of, and the ability te decodenonverbal feedback from others on the job. Part 2 was comprised ofquestions designed to collect demographic information on the respon-dents. The questions in part 1 were developed by the authors and givente 10 managers and 30 employees as a pilot test. The questionnaire wasthen revised based on feedback from the pilot subjects during a verbalreview session. Questions considered by the pilot subjects te be irrelevantor ambiguous were either deleted or reworked.

Six of the questions required answers on a Likert scale. An exampleof this type of question was: "When communicating vfith your immediatemanager, how often do you feel that his or her feedback is in agreementwith his or her nonverbal feedback?" Possible answers were: A. Always;B. Usually; C. Sometimes; D. Usually Not; E. Never. On two of thequestions respondents were asked te rank order items. For example:"Certain types of feedback are perceived te more accurately reflect thetrue feelings of the sender than others. Rank the following from whatyou perceive te be the most accurate to the least accurate." Listed itemswere: A Verbal Content; B. Voice Tone or Level; C. Hand or ArmGestures; D. Facial Expressions; E. Posture or Stance; F. Head Move-ments. Other questions asked the subject to identify an answer as shownin this example: "When your supervisor's verbal communication te youis not in agreement with his or her nonverbal feedback, which com-munication do you perceive te be more accurate?" A. Verbal; B. Nonver-bal; C. Unsure.

Means and standard deviations were tabulated for each question andfrequency data were obtained for the sample as a whole. An analysis wasconducted, using a correlation matrix, for identification of interrelation-ships among the data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used topinpoint demographic and other variables which had a significant im-pact on the perceptions of the respondents.

RESULTS

Several variables had a significant impact on the outeome of thisstudy, the two most important being perceived decoding ability, andgender. Differences in the sample based on decoding ability will headdressed first.


Decoding Ability

Respondents were asked to rate their decoding ability on a scale ofone to five, one being very good, and five being very poor. Figure 1 showstbat 9 percent rated tbemselves to be very good, 45 percent indicatedabove average, 43 percent indicated average, 2 percent below average,and 1 percent rated themselves as very poor decoders. For reporting andstatistical purposes, tbe scale was collapsed into two groups which willbe referred to as good decoders (grouping very good and above average)and average decoders (grouping average and lower ranks). Good andaverage decoders comprised 55 percent and 45 percent respectively.

Six aspects of communication were ranked in order of perceivedaccuracy in reflecting tbe true feelings and attitude of the sender, orencoder. Table 1 sbows tbe rank order of tbe means for good and averagedecoders, where analysis of variance was used to determine the sig-nificance of tbe difference between tbe two decoding abilities. Those wbofelt themselves to be superior decoders ranked facial expressions as themost accurate followed by voice level and tone. Average decoders, on theotber band, ranked voice level and tone first and facial expressionssecond, switching the order of perceived accuracy. Both good and averagedecoders ranked verbal content of feedback at the same relative level ofimportance (3rd), but as noted by a significant difference in the means,good decoders believed it to be less accurate than did average decoders.

VERY OOOD ABOVEWE RAO E

BELOWM/ERAGE

VERY POOR

Figure 1Self-Rated Decoding Ability

52 The Journal of Business Communication 28:l:Wmter 1991

Relative to average decoders, good decoders relied more on the sender'sbody posture and stance.

When considering facial expressions, 79 percent of the respondentslooked most closely at the eyes, followed by the mouth. Good and averagedecoders, alike, ranked eyes as the most important facial feature whenreading facial expressions.

Table 1Rating of Communication TypesAccording to Perceived Accuracy

Feedback

Facial ExpressionsVoice TbneVerbal ContentPosture or StanceHand GesturesHead Movements

Mean(G)

4.934.843.353.082.841.13

Rank

123456

Mean(A)

4.674.993.742.732.921.08

Rank

213546

F

6.311.765.436.270.660.00

P-Value

0.100.190.020.010.420.97

Note: Good decoders (G); Average decoders (A)

Pertaining to group conversations, such as committee meetings anddepartment meetings, 92 percent agreed that nonverbal aspects wereeither important or very important. Overall, respondents perceived thenonverbal aspects to be more crucial in one-on-one settings than whenin a group. On a rating scale of 1 to 4 (4 = very important, 1 = veryunimportant), nonverbal importance on the job in a one-on-one setting,had a mean rating of 3.5. In a group conversation the mean dropped to2.3. A difference in opinion existed between good and average decodersas to the importance of nonverbal aspects, both on the job and in a group:(jtood decoders rated the importance of nonverbal cues higher than didaverage decoders (note Table 2, variables 1 and 2).

