Messengers

Anyone who has perhaps had that experience (of not feeling like they've been heard), I think that's also a group that would be interested in understanding how it is that some people can say something, [while] others say the same thing and get ignored. So, understanding that kind of dynamic and what you can do about it as well, I think.

Rachel Salaman: Yes, I was wondering whether it was mainly to help us identify what's going on so that we can weed out the false prophets from the true prophets, or whether it was equally about helping us improve our own ability to convince others – to learn from those people who are convincing us. How did you see that balance as you were writing it?

Steve Martin: Well, our goal was for the former of those objectives, but the reality is, now the book has come out, most of the feedback we've got back is from those that are interested in the latter.

So, yes – we do go into some detail about the traits (the characteristics) of certain communicators and messengers that increase the likelihood that they are going to be heard, regardless of the fact or fiction or wisdom of the content of their message.

But we do go into some detail. And a lot of people have actually come back and said, "We find this book most useful because it's given me some hints and tips about how I perhaps position my message differently. I don't change the message – don't change the recommendation or what I'm asking for – but I recognize that by positioning it in a different way I might get a better response, or, in some instances, recognize that I might not necessarily be the right person to deliver this message."

Rachel Salaman: The book looks in detail at eight messenger traits, which you've split into four hard and four soft. Joseph, could you tell us the difference between the hard and the soft, and also how they interact? Do people use both sometimes?

Joseph Marks: They do. And broadly, like you say, there's hard messengers, who have some form of status; and soft messengers, who are able to develop a connectedness with their audience or listeners.

So, you can imagine the status traits – I can just list them off now quickly and then we can kind of talk about them in more detail. These are things like socioeconomic position, a person's competence, their dominance, or attractiveness, something that provides real value in terms of the eyes of others. Whereas connectedness traits are inherently more soft and create something… They give less tangible benefit; things like warmth, trustworthiness, vulnerability, and charisma – these are traditionally called "soft skills," and we've gone with that framing as well.

Rachel Salaman: And how do the messages themselves play into that framework? For example, does a certain type of message work best with a certain type of messenger effect or trait, Steve?

Steve Martin: I think you're onto something there, Rachel, yes. It's certainly the case that the context or the environment that we find ourselves in really does matter a lot.

So the message here isn't that you need to be all eight of these traits. I think the broader message is to recognize that there are eight traits, the universals if you like, and we all have our preferences in terms of styles, and what we're good at and perhaps what we're less good at.

Rachel Salaman: Yes, well let's talk a bit more about the eight traits now, starting with the impact of someone's socioeconomic position: the wealthier someone appears to be, the more we hold them in esteem, is what you say in your book. So, Joseph, does that mean we should all go out and buy the most expensive-looking clothes we can find?

Joseph Marks: Well, it's interesting. There have been studies looking at exactly that – whether a prestigious brand label on a shirt would lead people to be more open and receptive to a request from the messenger.

So, particularly in shopping malls, and even going round door to door, collecting money for charity, people – and the same people, but wearing one version of a shirt or another version of a shirt – tended to get more positive response rates (or money, in the case of the charity collectors) when they had that prestigious logo on their shirt.

So it does suggest that something is going on, perhaps at an unconscious level, and I do think that often when you ask people this question, they'd say, "No, I definitely wouldn't behave like that. In fact I would probably respond negatively to somebody who was being ostentatious and trying to one-up me, essentially." And I agree, I would feel the same way!

And, you know, it's then very interesting to look at the data and say, "Well does this happen in real life?" And often it is not the case; people do defer to those who show some form of high socioeconomic position, whether through a flashy brand or through a nice car, even.

Steve Martin: The just world says that, "People that do good things, that are accomplished, are subsequently rewarded with that positional status." So we look to these people because we think that they have some form of perhaps instrumental value; there's a reason why they have attained that position.

So there's lots, I think, of evolutionary reasons why we should perhaps listen to what these people have to say, because they've demonstrated their ability to rise above the crowd. And I think that certainly seems a sensible thing for us to do. What's really interesting – and often quite vexing – is the idea that once we have positioned them in that status, we start to assume they are good at lots of other things that have nothing to do with the reason why they got there in the first place.

