Small business utilization of nonverbal communication interpretation: an exploratory and laboratory investigation.

Peterson, Robin T. ; Stratemeyer, Andreas W.

ABSTRACT

An investigation into the effectiveness of small business personnel utilizing nonverbal cues in determining the messages which others are conveying is examined. The paper provides an overview of the contributions of body language as a means of interpreting communication. In addition it sets forth the outcome of an inquiry which provides support for this methodology in understanding what others are communicating to small business personnel. The inquiry suggested that nonverbal cues, when used by a sample of subjects, generated more accurate insights of communicators' intended meaning and produced enhanced perceptions of listening ability than was the case for another sample of subjects who did not use nonverbal cues.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to assess the potential contributions of nonverbal communication (body language) to small business personnel, as a means of interpreting the thoughts, attitudes, and intended communications of other parties with whom the small business personnel interact in a person-to-person fashion. In other words, it explains the usages of body language, by these personnel, in "reading" other parties' messages in the course of interpersonal business relations. The paper reviews relevant literature on nonverbal communication. In addition it sets forth the results of a study into the effectiveness of this method in interpreting other parties.

Small business personnel, of course, engage in frequent communications with numerous other parties, in their day-to-day operations. These personnel have ongoing discussions with customers, suppliers, employees, financial institutions, government personnel, the media, and others. In these discussions, it is important to accurately determine the real meaning that the other parties are conveying. Of course, what these parties express verbally is of vital importance, if understanding is to take place. But what they communicate nonverbally is also of major significance.

Nonverbal communication has been defined simply as "silent messages" or "messages without words" (Manning & Reece, 1992). It includes behavior which utilizes movement of the hands and arms, facial expressions, handshakes, facial expressions, placement of the legs and feet, and posture. Reading body language tends to be more an art than a science, but this does not hinder its usefulness. Research has indicated that this is a form of listening that can be learned-it is not merely an unborn trait that only a few are fortunate enough to inherit from their parents' genes (Clark, 1999; Fulfer, 2001).

Those small business personnel who listen solely or mainly to the spoken words of others to understand what they are communicating may be neglecting a valuable tool. In this regard, those who learn how to interpret and evaluate body language correctly can often enrich their interpersonal effectiveness with others. Researchers in psychology, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, criminal justice, education, and other areas have studied this form of listening in depth and have provided numerous practical applications which can be brought into play in a variety of circumstances.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Managers of small businesses are quick to learn that success is often related to the effectiveness of communications. In turn, those who communicate best tend to be keenly sensitive to listening (Inman, 1978; Pearce, Johnson & Barker, 2003). They realize that communication is a two-way process that involves speaking and listening, as well as checking for understanding (Baldoni, 2004). A study of 280 university department head chairs indicated that listening was a vital topic in business communication courses (Wardrope, 2002). However, discerning the difference between what customers and other parties are able to say and what they want, and then acting on those unspoken desires demands that companies go well beyond listening to verbal communications (Leonard, 2002). Interpretation and observation of nonverbal communication is also needed.

Experience indicates that listening to both verbal and nonverbal cues is one of the more critical processes required for effective small business management (Lloyd & Wickens, 2000; Sadler-Smith, Hampson, Chaston & Badger, 2003). It is perhaps even more important, given the current emphasis upon delegating activities to teams, rather than individuals (Kipp, 1999; Perrella, 1999). Research indicates that an essential ingredient for success is the use of the human resource base which the firm commands (Lussier & Pfeifer, 2001). Skill in this field can lead to subordinates having various positive effects, such as feeling more respected, visible, and less anonymous, and included in teamwork (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). These attitudes are of paramount importance in attracting and retaining superior employees (Kickul, 2001).

Trustworthiness in management is an attribute which is sought by many subordinates and, in turn, listening is an important ingredient for trustworthiness (Bower, 1998). In turn, managers who desire to bring about changes in their organizations often discover that listening to the ideas of subordinates is an effective strategy in securing acceptance of the proposed changes (Crol, 2000). Listening can assist managers in achieving personal growth and, in turn, helping subordinates grow, in terms of building self confidence, competence, and the ability to confront difficult situations (Eales-White, 2003).