2.23

3.38

2.38

2.87

2.19

2.07

3.27

4.30

4.91

5.54

2.44

3.19

0.039

0.005

0.002

0.001

0.050

0.042

Nonverbal Communication • GrahamAJnruh/Jennings 53

Table 2Differences Based on Perceived Decoding Ability

Variable Mean Mean F p-(G) (A) Value

1. Importance of NV communicationin group discussion 2.44

2. Importance of NV communicationon the job (one on one) 3.76

3. How frequently their memiagerspresented discrepant V/NV cues? 2.76

4. How frequently their managerswere in V/NV agreement? 2.55

5. Is verbal or nonverbal channelmore accurate? 2.40

6. Which channel are future actionsbased on? 2.29

Note: Good decoders (G); Average decoders (A)(variables 1 & 2) Scale range = 1 to 4,1 = unimportant; 4 - important(variables 3 & 4) Scale range = 1 to 4,1 = never; 4 = fequently(variables 5 & 6) Sale range = 1 to 3,1 = verbal; 2 = equal; 3 = nonverbal

In the context of the superior subordinate dyad two issues wereexplored; first, how consistently a superior's verbal and nonverbal feed-back were in agreement, and secondly, when the superior's verbalcommunication was not in agreement with the nonverbal feedback,which was perceived te be more accurate and which would have thegreater influence on future interaction with that superior?

The consistency of superiors' communication channels was measuredby asking how firequently respondents experienced confusion due toconfiicting signals. The mean rating for the entire sample was 2.5 on ascale of 4 (frequently) te 1 (never). Grood decoders experienced confusionmore frequently than did average decoders. Correspondingly, averagedecoders believed their superiors' verbal and nonverbal feedback to beconsistent more often than did good decoders. In other words, as decodingskill rose, detection of inconsistent communication also rose, leading teconfusion as to the true meaning of the superiors' messages (see Table2, variables 3 & 4).

Fifty-two percent of the respondents felt that when there was dis-crepant verbal/nonverbal communication from their supervisors, thenonverbal channel communicated more accurate information than theverbal channel. Twenty-one percent were not sure which channel would


be more accurate, and only 27 percent ofthe respondents perceived thatthe verbal channel gave more accurate information. (3ood decodersperceived the nonverbal channel to be more accurate than did averagedecoders. Similarly, given conflicting channels, respondents reportedthat the nonverbal channel of the message would have more influenceon the subordinates' future interaction with their superiors. There wasa strong relationship (correlation coefficient of 0.67 significant at .0001)between the channel perceived more accurate and the channel thatwould infiuence future interactions more. For example, if the nonverbalchannel was perceived to be more accurate, future interactions with thesuperior would be based on the nonverbal message (see Table 2, variables5&6).

Ninety-four percent of the sample experienced negative emotionswhen the verbal and the nonverbal channels did not agree, (jood andaverage decoders did not differ on this point. Specifically, 36 percent feltdistrustful and 33 percent reported feeling irritated or frustrated.

Demographic Impact

Stepwise multiple regression was run to determine whether anycombination of demographic variables could be used to identify a profilethat would help predict perceived decoding ability. Seven variables weretested for their power in predicting decoding ability: gender, age, level offormal education, industry sector, years of work experience, position, andincome. The optimal prediction equation contained two demographicvariables, gender and the education industry sector (Table 3). That is tosay, women and individuals who work in education consistently rankedtheir decoding ability significantly higher than did any other group ofrespondents. More specifically, women who worked in education per-ceived themselves higher in decoding ability than did any other group.Other demographic variables were not significant predictors.

Nonverbal Communication • Graham/Unrub/Jenninga 55

Table 3Demographics of Good Decoders(Optimal Prediction Equation)

Variable

1.

2.

3.

Gender(1 = male, 2 - female)Education(0 = other.1 = education)Constant

Beta

0.1298

0.23742.4010

t-Statistic

2.100

2.03023.729

t-Probability

0.036

0.0440.000

Note: Significance: F = 4.596F-Probability = 0.0105Dependent variable = decoding ability1 = below average, 2 = average, 3 = above average, 4 = very good

Not only did women rate themselves more highly than did men, womenrated women as better decoders and men agreed that women havegreater nonverbal decoding ability (Figure 2). Fifty-seven percent of allrespondents regarded women to be the most accurate decoders. Analysisof variance was used te determine if men and women differed in theirperception of which gender was the better decoder. Althou^ womenwere considered to be better decoders, women believed this te be truemore than did men (F=24.33, p=0.0001). When asked which gender waseasier to correctly decode, 48 percent said nonverbals from women wereeasier to decode tban nonverbals from men. Furthermore, women feltmore strongly than did men that womens' nonverbal cues were easier todecode (F=7.676, p=.OO6).