One of the examples that Joe and I enjoy a lot from the book is the story of a Cantonese pop star, OK: an incredibly good singer, great dancer, well-loved by millions of people, who caused a turmoil in the Chinese health authorities a couple of years ago, when she announced via WhatsApp – without any evidence and contrary to all the medical expertise – that anyone that actually got the flu jab [vaccination] was likely to get the flu; 90 percent of the people would get the flu.

Now, she was believed. So there's an example of where someone of high status, but not actually high status in medicine or immunology, just a good singer and good dancer, but their voice carried sway in an entirely different domain, causing the health officials to actually have to scramble to contain and reset people's belief about this particular claim that they were actually making.

So, there's the fascinating thing: how we see one of these messenger traits in someone, and it's very easy for us to naturally assume, or consider, that they have all sorts of other skills and traits that they necessarily do not have.

Rachel Salaman: And having the awareness of that means that we perhaps are better able to sift through the information that we're receiving, and not just believe people because they have a high status.

Steve Martin: Well, there's the challenge though, isn't there? We are in this world now, where we are so overwhelmed with information, that it's easy to see how we can use these single cues to infer one characteristic of someone, [and] it is then very easy to assume that they have all these other things as well.

It's a quick, efficient way to navigate our way through what is an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

Rachel Salaman: Your next trait in the book that you highlight is competence, or perceived competence, such as things like a doctor's lab coat or an impressive degree. How often are those outward signs of competence actually misleading?

Joseph Marks: So, on the whole, I think that they're useful, and that's why we use them to form competence judgments. I mean, the reality is it makes sense to listen to the people who have expertise, knowledge, experience, skills, in order to form correct judgments and take correct actions.

The trouble is that it can be very hard to make judgments about competence from the very limited amount of information that we have about people. So, we meet people and upon first impression we immediately start making judgments about their competence.

This has been demonstrated in a number of quite famous studies in psychology where researchers show pictures of CEOs or politicians to "naive" participants who have never seen these people before, and they say, "How competent does this person look?" And what they find is that, if you just take these competence ratings from a person's face, you can predict how profitable the company that they lead is, or how likely they are to win an election.

So, just taking two politicians, asking a bunch of people… And sometimes it is quite a weird population, so they've done it with Swiss children predicting French elections. And they find, indeed, that these Swiss children tend to pick the eventual winner when they're asked, "Who looks like a more competent leader of a ship?"

So, it is remarkable how quickly we make these competence judgments when we're trying to do something. That's very sensible, but it can lead to situations where we will look to the wrong cues; to cues such as facial maturity, over somebody who is more competent but happens to have a "baby face," for example.

Rachel Salaman: And in terms of signaling our own competence, I like the tip you have in the book about how you can avoid self-promotion, which is not always a great look, and that's to have someone else introduce you. Can you talk a bit about that, Steve?

Steve Martin: Yes, you're exactly right, Rachel. Most societies prefer not to hear from people who are willing to self-aggrandize and talk themselves up before they deliver a message. But we are very willing to listen to those same people if their competence and expertise has been introduced from the side, so to speak.

We talk about a study that I actually led here in London, it was quite a few years ago now, with estate agents [realtors]. And we found that estate agents that were able to arrange for their (genuine) expertise to be introduced the moment before an inquiry or a customer was put through to them, were significantly more effective in being able to secure an appointment with that potential customer, and subsequently it led to an increase in the number of contracts they signed as well.

I think more broadly… Because I know a number of your listeners are organizations, and I am often intrigued by the way that companies start meetings, particularly when there's a group of them in the room and someone invariably says, "Well, let's start by going round the room and introducing ourselves, shall we?" And that's never really a good start for a meeting for a couple of reasons. The first is, as you probably recognize, when you know that you have to speak out in public, all your thoughts go internal – you think, "Oh no, what am I going to say?!" So, everyone else who is coming before you, you are not really listening to them because you are thinking about, what do I say when it's my turn?