It is important that small business managers receive input on what their customers truly think and feel about their companies, personnel, products, and services. Whereas larger concerns often rely upon non-personal forms of receiving customer input-devices such as customer surveys and analyses of complaints, smaller companies often rely more on direct contact with individual customers-where body language cues can be detected. Listening to customers enables an organization to possess a clear, concise, and succinct conception of what customers expect (McAtarsney, 1999). This is particularly significant when handling customer complaints (Anonymous, 2002). Small business managers are well advised to determine the customer's knowledge and understanding of the company-its products, organization, and management, in order to build an image of legitimacy (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2003). Gathering information in this area is vital, especially when it comes to assessing overall customer satisfaction (Scott, 2001).

The business functions where nonverbal communication can be used by small business managers is extensive. This method of receiving input can be of value in selection decisions-determining whom to hire (Gurumurthy & Kleiner, 2002). Trainers sometimes employ the technique in evaluating the worth of their employee training programs (Rabey, 2001; Carrier, 1999). There are opportunities for its use in alternative dispute resolution-arbitration and mediation (Netzeley, 2001). Further there are applications in small business negotiations with suppliers and other firms with which strategic alliances are sought (BarNir & Smith, 2002; Beekman & Robinson, 2004). Experience indicates that sales representatives can benefit from this approach when they are making presentations (Bohn, 1999). Another application is in detecting evidences of theft and other crimes among customers and employees (Kuratko, Hornsby, Naffziger & Hodgetts, 2000).

Both the academic and the applied/practitioner literature have upheld the value of nonverbal communication as a means of discerning what others express. Studies have indicated that approximately 65% to 90% of the true meaning in every conversation is transmitted through this channel (Burgoon, Birk & Pfau, 1990; Warfield, 2001). This is understandable, as most persons are visually dominant and operate in a culture that is dominated by visual images and hence tend to rely on the evidence of the eyes more than that of the other senses (Drucker & Gumpert, 1991; Sampson, 1995). Research indicates that the ability to discern what a person is conveying nonverbally can be as significant as the dialogue that takes place between the two parties (Anderson, 2001; DePaulo, Blank, Swaim & Hairfield, 1992). However, many small business managers may be unskilled in this practice. Estimates are that only about four percent of the population understands how to employ it as a useful tool (Warfield, 2002). If small business managers seek enhancement of their ability to interpret meaning, they are in a position to benefit from this technique (Bone, 1998; Kendon, 1994). The nonverbal communication field has been the locus of a number of research efforts, some academic and some applied. Many reveal that a cluster or combination of body language behaviors is more likely to reveal meaning than a single behavior, such as avoiding eye contact or invading the personal space of another person (Molnar, 1997). However, one source indicates that individual body language actions do have unique meanings (Slattery, 2002).

It should be recognized that many nonverbal behaviors are culturally unique in meaning. They may convey a particular message or feeling in one culture and a different one in another culture. Snapping the fingers while whipping the hand out and down is done for emphasis in Brazil. However, in Thailand this is viewed as boisterous and overly aggressive behavior (Clayton, 2003). A large number of the observations set forth in this paper are applicable to norms in the United States and might not be relevant to other countries or even to some American subcultures.

THE STUDY

A research effort was undertaken to assess the potential effectiveness of nonverbal communication as a means of interpreting the meaning conveyed by others. Several scenarios utilizing members of one of the author's MBA marketing management classes were employed to this end. In the classes 30 students chosen at random were selected and assigned to an experimental group. In turn, the members of this group received three hours of verbal instruction in reading body language, conducted by the author. The instruction centered on the points set forth in Appendix C. In turn, a copy of this appendix was provided to each student for his or her review and study, as a supplement to the verbal instruction. A second group of 30 students was randomly selected and assigned to a control group. The members of this group did not receive body language training but were the recipients of three hours of training in effective techniques of listening to verbal messages. Two separate MBA classes were involved in the study. In each class, 15 students were selected for the experimental and 15 for the control group.

The members of both groups were informed that one of the course requirements was to undertake a role playing experiential exercise where they were to assume the role of a salesperson employed by a small business. Role playing scenarios of this nature, where students play roles have been widely employed in nonverbal communication studies (Babad, Avni-Babad & Rosenthal, 2003). In turn, the salesperson in the present study attempted to convince a manager/owner of a local restaurant to advertise in the university student newspaper. The group members were provided with a script, which they were instructed to memorize and to use in their presentations. A copy of the script appears in Appendix B. The sales presentation was to be made to an MBA student who was not currently enrolled in the MBA marketing management class and who had agreed to assume the role of the restaurant owner/manager. These "prospects" were given a script and told to study it carefully, so that they could realistically fit into the role. A copy of the script appears the Appendix.