Respondents in management or supervisory positions tended to beolder males having higher educations, more years of work experience,and higher incomes. Managers believed that age improved decodingability more than did employees and staff. As noted earlier, the age oftbe respondent was not found to have a significant impact in the wayrespondents rated their own decoding ability. In fact as the age of therespondent rose, the nonverbal channel was relied upon less in deter-mining how they would interact with that person in the future. This wasalso the case witb seniority. Individuals with more years of work ex-perience tended to rely less on nonverbal cues and more on verbalcontent.


NO DIFFERENCE

I Male reapondenta ^ ^ ^ Female roapondenta

Figure 2Respondents' Perceptions of

Gender Effect on Decoding Skills

DISCUSSION

The results of this study were , for the most part, consistent with thethe literature. However, there were several surprising findings. Asperceived decoding ability increased, the importance of nonverbal com-munication increased. Better decoders believed that they were morecapable, than poorer decoders, of detecting when their supervisor'sverbal and nonverbal communication were incongruent.

Perhaps people who considered themselves to be average decoders didnot pay as much attention to nonverbal cues as people who ratedthemselves above average. This does not mean, however, that averagedecoders were less emotionally affected when confronted with obviouslydiscrepant cues. Indeed, they reported that they were just as frustratedand distrustful as the better decoders.

Almost half (43%) of the respondents rated themselves average indecoding ability, and another 3 percent rated themselves below average.Since effective communication is critical to success, consider that morethan 45 percent of those surveyed claim that they are either frequentlyor occasionally confused by inconsistent verbal and nonverbal cues fromtheir supervisors. In addition, more than 94 percent ofthe entire samplefelt frustrated or distrustful when confronted with discrepant verbal/non-verbal communications. It should follow that organizational productivitycannot be optimal with the current amount of miscommunication andfrustration generated by verbal/nonverbal discrepancy. The authorssurmise that both morale and productivity could be significantly im-


proved if employees and managers were better informed about nonverbalcommunication and if they felt more confident of their encoding anddecoding skills.

Since evidence supports the proposition that actual encoding anddecoding ability is positively correlated with perceived encoding anddecoding ability (Graham, Unruh, & Jennings, 1990; Zuckerman, De-Frank, Spiegel, & Larrance, 1982) and since the current study identifiedseveral perceived problems related to nonverbal communication skills ina business setting, the authors offer the following recommendations.

Decoding Sidlls

In this study, the major difference between self-rated good andaverage decoders was how the two groups ranked types of nonverbalcommunication. Good decoders felt that facial expressions gave the mostaccurate information about the true meaning of the message whileaverage and below decoders relied more on voice level or tone. Thisfinding is consistent with the large body of literature that reports theface as the best provider of accurate nonverbal communication.

Assuming that respondents who perceive themselves as betterdecoders are more accurate, the data suggests that those who wish toimprove their nonverbal decoding skills could do so by paying moreattention to nonverbal cues and concentrating mainly on facial expres-sions. This means engaging in increased eye contact, since this study andmany others have shown that eye contact is, by far, the most importantfacial characteristic in nonverbal communication.

Self-rated better decoders also tended to rely on nonverbal cues morethan on verbal cues when communicating with a person in the future.Reliance upon nonverbal cues makes good sense since nonverbal com-munication has been shown (in the review of literature) to more accurate-ly reflect the true feelings of the encoder. Decoding nonverbal cuessuccessfully is not an end unto itself. Employees or managers who decodenonverbal cues accurately but fail to act on the information can face thesame consequences—e.g., negative emotions or faulty decision making—as those who are unsuccessful at decoding nonverbal cues. Most impor-tantly, instead of ignoring nonverbal communication, one should gentlyprobe for more information when faced with discrepant verbal/nonverbalcues.


Encoding Sitiiis

Supervisors and managers should take special note: More than 50percent ofthe respondents felt their supervisors' verbal and nonverbalcommunication was occasionally or frequently in conflict. As Remland(1981) pointed out, "Much of what a manager says may be contradictedby what he or she does." Keeping in mind that such discrepancy can causemiscommunication, distrust, and frustration managers should becomemore cognizant of this problem and make real efforts to keep their verbaland nonverbal communication consistent with each other.

