Influencing Others In Business Environments Essay Research

Influencing Others In Business Environments Essay, Research Paper

Influencing Others in Business Environments

Throughout human civilization, the art of selling ideas or products has

been a cornerstone of society. Some people have become masters at this art,

yielding themselves and their companies large amounts of profit. Why is it that

some people are better at this than others? This paper will take a look at the

various aspects of nonverbal communication in selling (or influencing others to

buy) and in job interviews by examining in detail the various aspects of

proximics, haptics, physical attractiveness, and other nonverbal cues that

influence people to say yes.

Artifacts and local environment

Several studies have presented evidence in support of the theory that

“dressing for success” affects one’s ability to influence other people. One

study found that people dressed in suits versus people dressed in casual or

working-class clothes actually affects a subject’s likelihood of answering a

question correctly. In this study, a person dressed in a suit had a 77% percent

chance of getting money returned to them, while those dressed casually or in

working outfits had a 38% chance (Bickman, 1971). This study suggests that a

person’s status affects how well they are received by the person they are trying

to influence, and thus their likelihood of being able to influence them into

buying an idea or product.

Seating arrangements can affect ones ability to influence others.

Seating arrangements that are closer to one another have a greater effect and

lead to a less hostile environment than when people are seated opposite of one

another (Sommer, 1967). Sommer found that when a relationship is of a

competitive nature (i.e. bargaining situations such as labor contract

agreements) there is a preference for this style of seating because it “reflects

a desire to obtain information about one’s competitor.” Another study suggested

round tables help to “increase informality and feelings of closeness in

comparision to square or rectangular tables” (Sommer, 1965). Dawson (1986)

suggested having the members of the negotiation dispersed, that is, have

intermixing the opposing members together helps smooth over negotiations.

Placing artifacts in the negotiating environment can have affects on the

negotiation. A flower, vase, or abstract artwork have a tendency to promote

informality and affiliative behavior while books and magazines placed in the

environment discourage these processes (Mehrabian, 1971).

Voice and Tone

Voices have a significant persuasive affect. A study by Mehrabian and

Williams (1969) suggested that there are four nonverbal cues of voice that have

a persuasive effect. These are: having a louder amplitude, having a greater

intonation, having greater fluency in speech, and having a faster tempo during

speaking. Another study showed that when one has a louder and more fluent voice

they were more likely to get a favorable decision on a job interview or in a

legal battle (Hollandsworth et al., 1979). Faster tempos have a more persuasive

affect by exhibiting expertise and competence (Buller, 1986). But, there is a

limit. Speaking tempos greater than 375 syllables per minute decrease their

persuasive affect with faster tempos exhibiting greater and greater levels of

loss of persuasiveness.

Physical Appearance

Phsyical apperance has several manners in which it can help or hinder

the outcome of a negotiation. Raw physical attractiveness, one’s innate or

genetic attractiveness, has been shown to dramatically affect the attentiveness

of an audience. One study did an experiment with a woman, first she was dressed

to look unattractive, then she was dressed attractively. The study showed that

among male audience members her ability to influence them varied with how well

she dressed. When she was dressed well, she was seen as more persuasive than

when she was dressed unattractively (Mills & Aronson, 1965). Another study

between a middle aged male professor and a younger attractive male undergraduate

yielded some interesting results. The study showed that among a female

audience, the young male was seen as persuasive with or without evidence to

support his theories; whereas, the male professor was only seen persuasive with

evidence (Norman, 1976). All of these studies suggest that the persuasive

affect of attractiveness is most significant with the opposite sex. That is,

the persuasive effect of attractiveness only works when the audience members

being influenced are not of the same sex as the speaker. Why is this so?

Bettinghaus and Code (1987) offer this answer: “Attractive sources influence us

because of their attractiveness, not because of message content. That is, since

we identify with, and desire approval from, attractive sources, we respond to