All of the scripts employed in this study were pretested on a sample of MBA students who were not members of the class. The students were asked to evaluate the scripts for clarity, meaning, expression, and relevance. Based upon feedback from the students alterations in the original scripts were made.

Immediately after the presentations were made, each members of both groups were asked to reflect on their impressions on the presentation and to complete a questionnaire assessing what they believed the prospect was communicating to them. The prospects were also asked to fill out a similar questionnaire, which reflected their actual impressions. A Stapel Scale was employed in the questionnaire. It is widely used in marketing research for evaluating impressions such as those assessed in this study (Menezes & Elbert, 1979). All of the scales employed in the study have been validated in the original work by Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum (1957) and have been utilized by the author in previous studies of communication impressions. The questionnaire was pretested on a sample of MBA students who were not members of the class. Based upon feedback on the pretest, several minor adjustments in the wording were made.

The completed questionnaires were submitted to the instructor on the next class meeting-which fell on the following week. The students had been instructed to work independently and not to collaborate with other members of either group. Copies of the questionnaires which were furnished to the sales representatives and the prospects appear in Appendices D and E, respectively. The objective of the analysis was to compare the impressions of the sales representatives with those of the prospects. If nonverbal communication was a superior means of interpreting meaning, the impressions of the salespersons and prospects for the experimental group would more closely correspond than would be the case for the control group.

Table 1 sets forth the mean scale values for the experimental and the control group scenarios. For each scenario, the mean scale value for the sales representatives and the prospects is indicated. In turn, difference scores have been calculated by determining the difference between the sales representative and the prospect mean scale values for each item in the list.

The total of the difference scores for the experimental group (9) is substantially less than the total difference score for the control group (21). This signifies a closer correspondence between the impressions of the sales reps and the prospects for the experimental group. In the case of eleven of the scale impressions the difference score for the experimental group is significantly less than that of the control group, according to a Tukey k test at the .05 level. In only two cases is the difference score for the experimental group significantly larger than that of the control group.

The Tukey range is calculated as follows:

T range = T [square root of MSW] Formula (1)

where: MSW = mean square within groups

T = 1/[square root of n] q

q = value from the Studentized range table for the alpha level

n = common sample size

Thus: T = 1/[square root of 20] 3.51 = .78

And the T range is .78 [square root] 1.04 = .80

According to the Tukey test, any difference between means that exceeds this range is significant.

The Pearson coefficient of correlation (r) between sales representative and prospect impressions values is .51 for the experimental group and .18 for the control group, suggesting a closer relationship between the two variables for the experimental than for the control group. The correlation coefficient was calculated as:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] Formula (2)

Taken together, the statistical measures suggest that nonverbal communication was more effective in measuring impressions in this study.

A second test was performed. Here the members of the experimental and control groups evaluated their own listening skills on self reports. Each student was asked to indicate and to report in writing which of the following groups he or she most resembled in attempting to determine what the prospect was expressing: {The descriptions of the listening categories appeared in Pearce, Johnson & Barker (2003).} Active listeners give full attention to listening when others are talking and focus on what is being said. These listeners expend a lot of energy participating in the speaking-listening exchange, which is usually evidenced by an alert posture or stance and much direct eye contact.

Involved listeners give most of their attention to the speaker's words and intentions. They reflect on the message somewhat and participate in the speaking-listening exchange. They practice some direct eye contact and may have an alert posture or stance, but this alert stance may be intermittent.

Passive listeners receive information as though they are being talked to rather than as equal partners in the speaking-listening exchange. While assuming that the responsibility for the success of the communication is the speaker's, they are usually attentive, although attention may be faked at times. They seldom expend any noticeable energy in receiving and interpreting messages.

Detached listeners withdraw from the speaking-listening exchange and become the object of the speaker's message rather than the receiver. They are usually inattentive, disinterested, and may be restless, bored, or easily distracted. Their noticeable lack of enthusiasm may be marked by slumped or very relaxed posture and avoidance of direct eye contact.

The contents of the student reports were acquired and recorded. The results of the analysis of the data appear in Table 2. It is apparent that group One (nonverbal communication training) produced more self reported listeners in the higher order listening groups than did group Two (only verbal listening training). A Chi Square test indicates that the proportions differ significantly at the .05 level. The results provide evidence of the potential of nonverbal listening.