Unfortunately, many mangers have felt that they must not show theiremotions to their subordinates. When angry or upset they may try tohide or disguise their feelings. But, what they are really doing is sendinga mass of confiicting signals which confuse employees and erode trust.The authors recommend a more honest approach. Numerous studiesimply that people who don't overreact, but who appropriately frown,smile, maintain eye contact, and use proper voice inflections come acrossas more caring, trustworthy, and honest They are also much more likelyto communicate what they intend to communicate (Mehrabian &Wiener, 1967; Burgental et al., 1970; Feldman et al., 1978; Forbes &Jackson, 1980; Garrison, 1984). This appears to be especially applicableto managers.

Gender Differences

Gender was the other main variable which impacted the results ofthis study. Women rated themselves higher in decoding ability than menrated themselves. And, interestingly, both men and women, as a whole,reported that women are not only better decoders, but also betterencoders of nonverbal cues. These data are consistent with the literature(Hall, 1978).

A study by Rosenthal and DePaulo (1979) found, by observation, thatwomen pay significantly more attention to the face than do men. Thecurrent study showed no difference between men and women in thisrespect. This is an interesting discrepancy and one which merits somespeculation. This study has clearly shown that those who rated tbemsel-ves high in decoding ability favored facial cues over any otber nonverbalcues. Since experimental evidence also consistently shows that the faceis the best source of accurate information, it may be that many men arelaboring under the impression that they do pay enough attention to facialcues and that they do maintain sufficient eye contact, when, in fact, theydo not.


Predicting Nonverbai Skiiis

In the authors' attempt to identify a demographic profile which couldpredict self-rated decoding ability, two variables were found that fit theequation. The highest individual predictor was, interestingly, occupationin education. Respondents working in the education industry were likelyto rate their decoding skills very highly. The second highest individualpredictor was gender. When combined with education, these two vari-ables provide even more information. Women who work in the educationfield rated their decoding ability higher than any other group. Adding inmore variables reduced the predictability of the equation and did notcontribute to the overall information.

These findings seem reasonable. Evidence indicates women are betterthan men at nonverbal communication. Women in the teaching profes-sion would seem, logically, to have an even greater advantage becauseof the nature of the occupation. Teaching demands an intense com-munication effort—probably more so than any other profession.

Perception Differences in Managers and Employees

The authors predicted differences between the perceptions ofemployees and those of managers. However, only one differenceemerged. Those in management believed that decoding ability improveswith increasing age. Respondents who held management positionstended to be older than those respondents who were employees. Olderrespondents, however, did not judge themselves to be better decodersthan younger respondents. Furthermore, some studies have shown thatolder decoders (sixties and older) are less skilled at decoding nonverbalcues than younger persons (Parham & Feldman, 1981).

SUMMARY

In summary, the results of this study showed that the perceptions of505 respondents in the business world agree fairly well with the ex-perimental evidence reported in the literature. Nonverbal communica-tion was important to all surveyed, and most respondents agreed thatnonverbal communication would influence their interactions with peoplemore than would verbal content. Better decoders relied most on facialexpressions for accurate information while less skilled decoderspreferred voice level or tone.

Females, individually, rated themselves higher than men in decodingability, and as a group were perceived by both men and women to be bothbetter decoders and encoders of nonverbal cues. Women working in the


education field rated themselves higher in decoding ability than othergroup.

Recommendations for improving nonverbal skills included payingmore attention te nonverbal cues, especially the facial expressions,engaging in more eye contact, and probing for more information whenverbal and nonverbal cues are discrepant. Managers should be awarethat most employees feel frustration and distrust when receiving con-flicting signals from their supervisors, and should try to modify theirbehavior by being more honest in communicating their emotions.

REFERENCES

Addington, D. W. (1971). The effect of vocal variations on ratings of sourcecredibility. Speech Monographs, 38, 242-247.

Blanck, P. D., Rosenthal, R., Snodgrass, S., DePaulo, B., & Zuckerman, M.(1981). Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues: Developmentalchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 391-396.

Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality and physiologicalvariables in the communication of emotion via facial expression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 30, 587-596.

Bugenthal, D., Daswan, J., & Love, L. (1970). Perception of contradictorymeanings conveyed by verbal and nonverbal channels. Personality andSocial Psychology, 16, 647-655.

BuUer, D., & Burgoon, J. (1986). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sen-sitivity on compliance: Areplication and extension. Human CommunicationResearch, 13, 126-144.

Burgoon, J., Coker, D., & Coker, R. (1986). Communicative explanations.Human Communication Research, 12, 495-524.

