Yet, despite the importance of words, it is likely that you seldom think about language and its impact on virtually every aspect of life. When things go wrong-when you are confused, worried, or depressed; when social or business affairs don't work out; when you see yourself making blunders in personal or work matters-you blame many things for the difficulties. Sometimes you may blame your physical health or nerves, other times you may blame the establishment or world events. If the problem involves an interaction with other people, you may blame their attitudes or lack of ability. Even when you suspect that there is a problem in communications, you will probably neglect to investigate your specific words as a possible source of trouble.
It is hard to believe that thinking about language is so limited when its uses and effects are so extensive. Few understand the relationship between the specific words used and their effectiveness in supervising others. It is easy to believe that the basic message to be communicated is more important than the words themselves. It is assumed that once the idea is straight, the words will just fall into place. But the words you use are as important as the ideas they express. Your words influence the way subordinates feel about you as well as the way you feel about yourself.
When people meet you for the first time, they use many clues-such as title, clothes, grooming, hair style, general demeanor, and speech-to assess your affiliations, status, and authority. Some of these indicators can be more easily manipulated than others. Consider George, the undercover "nark" (narcotics agent) who wants to infiltrate the drug subculture. He will most likely grow his hair, cultivate a beard, and wear jeans and casual shirts. It is important that George look like a dealer in order to be accepted and to do his job, but his speech can give away his disguise. His attempts to assimilate will fail unless he correctly uses the subtle nuances of drug culture argot.
One serious error in wording can generate suspicion and make him ineffective or even put him in danger.
The language you use is one of the best indicators of your position in an organization. Not only can the use of a less prestigious form of speech cost you status and authority, but it can limit your advancement as well. That speech can be a social barrier is well illustrated in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, the play on which the musical comedy My Fair Lady was based. The Cockney flower girl, Eliza, can be installed in a West London apartment, clothed fashionably, and taught socially sophisticated behaviors, but she will still be a Cockney as long as she speaks like one. Her social status will change only when her speech changes. Likewise, a person making a vertical move in the corporation is confronted with subtle but real speech barriers. This is particularly evident in the case of the person entering management for the first time: The new manager must drop deferential speech and adopt authoritative speech with subordinates. Failure to do this can cause serious problems.
Social class, status, and authority are only a few of the unconscious indicators about yourself that you reveal in your speech. In a linguistics study, English and French Canadians made personality judgments from tape recordings of identical sentences spoken in Canadian French and in English. Both French and English listeners judged the unseen French speaker to be less intelligent, dependable, kind, ambitious, and attractive-even shorter-than the unseen English speaker. The experiment suggests how quickly you are likely to be stereotyped according to your speech. It also illustrates that the group holding power sets the standards for speech. In Canada, the English have social and economic power over the French, and the English set the speech standards. In the business world, management holds power and sets speech standards. Thus, the more you use authoritative speech-the language of management-the more positively you will be viewed. You will be seen as more competent and more in control of yourself and of the situation. In short, you will be allotted greater respect and authority.
The impact of your speech is not limited to others' perceptions of you; it influences your perceptions of yourself as well. Stanford psychologist Daryl Bem developed a theory of self-perception which states that people make judgments about themselves in the same way that they make judgments about others. For example, if at a staff party you observe a person standing alone, speaking only when spoken to (and then very hesitantly), refusing to look directly into other people's eyes, you might conclude that the person is self-conscious. Likewise, if you notice yourself engaging in this kind of behavior, you might conclude that you feel self-conscious.
Such judgments about yourself need not only follow from your overt behavior; you might also note internal behaviors, such as pounding heart, fluttering stomach, and sweating palms. According to Bem's theory you look to your behavior-internal and external-to make judgments about yourself. If you see yourself doing a favor for Jones, a co-worker, you might conclude that you like Jones; if you see yourself doing the same favor for Smith, an upper-management type who is considering you for an important assignment, you might conclude that you're "playing the game."