In this case, Chi Square was calculated as follows:

Chi Square = [(foij--feij).sup.2]/feij with (r-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom (Formula (3)

where:

i = 1 j = 1 r = 3 c = 3

Chi Square = 62 / 5 = 12.4, which is significant at the .05 level at 3 degrees of freedom

After the study was completed, the students who participated in the study were debriefed and the specific purpose of the study was explained. The students were informed as to the findings of the study. Classroom discussion relating to the implications of the study to small business managers followed.

DISCUSSION

This manuscript has assessed the potential contributions of nonverbal communication techniques as means of enhancing the ability to accurately discern the meaning conveyed by others, in a small business context. The literature contains considerable material which supports the employment of this method as a useful tool in correctly evaluating intended meaning. A study undertaken by the author, in conjunction with students enrolled in MBA marketing management classes, supplied some support for the proposition that body language training has a role in enhancing listening effectiveness.

It appears that body language techniques may present advantages which could be important to small business managers. They can employ these techniques directly, in their daily dealings with employees, customers, suppliers, governmental authorities, and other parties. Further, they can include this body of material in the training which they provide for their employees, in order to sharpen their abilities. Certain personnel, such as those who have selling duties, may be particularly suited for such training.

This study has considered the employment of body language as a means of interpreting the meaning of others. It is of equal importance to consider the use of this technique as a means of conveying ideas to others and convincing them of the worth of various ideas. Nonverbal methods can be very effective in improving one's ability to communicate with others (Lincoln, 2000; Mindell, 1996). Practices such as maintaining eye contact, using gestures, erect posture, and respecting the private space of listeners may enable small business personnel to enhance their communication skills (Grahe & Bernieri, 1999; Mongrain & Vettese, 2003; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).

This inquiry has limitations. The studies involved students enrolled in MBA marketing management classes in one university setting. Thus, the environment was somewhat removed from real world applications, and cannot be generalized to all industry situations. In addition, the dependent variables were somewhat subjective and cannot be interpreted as precise measures of effectiveness. Further, the sample size could be larger, in order to provide more statistical power or stability of results. Given the exploratory nature of the paper, however, it is believed that the results are sufficiently robust to justify the conclusions.

It is recommended that further studies be conducted in settings which more accurately portray realistic situations and which use dependent variables which are more likely to precisely assess effectiveness in interpreting the meaning of others.

APPENDIX A

Role Playing Scenario-Small Business Owner

You are the owner/manager of a small restaurant with 16 employees, located on a side street on the South side of campus. Last year your firm grossed $290,000 and earned a net profit before tax of $73,000. The cash flow of the firm is generally positive and monthly earnings are relatively stable, except that they tend to decline slightly during the summer, when fewer students are on campus. Most of the company debt is in short-term obligations.

The restaurant is located in a three year old modern building that is described by most restaurant patrons as "comfortable" and "has a relaxed atmosphere". The parking lot is ample and the building is surrounded by deciduous trees. The facility is located near a bookstore and an office-supply outlet. The firm holds a ten year renewable lease on the property.

The menu is of the "American style" variety, featuring main courses centering on steak, chicken, pork, fish, and salads. Prices for most items are in the mid-range (between fast food, on the one hand, and upscale restaurants, on the other). The outlet offers low calorie and low carbohydrate meals. A wide range of side dishes, dinner salads, and desserts are on the menu. Also available are coffee, tea, soft drinks, wine, and beer. The breakfast menu is also somewhat standard, emphasizing egg, bacon, and toast items, along with pancakes, waffles and cereals.

Approximately half of the clientele are college students. Of the remaining half, most are city residents and a smaller number are business travelers and tourists.

This restaurant does relatively little advertising. It is listed in the yellow pages and infrequently places small ads in the city newspaper. The theme of the advertisements is always "great food at reasonable prices".

The owner believes that this unit should be able to generate larger revenues and profits. However, he is uncertain as to the best ways to do this. Currently he is searching for useful steps which might allow him to fulfill this objective.

APPENDIX B

Role Playing Scenario-Sales Rep

Hello. My name is--and I am on the staff of the college newspaper and would like to take a few moments of your time to describe what we can do for you. In my opinion, we can open up some real opportunities for penetrating the university and city markets.

You have a nice operation here. It is inviting and the food is good. I like to come in with friends, especially for breakfast and dinner. You sure have a lot of potential.

Let me make a brief rundown of what we offer. Our newspaper has a good circulation-we average a readership of 15,000 during the school year and 6,000 during the summer months. We are read by students, professors, staff, townspeople, campus visitors, and others. And most of our readers go through the entire newspaper-rather than just one or a few sections. They have genuine interest in what we have to say. Here are some past editions. Notice that they include a variety of ads. Show several past copies of the newspaper.

