Do We Really Know How Our Workers Interpret Us?
Written by Jerry Roberts. Follow me on Twitter.
Communication, Leadership, Management
photo by CarbonNYC
Would you talk to your work team differently if you knew that each point you deliver was instantly placed in one of two categories: Acceptance or disbelief?
According to research that Google has done in how people process information, this seems to be exactly what we face when trying to motivate our team.
The science behind it
I recently viewed a video of an interview with Dr. Vinton Cerf, hailed as the “father of the Internet” and Google VP/Chief Internet Evangelist, where he discussed the impact of social media and how people make the distinction between valuable information and advertising. You might be interested in this and how it relates to attitudes in the workplace.
Note: When I first ran across this information the source provided a link to the site which featured the scientific data and how the brain processes information for us. I regret that I no longer have that link. I’ll post it if I should find it again.
According to Google’s research if you’re interested in something it’s information; if you’re not it’s advertising.
If you hunger to own a Lexus over any other luxury line, then you’re likely to accept Lexus’ claims at face value while scrutinizing similar statements from its competitors, or dismissing them as a marketing pitch.
Relevance to the workplace
Roughly translated, this theory, applied to communicating with our staff would indicate that when we make statements someone agrees with it’s solid information and factual — while positions they disagree with range from:
- just our opinion
- simply wrong
- efforts to manipulate them (advertising)
- threats to their positions
This topic reminded me of sales training courses I have created. When dealing with objections the salesperson has to understand a basic fact: If I believe in something it’s the truth; if you believe in something different it’s your opinion. A sales rep who simply argues a point with a prospect, trying to change his mind, has virtually no chance at making the sale.
Not because the salesperson doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but because he’s throwing a bunch of opinion and “advertising” at the truth the prospect knows — and that truth will weather the onslaught.
This is ego stuff, but probably necessary for our survival.
Glaze effect
I began to play old conversations in my head and this theory made more sense. Most of us guess at how to effectively communicate with our team. We don’t craft our approach based upon a deep understanding of each individual and his/her style. We just put it out there and hope it takes.
If you look back you may remember those times when you were giving your presentation or training to your team, and you were met with several sets of eyes that were glazed over. You know, “The lights are on but nobody’s home.”
I used to figure that, in the case of long time workers, it’s just tougher to reach people who have been hearing your voice for years. They tend to zone you out after a while. It happens to everybody in a leadership position. But now I wonder if part of the reason for this is because their “advertising” filters are dissecting my communication in real time and the results aren’t good.
So what do we do about this?
If we look at the process to create advertising, it reveals a well thought out formula for getting information, using it, judging the results of the campaign, and finding out what worked and what didn’t.
- research the target audience
- plan and produce the campaign
- launch it
- gauge results
- research reasons for the results
Maybe you’re thinking, “Who has time for all that?” Don’t worry, it’s going to be a simple process for us.
Research — Advertisers conduct mass surveys to gain important information about desirable groups they want to target. For our purposes, you and I will accomplish our research through informal conversations with our team members. We need to learn their attitudes and ideas, and how they think. Once we know some basic data, we can go deeper.
Let’s say you discover that 75 percent of your team has a huge interest in social media and each has a Twitter account, spending at least an hour a day swapping messages (tweets) with people in their respective communities.
Would it make sense that you get on Twitter and set up an account, in order to find out what your workers see in it? You could read a few articles, follow people and gain some followers yourself, and quickly understand what attracts your people to the medium.
Plan and produce the campaign — Now that you’ve gained some knowledge of Twitter — both based upon what you’ve read and learned from your own experience — you include some of that research in your presentation. Even just a couple of interesting stories of people you communicated with or things you learned.
Launch it and gauge results — Watch the eyes of your workers as you hit the key points of your presentation. Was there a notable reaction when you first mentioned your personal Twitter story? It doesn’t have to be that people got whiplash in turning their heads toward you, but did they seem more focused than usual at those moments?
Research your results — After your presentation pull a few people aside and asked them how they felt about what you said. Don’t ask any question that can be answered with a “yes” or “no,” you want details.
- What was the most meaningful part of the presentation for you?
- How will you be able to implement this information into our existing plan?
- Why do you think this will make us more successful?
Getting these kinds of answers tells us whether or not people were tuned in and, if they were, how well they processed the information.
A side note to this: If you find that some people can’t answer your questions because their mind was elsewhere, pulling them aside serves notice that they should pay attention. At the next presentation I will often call on these people to answer questions like those above. If they are zoned out again, they’ll pay the price in embarrassment.
A continually moving target
It’s rare these days to have a work team where every member is on the same page at the same time. Life is too noisy and distractions are many. That said, using Google’s concept as a base we can take steps to get closer to the ideal, as we get also closer to our team members.
If I know how you think, at least I have a chance to reach you a fair percentage of the time. These days that may be as good as it gets.
Any comments or opinions on this are welcome.

If you like this post please consider subscribing to our RSS/Email feed (on the menu bar) or following us on Twitter.





One Comment
Susan Mazza
Excellent context to relate to everyone who works for you as a customer. I think mostly people don’t know how the people that work for them really think about them. We can make a lot of assumptions about what they think based on how they interact with us but that can be an illusion. If you are a boss you have power and people are likely not to say what they really think to your face when it isn’t “positive”. If you want to get your message over the bridge in any relationship you have to design the conversations you have, not just shoot from the hip.
One of the bets pieces of advice I have been given is “if you are not being listened to you are not listening”. Your process reminds us to start listening.
Leave a reply