The second reason, of course, is this idea of people not really wanting to brag. So it is unlikely within that context that people are actually going to point out the genuine reasons why they deserve to be at that meeting. You are likely to get information that can be reliably found on their business card.

So, I always recommend that actually the best way, the optimal way, to start those kind of meetings in that context is to have whoever the leader – or the senior person or the person that's called the meeting in the room – [is] should introduce everyone, and the legitimacy and the reasoning why each person in the room has something worthwhile to say. It's far, far more optimal – it creates that environment where the genuine, competent experts in the room will likely be listened to.

Rachel Salaman: That's a really good tip. Dominance is another of the hard messenger traits. How does that usually manifest itself? And what are the implications of that?

Steve Martin: Well, I think many of us can recognize how dominance kind of plays out. Perhaps in the workplace [they are] those characters that will often come into the room and they seem to consume the space. They use wide gestures, they sometimes invade others' personal space, as well.

And what's kind of interesting, and slightly disconcerting, about the dominant messenger is they're the kind of character that has a kind of inherent belief that everything is a competition, and to the winner goes the spoils. You've got to think about that for a minute and think, well why would we want people like that in an organization? What purpose do they actually serve?

But, if you think back to previous eras, the dominant messenger, the dominant leader, was very much a desired character within a community. If a warring tribe was coming our way or if we were under siege, you'd want someone who was able to stand up and take charge and take the lead.

Of course, we don't have that in society anymore. We're unlikely to fight and compete with others in those more physical types of ways, but that's not to say that competition isn't still inherent in organizations and inherent in life as well.

You're listening to Mind Tools Expert Interviews from Emerald Works.

Rachel Salaman: The last trait of the hard messenger is attractiveness, and, in the book, you cite a lot of research about the disproportionate appeal of good-looking people. Do you have any good news, Steve, for people who haven't won the beauty lottery? What are some ways they can compete successfully against more attractive opponents?

Steve Martin: So, the first thing I actually say is: it is not always just about attractiveness. This book communicates and describes eight fundamental messenger traits, so all of us are going to be able to leverage at least one of them. So, one way in which we can dodge that challenge is to say, "Look, there are seven other traits that we can actually perhaps increase our ability to be seen as a more compelling messenger in that instance."

But that's not to say that people haven't also tried to increase, I guess, perceived attractiveness, in that instance. One of the most famous (and, I guess in a way, ironic) studies was a study that was done with prisoners a few years ago, where they wanted to understand what the impact of giving them coaching on [personal] grooming, on social skills, and, in some extreme cases, even surgery to remove tattoos and reconstructive surgery, and whether or not that actually had any impact on their subsequent likelihood to offend again. And they actually found that it did have a significant impact – but not in the way that you'd expect.

So, after several of these folks were released from prison, it's not that they were likely to offend less, it's just that when they went to court, they actually looked smarter and as a result, were less likely to get sent to prison!

So, that's a really interesting example to me of often the power of that surface vision of attractiveness, and we make these inferences and judgments within a matter of milliseconds and they can have some significant impacts on people's perception of us as a result.

Rachel Salaman: So, it probably is worth brushing your hair if you thought you might not, if you are going to a job interview, that kind of thing?

Steve Martin: I think so. And job interviews is really the classic example, I think, where this attractiveness bias has actually played out. There is famously that Italian study where, was it close to 11,000 CVs [résumés] were sent out to genuine job opportunities, and in some instances people were asked to attach a photograph of themselves and in half the cases not to attach a photograph. And what was astonishing was the number of callbacks that attractive people got to interviews, that their less attractive peers – with the same experience and competence – weren't.

In fact, it was found that if you were not slightly or more average looking than the mean, the advice was don't actually put a photograph on the CV – it actually resulted in a detrimental impact on you getting the job. So, perhaps the message here is to recognize where you are, and deploy some of these other effects to compensate, because I genuinely think you can do that.

Joseph Marks: And what's interesting is that, actually, a lot of the time, if you have one of these other traits, you are rated as more attractive. So there's that interplay that you were talking about where those who are more charismatic, extrovert, warmer, positive, tend to be rated as more attractive. I think there are ways to boost it through non-traditional means, non-physical means.