For just $340 dollars a month you can run a weekly ad about the size and same format as this one-point to the ad for the sporting goods store. We can help you in working out what to say and how to word it, based on the knowledge of our advertising staff. The staff is experienced and has good academic background in how to prepare ads. They have done research and know what appeals to students, others on campus, and city residents. This expertise would be at your disposal.

Our ads reach more potential customers per dollar than does any other medium-radio, television, city newspaper, or other. Many readers give their copies to friends or relatives, after they have finished with the copies. This expands our reach even more.

Frankly, I think that you have an excellent restaurant. But it needs more exposure and publicity, so that it can keep up with the competition, which is getting tougher every day. We offer you an inexpensive way to do this, with little effort on your part. If you sign up today I can get you into the next edition, which will appear on the 21st of the month. Can I put you on the list of our advertisers? Thank the prospects for the time and effort.

APPENDIX C

Nonverbal Communication Instructions

Remember that you should look for clusters of behavior more than individual behaviors.

Overall:

Mirroring your body language may indicate liking and respect for you

Body Angle:

Leaning forward may indicate interest, leaning backward may indicate disinterest An upright posture may indicate interest A tight, closed body may suggest defensiveness Turning away from you may mean lack of interest or disagreement Turning a shoulder toward you may indicate boredom

Distance:

When people move away from you this may indicate distrust or disagreement

Face:

Eye contact may signal interest Yawning may suggest difficult situation, bored Head up may signify interest Head nodding may indicate agreement Several blinks in succession may imply shock Frowning may indicate disagreement or lack of understanding.

Arms:

Folded arms may indicate negative, defensive, or uncertain feelings The use of gestures may indicate interest Scratching the nose may indicate disbelief Hurried gestures may indicate lack of understanding of what you are saying.

Hands:

Touching you, as in long handshakes, may indicate liking and approval Hands in pockets may signal secretive or withdrawn Hand to ear and hand to face gestures may suggest that there is doubt about what you say Clenching the hands may indicate frustration or a negative reaction Rubbing the back of the neck may indicate negative feelings Slowly stroking he chin may suggest your ideas are carefully considered Resting the head on the thumb may suggest boredom Resting the hand on the cheek may indicate the presentation is being analyzed

Legs:

Crossed legs may indicate defensive or hostile Keeping the legs pointed toward you may indicate interest and agreement

The sources of the body language suggestions were derived from: Clayton, P. (2003). Body language at work. London: Barnes & Noble. Lill, D.J. (2002). Selling: The profession. Antioch, TN: D.M. Bass Publications, 92-96. Jones, E., C. Stevens & L. Chonko (2005). Selling ASAP. Mason, OH: Thomson-South Western, 249-252. Weitz, B.A., S.B. Castleberry & J.F. Tanner, Jr. (1998). Selling: Building relationships. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 137-148.

Cummings, R. (1987). Contemporary selling. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 154-165.

Manning, B. (2004). Nonverbal communication. Retrieved from http://lynn_meade.tripod.com/id56_m.htm

APPENDIX D

Sales Representative Questionnaire

The objective of this questionnaire is to measure what you think the
prospect was communicating to you during the sales presentation. Place
an X on the scale which indicates the degree to which you think the
prospect was thinking or feeling the impression mentioned in the scale.
Basically, you are measuring the feedback which you received from
the prospect.

Select a plus number for words that you think describe the prospect's
thinking or feeling accurately. The more accurately you think the word
describes the prospect, the larger the plus number you should choose.
Select a minus number for words you think do not describe the prospect
accurately. The less accurately you think the word describes the store,
the larger the minus number you should choose. If you choose a 0 as
the number, this signifies that you did not detect a positive or a
negative impression.

 -3 -2 -1 0

Liking you -- -- -- --
Respect for you -- -- -- --
Interest in you -- -- -- --
Defensiveness -- -- -- --
Disagreement with you -- -- -- --
Boredom -- -- -- --
Trust in you -- -- -- --
Agreement with you -- -- -- --
Shock -- -- -- --
Understanding you -- -- -- --
Negative feelings toward you -- -- -- --
Uncertainty -- -- -- --
Approval of you -- -- -- --
Secretiveness -- -- -- --
Withdrawal -- -- -- --
Doubt -- -- -- --
Frustration -- -- -- --
Careful consideration -- -- -- --
Presentation was analyzed -- -- -- --
Hostile to you -- -- -- --