One of the many behaviors people use to make judgments about themselves is their speech. When you hear yourself speaking with hesitation and confusion to an employee, you might conclude that you lack confidence and are incompetent as a supervisor. On the other hand, when you hear yourself speaking authoritatively you will probably draw the opposite conclusion. The words people use with others are only part of the speech behavior that they use to make judgments about themselves. People can also observe their covert or silent speech, or thoughts, which behavioral psychologists refer to as self-statements. Thus, if you hear yourself speaking to employees in a wishy-washy, hesitant way, you might then say to yourself: "I just can't give directives. I can't manage people and get them to do the things that need to be done." You probably use these self-statements as further evidence to support your negative perceptions of your competence as a manager.
It's easy to see how this can lead to a vicious cycle. Negative self-statements erode self-confidence; lowered self-confidence makes it difficult to perform; inhibited performance leads to more negative self-perceptions, resulting in still lower self-confidence. Intervention into such a vicious cycle can be made at two points-changing overt speech and changing self-statements. It is important to recognize that speech, both external and internal, can have an enormous impact on your perceptions of yourself; who you are, how you feel, and how you function.
You're making a serious error if you always attempt to use the same kind of speech. If you want to function effectively and be taken seriously, you must be responsive to the situation. Neil Postman points out that the situation, which he calls the semantic environment, includes the setting, your purpose, and your relationship with the listener. As you move from one setting to another, you must alter your speech or suffer serious consequences to your credibility. For example, if you use the same words in the boardroom as you use in the bedroom, your sanity will be immediately suspected. You alter your speech to achieve different purposes. You would use very different words if you wanted to complain about poor service than you would if you were trying to obtain a $30,000 personal loan. Finally, your relationship with the listener influences your speech. You'll be job hunting if you speak to the president of the firm in the same way you speak to your troublesome teenaged son.
Generally, in the world of commerce, people who express their opinions strongly and forcefully will be taken more seriously than those who state their views tentatively. A stronger means of expression suggests confidence in one's assertion.
There is a marked difference in the feeling of confidence conveyed by the two managers in the example. Manager A sounds apologetic and almost embarrassed by the discussion, comes across as being uncertain, and makes attending the seminar sound optional. John could easily challenge manager A and refuse to attend the seminar, saying, "There's no communication problem here. Both of those guys were freeloaders. I told them to shape up or get out. They got out."
Manager A has placed himself in a position where he might have to defend his opinion and eventually resort to threats and ultimatums. He has created a potential problem for himself with his own words. Manager B, on the other hand, sounds confident in his analysis of John's problem and there is no doubt as to what action he expects of John. The difference lies in small but important changes in speech patterns.
Many managers, especially neophytes to the management hierarchy, have difficulty telling a subordinate to do something. Linguist Robin Lakoff identified several speech patterns that decrease a man ager's credibility when giving directives: weak expletives, tag-questions, and directives stated as requests. In the following sections I will review these problem areas, along with disqualifying prefaces; then I will show you a step-by-step process for giving directives.
Although the specific information transmitted in each pair is identical, the implied importance varies dramatically. The expletive is meaningful only insofar as it conveys that the speaker has an emotional reaction to the information contained in the remainder of the statement. The force of the speaker’s feeling is implied by the strength of the expletive: "Hell" is more forceful than "good grief," for example. Of course, the speaker who says, "Good grief, sales have dropped ten percent," might in fact feel more strongly than the one who says, "Hell," but "good grief" is a weak expletive.
According to Lakoff, weaker expletives tend to trivialize the statement that follows. Because words influence the listener's perceptions, it is easy for the listener to conclude that the topic is trivial. Speakers who use weak expletives frequently find that their credibility drops. On the other hand, a person in authority tends to be excused for a show of temper (within limits), whereas the person with little authority is not. Because swear words are often used to express anger, it is not surprising that they make stronger expletives.
Some weak expletives: Oh fudge, dear me, golly, gosh, gosh darn, drat, goodness, gracious me.
Some strong expletives: Damn, hell, goddamn, Christ, Jesus, and some stronger expressions.
I don't want to suggest that you take up swearing to increase your credibility and authority, but if you catch yourself frequently using weak expletives, it would be wise to practice making such statements without any expletive at all. Or use one of the more acceptable strong expletives-such as "damn"-to express strong feeling.