Rachel Salaman: Well, let's talk a little bit more about the other half, the soft messenger traits in your book. Warmth, you mentioned – Joseph, it is interesting that there are pros and cons to warmth, can you tell us a little bit about the downside of being warm?

Joseph Marks: Yes, so warmth is generally how benevolent a person comes across, how much they express positive regard for another's welfare. So rather than trying to get status themselves, they do the opposite – they endow status onto others, and respect to others, and by virtue of doing so, tend to be more likable.

So, you can kind of imagine this would be a positive thing for those who, like we all do, like to feel some sort of respect and status given to us, some form of connectedness with other people – we feel liked, we feel like we have some status and we like the person who is giving that to us. But, at the same time, it can have a trade-off with that status on the person giving us status.

We spoke earlier about the confident versus baby-faced individuals. Well, those who are baby-faced do come across as more honest, more warm, more sincere, but slightly naive. And I think that really illustrates this fundamental trade-off here – where you can come across as a really nice guy or woman, but does that also put you in this leader-like dominant role that you might want to be in. The kind of person who can take charge and get things done and act decisively and, if they need, aggressively.

Rachel Salaman: I suppose that's something that is at risk, if you like, through all of the soft messenger traits. The next one you talk about in the book is vulnerability, Steve. Could you give us a workplace example of the type of vulnerability that you're talking about?

Steve Martin: Yes, I think I can. So, when we talk about vulnerability we're essentially talking about the need to ask for help, to admit to others that perhaps you're not in a position to be able to deliver on something, or to attain something, or to get something accomplished. And, fundamentally, what you're doing is you are opening yourself up to others and actually saying, "I need help here." Of course, the challenge with that is in looking to connect to others, you are immediately diminishing your status.

But where I think there is really good news here is in – and actually this is well-established now in social psychological literature – that we typically, when we think about asking others for help, we typically tend to underestimate the likelihood that people will actually say yes and want to help us.

To the person that's being asked for help, they don't think about the economic costs of saying yes, they typically focus their attention on the social costs of saying no. It is really interesting and, in fact, some studies have actually gone so far as to actually say that we underestimate others' likelihood to say yes to our request for help by as much as twice as much as that person's likelihood of actually saying yes.

So, here's one insight straight away is: feel comfortable asking for help more. Because, actually, the chances are you will probably receive more help in that instance.

Rachel Salaman: I wonder how that's linked, Joe, to the next soft messenger trait which is trustworthiness. In the book you talk about "competence-based" trust and "integrity-based" trust. What's the difference and how does it help us to know that?

Joseph Marks: We spoke about competence earlier and it is this: "I trust that you will get the answer correctly, that you will do the appropriate thing, that you're a safe pair of hands." And we contrast that with integrity-based trust, which is essentially our belief or confidence in a messenger's loyalty to us. Are they going to betray us if a temptation to do so arises? Are they going to be as faithful as their options, or are they going to be a good, loyal friend to us?

It is very difficult to have any kind of successful relationship, whether it's economic, personal, romantic, without trusting that the person is going to be somewhat cooperative to you. If they can screw you over, they might actually think twice about doing so because they're worried about, one, how you'll feel, and two, the consequences of doing so for the relationship in the future.

So, really, trust can be boiled down to a simple risk/reward calculation, and it has been by a number of academics. So, we can think, what is the chance of them betraying us? What is the chance of them not betraying us? How good will it be if they didn't, how bad will be if they did betray us? Academics and researchers have tried to boil it down to this reductionist viewpoint, and actually what they find is this isn't really how people behave.

People don't look and do the computations necessary, in fact – and similar to the traits we've discussed before – they make trustworthy judgments in a very human way, a very quick way, a very intuitive way. And so this can be by looking briefly at the person, seeing how they express themselves nonverbally but also looking at their past behavior and thinking, "Does this person have a good track record?" for example. And, actually, that is the number one and the most sensible way to build trust, by having positive repeated exchanges with another individual.

