Misunderstanding Mehrabian

All over the internet are references to Albert Mehrabian’s most famous “discovery”, the so-called 7%-38%-55% rule.

Supposedly only 7% of communication springs from what is said, the verbal, 38% from the tone of voice, and 55% from the non-verbal – facial and body language.

But this is to miss the point completely. In situations where words, tones and non-verbals are consistent with each other, it’s clearly the words that carry the message.

It’s where there are mixed messages, where words, tones and non-verbals are incongruent, seeming to contradict each other, that non-verbals are most likely to be believed.

So for example if I say to you that I trust you, but my facial and/or body language suggest otherwise, it will be lack of trust that is the received message.

Making sure that all channels are aligned is not so easy – it trips up politicians all the time – and while we may not be conscious of what has happened when they are not, our unconscious registers the real messages loud and clear.

So often, when I facilitate innovation meetings, the lead client puts on the table one task, where the rest of the group has a completely different issue in mind. The complexity of reading bodies, faces, tones and words in situations like this can be daunting. And without a great deal of experience, young facilitators (and old) can come unstuck.

The question is: how to become skilled at reading all these signals and responding appropriately?

Lady Gaga: Innovation Princess 2010

My now eight year-old daughter was given “POP Princesses 2010” – CD and DVD – for her recent birthday. It’s been a massive hit with her and consequently I’ve had a good deal of exposure to it myself.

Many of the current diva crop are included – Rihanna, Leona Lewis, Sugababes, Britney Spears, Shakira, The Pussycat Dolls, Cheryl Cole, Girls Aloud and so on.

What has struck me most clearly, however, is what a unique performer Lady Gaga is. While most of them could easily be mistaken for each other, their sound world being so similar, Lady Gaga creates something quite different.

Thinking about this from an innovation perspective, if you want to be reasonably successful with your offering, you swim with the tide. But if you want to cause a breakthrough you take the greater risk of creating something that either may catch on, as Lady Gaga has, or may equally sink without trace.

Of course, Lady Gaga has not only made a different sound, she has given birth to a complete artistic creation, and it may well be other parts of the artwork that have caused the wave to mount up.

Will she remain a one-off? Time will tell.

The Last Laugh

From Shall We Dance, 1937

Words: Ira Gershwin
Music George Gershwin





The odds were a hundred to one against me
The world thought the heights were too high to climb
But people from Missouri never incensed me
Oh, I wasn't a bit concerned
For from hist’ry I had learned
How many, many times the worm had turned

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It’s the same old cry
They laughed at me wanting you
Said I was reaching for the moon
But oh, you came through
Now they'll have to change their tune

They all said we never could be happy
They laughed at us and how!
But ho, ho, ho!
Who’s got the last laugh now?

They all laughed at Rockefeller center
Now they're fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat
Hershey and his chocolate bar

Ford and his Lizzie
Kept the laughers busy
That's how people are
They laughed at me wanting you
Said it would be, "hello, goodbye."
But oh, you came through
Now they're eating humble pie

They all said we’d never get together
Darling, let’s take a bow
For ho, ho, ho!
Who’s got the last laugh?
He, hee, hee!
Let’s at the past laugh
Ha, ha, ha!
Who’s got the last laugh now?

Does any other song have so many important messages for innovators?

Stravinsky the bank manager

Do highly creative individuals look different?

In my experience some do, some don’t.

There’s no doubt with Albert Einstein. The amazing breakthrough thinking matches up precisely with the visual image of the wild-haired, wild-eyed maverick.

But consider Igor Stravinsky. The Rite of Spring ballet that he composed for Diaghilev was so shocking when it was first performed in 1913 that there were riots in the streets of Paris. And composers are still dealing with and responding to the savagery of his musical vision.

Yet Stravinsky presented himself more like a bank manager than a revolutionary artist. And so did one of the greatest and most radical of twentieth century poets, TS Eliot.

In my own working experience, I learned over time not to trust the packaging as an accurate guide to the contents when dealing with “creatives” in an ad agency. Some of the greatest copywriters I worked with dressed and behaved conservatively, while some of the least talented presented themselves as geniuses.

But how are we to tell the difference?

“I’ve never tried it because I don’t like it”

A friend of mine was working on some new ads for Guinness when he heard a lady say this in a focus group. So he used it as a headline for a poster.

It seems to me to be the underlying attitude of the “late adopter” in so many fields. Reluctance to try something new because they don’t want to take a risk.

With new products, so much marketing effort appears to be expended on early adopters, who represent a much easier target - one that will get sales moving quickly and demonstrate to senior management that we have a success on our hands.

Yet by their nature, early adopters are fickle. They’ll pick up the next passing cab without a thought. Not the firmest of foundations.

The thing about the ones who never tried it because they don’t like it, is that, once tried and enjoyed, they will be tons more loyal.

So how to get them to take that step?

Innovative vs Conscientious

“Find good people”. “Set them free”. Two of the basic rules set out by Richard Branson in his recent book Business Stripped Bare: Adventures of a Global Entrepreneur. Simple? Or not so easy as it might appear?

One of the most interesting findings in a major new innovation study undertaken for NESTA by my City University colleague Professor Fiona Patterson and her team is that, at work, “innovativeness” as a personal characteristic has an inverse correlation with “conscientiousness”.

One way or another, most organisations treat conscientiousness as a basic given in the recruitment and promotion of staff. The question that arises from this is: are we effectively screening out highly creative people and thus restricting our chances of developing breakthrough innovation?

I wonder if Branson’s Virgin has this cracked? Or you and your organisation?

Life without innovation

Click on the image to enlarge.

Einstein and “Common Sense”

What people call “common sense” seems highly prized. I’m never quite sure what it means beyond “what I think”, “what my experience tells me”, “conventional wisdom says”.

As such, it can be very useful in dealing with the existing.

But, when dealing with creative ideas, it can become really dangerous. New ideas can be fatally damaged at an early stage by the application of too much common sense.

A much better process is first to find and articulate the intrigue in the new idea. Then to establish what’s valuable about it. Then to identify any issues – problems that come with the idea. Critically, then to do some rigorous problem-solving so that the new idea can be made to work in practice in real life.

As an approach, it’s not quite as simple as “common sense”, but it’s a whole lot more likely to get you past go.

As Einstein put it: “Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which the problems were created.”

Have you been on the receiving end of someone else’s common sense recently? Or… have you dished it out?