Cody, M., & O'Hair, D. (1983). Nonverbal communication and deception:Differences in deception cues due to gender and communicator dominance.Com.munication Monograph, 50, 175-192.

Coker, D., & Burgoon, J. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement andnonverbal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463-494.

Depaulo, B., Rosenthal, R., Eisenstat, R., Rogers, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1978).Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. Journal of Personal and SocialPsycholc^y, 36, 313-323.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1974). Defecting deception from the body or face.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 288-298.

Feldman, R., Devin-Sheehan, L., & Allen, V. (1978). Nonverbal cues on in-dicators of verbal ^ssembMnQ.AmericanEducationalResearch Journal, 15,217-231.


Forbes, R., & Jackson, P. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the outcome ofselection interviews. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 65-72.

Garrison, L. L. (1984). Communication—The nonverbal way. Journal of Busi-ness Education, 190-192.

Graham, G. H., Unruh, J., & Jennings, P. (1990). Demographic impact onnonverbal decoding and encoding skills of genuine emotion in facial expres-sions. Unpublished manuscript.

Hall, J. (1980). Voice tone and persuasion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 38, 924-934.

Hall, J. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. PsychologicalBulletin, 68, 845-857.

Hegstrom, T. (1979). Message impact: What p)ercentage is nonverbal? WesternJournal of Speech Communication, 43(2), 134-142.

Honeycutt, J., Knapp, M., & Powers, W. (1983). On knowing others andpredicting what they say. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(2),157-174.

Isenhart, M. (1980). An investigation ofthe relationships of sex and sex roleto the ability to decode nonverbal cues. Human Communication Research,6, 309-317.

Knapp, M., Hart, R., & Dennis, H. (1974). An exploration of deception as acommunication construct. Human Communication Research, 7,15-20.

La France, M., & Mayo, C. (1979). A review of nonverbal behaviors of womenand men. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43(2), 96-107.

Leffler, A., Gillespie, D., & Conaty, J. (1982). The effects of status differentia-tion on nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(3), 153-161.

McClintock, C, & Hunt, R. (1975). Nonverbal indicators of affect amd decep-tion in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(1),65-67.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of ExperimentalResearch on Personality, 5(1), 64-73.

Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 109-114.

Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, D. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbalcommunication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31,248-252.

Mulac, A., Studley, OL., Wiemann, J., & Bradac, J. (1987). Male/female gazein same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Human Communication Research, 13,323-343.

Neal, W. (1982). Focusing on nonverbal communication in business. Journalof Business Education, 58(2), 78-80.

O'Hair, H., Cody, M., & McLaughlin, M. (1981). Prepared lies, spontaneous lies,Machiavellianism, and nonverbal communication. Human CommunicationResearch, 7, 325-339.

62 The Joumai of Business Communication 28:l:Winter 1991

Parham, I., Feldman, R., Oster, G., & Popoola, O. (1981). Intergenerationaldifferences in nonverbal disclosure of deception. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 113, 261-269.

Remland, M. (1981). Developing leadership skills in nonverbal communica-tion: A situational perspective. The Journal of Business Communication,18(3), 17-29.

Remland, M. (1984). Leadership impressions and nonverbal communicationin a superior-subordinate interaction. Communication Quarterly, 32(1),41-48.

Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. (1979). Sex diferences in eavesdropping onnonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 273-285.

St. John, W. D. (1985). You are what you communicate. Personnel Journal,72(3), 40-43.

Woodall, W., & Folger, J. (1981). Encoding specificity and nonverbal cuecontext: An expansion of episodic memory research. CommunicationMonographs, 48, 39-53.

Zaidel, S., & Mehrabian, A. (1969). The ability to communicate and inferpositive and negative attitudes facially and vocally. Journal ofExperimentalResearch in Personality, 3, 233-241.

Zaremba, A. J.( 1987). Beyond body language. BMsmessMar^fmg, 72(3), 132+.Zuekerman, M., Amidon, M., Bishop, S., & Pomerantz, S. (1982). Face and tone

of voice in the communication of deception. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 43, 347-357.

Zuekerman, M., DeFrank, R., Spiegel, N., & Larrance, D. (1982). Masculinity-femininity and encoding of nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 42, 548-556.

Zuekerman, M., Larrance, D., Spiegel, N., & Klorman, R. (1981). Controllingnonverbal displays: Facial expressions and tone of voice. Journal of Ex-perimental Social Psychology, 17, 506-524.

Accepted by NLR, 5/14/90

Documents

The Impact of Nonverbal Communication in Organizations: A Survey