Steve Martin: What's also interesting to me – and I was fascinated by this – is how often people confuse trust with truth, and this idea that in order to trust someone, they should be able to demonstrate that they are truth-tellers. We found lots of examples where that simply is not the case.

And essentially I think it is built on this idea – building from what Joe was actually saying – that trust essentially is our ability to predict someone else's behavior in the future, how confident we are. And so we're not really assessing someone's trustworthiness on whether they speak the truth or not, we're assessing their trustworthiness on the basis of whether they're speaking our truth. If people are willing to lie, as long as the lies they're telling are ones that are fundamentally important to us and go in the direction of where we would like to go, we're much, much more likely to trust them.

Rachel Salaman: So, I suppose we also need to figure out what matters more to us: the truth or trusting someone, which is I guess another way of putting it.

Steve Martin: Yes, exactly right.

Rachel Salaman: So, the last trait that you've identified and go into in the book is charisma, and you've talked a little bit about this already. It's hard to define, but we do recognize it when we see it. Should we be suspicious of it or should we try to emulate it? What's your take, Joseph?

Joseph Marks: It's one of those traits that when you ask people, "Who's charismatic?" they form a consensus pretty quickly. And so it's very interesting to then go into the research and look at where people have tried to pick it apart and see exactly what's going on, and there do seem to be a few key ingredients.

One is the ability to articulate a collective vision. And that's why we think of it as a connectedness soft trait: they bond people together under a superordinate goal or vision, and people stop acting in their own self-interest when that happens and start to behave as a group member, acting on behalf of the group. And the leader is seen as part of that group, so part of that group that they are seen as both [a] status-filled and a connected messenger. So, they kind of get the best of both worlds, in that sense.

The second aspect of it, which I think is really important, is the ability to deliver a message with an optimistic, positive and enthusiastic, expressive way of speaking. And this is called "surgency" in psychology – it is very closely related to extroversion, if not synonymous – and essentially it is the positivity with which a person speaks. One really interesting way of looking at this is how expressive they are in their nonverbal behavior, the hand gestures that they use.

And what researchers find… If you look at TED Talks, as a good example, there you get some speakers who are very charismatic and some who are less so. And it can be nicely measured in terms of their click-through rates, how many views they get. You can take two speakers who are pretty similarly qualified, talking about very similar topics, and the thing that seems to mainly differentiate whether they'll get a lot of views or less views is how many hand gestures they use, and those who do particularly well use about twice as many hand gestures as those who are very good speakers, who are knowledgeable about their topic, but just use less hand gestures.

Rachel Salaman: So, that suggests that we can actually emulate it a little bit, Steve?

Steve Martin: I think so. In fact, actually, the scientific community has kind of coalesced now behind a universal consensus of what charisma actually is, and actually goes so far as to say it can be learned. So, unlike certain things (perhaps dominance, attractiveness) that are kind of predisposed, I think there are certain elements and traits (charisma being one, competence, warmth) where we can actually take specific steps to improve our ability to use those traits in worthwhile and persuasive ways.

Rachel Salaman: Well, if I can just finally ask both of you, out of the eight traits that we've talked about, which do you think are the most powerful when it comes to influencing people, Steve?

Steve Martin: Well, actually this has been studied and it does seem that trustworthiness, for lots of obvious reasons, is incredibly important. That ability to be able to listen to what a messenger says and actually scrutinize it under that filter of, "Does this person have my best interests at heart?" So that clearly is going to be important.

In the business world, competence clearly is also seen as important. In fact, I would go as far as to say: if you are seen as a trusted, competent, warm individual, you are probably in pretty good shape, actually. That's not to say you wouldn't necessarily benefit perhaps from raising your ability in some of the other traits, and recognizing where one is more useful to you than the other.

Rachel Salaman: What about you, Joseph?

Joseph Marks: Yes, well I'd be loath to disagree or go against the research that we found suggesting trustworthiness does seem to be the most important trait.

Rachel Salaman: Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks. The name of their book again is "Messengers: Who We Listen To, Who We Don't and Why."

I'll be back in a few weeks with another Mind Tools Expert Interview from Emerald Works. Until then, goodbye.