 1 2 3

Liking you -- -- --
Respect for you -- -- --
Interest in you -- -- --
Defensiveness -- -- --
Disagreement with you -- -- --
Boredom -- -- --
Trust in you -- -- --
Agreement with you -- -- --
Shock -- -- --
Understanding you -- -- --
Negative feelings toward you -- -- --
Uncertainty -- -- --
Approval of you -- -- --
Secretiveness -- -- --
Withdrawal -- -- --
Doubt -- -- --
Frustration -- -- --
Careful consideration -- -- --
Presentation was analyzed -- -- --
Hostile to you -- -- --

APPENDIX E

Prospect Questionnaire

The objective of this questionnaire is to measure your thinking and
feeling about the sales representative during the sales presentation.
Place an X on the scale which indicates the degree to which you were
thinking or feeling the impression mentioned in the scale. Basically,
you are measuring your evaluation of the prospect.

Select a plus number for words that you think describe your thinking
or feeling accurately. The more accurately you think the word describes
you during the presentation, the larger the plus number you should
choose. Select a minus number for words you think do not accurately
describe you during the presentation. The less accurately you think the
word describes you, the larger the minus number you should choose. If
you choose a 0 as the number, this signifies that you did not detect a
positive or a negative impression.

 -3 -2 -1 0

Liking the rep -- -- -- --
Respect for the rep -- -- -- --
Interest in the rep -- -- -- --
Defensiveness -- -- -- --
Disagreement with the rep -- -- -- --
Boredom -- -- -- --
Trust in the rep -- -- -- --
Agreement with the rep -- -- -- --
Shock -- -- -- --
Understanding the rep -- -- -- --
Negative feelings toward the rep -- -- -- --
Uncertainty -- -- -- --
Approval of the rep -- -- -- --
Secretiveness -- -- -- --
Withdrawal -- -- -- --
Doubt -- -- -- --
Frustration -- -- -- --
Careful consideration -- -- -- --
Presentation was analyzed -- -- -- --
Hostile to the rep -- -- -- --

 1 2 3

Liking the rep -- -- --
Respect for the rep -- -- --
Interest in the rep -- -- --
Defensiveness -- -- --
Disagreement with the rep -- -- --
Boredom -- -- --
Trust in the rep -- -- --
Agreement with the rep -- -- --
Shock -- -- --
Understanding the rep -- -- --
Negative feelings toward the rep -- -- --
Uncertainty -- -- --
Approval of the rep -- -- --
Secretiveness -- -- --
Withdrawal -- -- --
Doubt -- -- --
Frustration -- -- --
Careful consideration -- -- --
Presentation was analyzed -- -- --
Hostile to the rep -- -- --

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M. & S. Sveningsson (2003). Managers doing leadership: The extra-ordinarization of the mundane. Human Relations, 56(12), 1435-1451.

Anderson, K. (2001). What you can say without speaking. Journal of Property Management, 66(5), 12-17.

Anonymous (2002). Complaining can be good for your customers-and good for you. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 61-63.

Babad, E., D. Avni-Babad & R. Rosenthal (2003). Teachers' brief nonverbal behaviors in defined instructional situations can predict students' evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 553-563.

Baldoni, J. (2004). Powerful leadership communication. Leader to Leader, 32(20), 20-25.

BarNir, A. & K.A. Smith (2002). Interfirm alliances in the small business: The role of social networks. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(3), 219-233.

Beekman, A. & R.B. Robinson (2004). Supplier partnerships and the small, high-growth firm: Selecting for success. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1), 59-69.

Bohn, R. (1999). Listening in professional services sales. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(2), 129-141.

Bone, D. (1998). Communication of back to genesis and the house of babel! Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(7), 236-247.

Bower, M. (1998). Management styles for a changing environment. Human Resource Management International Digest, 6(6), 33-36.

Burgeon, J.K., T. Birk & M. Pfau (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communications Research, 17(1), 140-169.

Carrier, C. (1999). The training and development needs of owner-managers of small business with export potential. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(4), 30-42.

Clark, T. (1999). Sharing the importance of attentive listening skills. Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 216-224.

Clayton, P. (2003). Body language at work. New York: Barnes & Noble, 138-144.

Crol, J.B. (2000). Creating support for a change in strategy. International Journal of Technology Management, 19(6), 586-602.

DePaulo, B.M., A.L. Blank, G.W. Swaim & J.G. Hairfield (1992). Expressiveness and expressive control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 276-285.

Drucker, S.J. & G. Gumpert (1991). Public space and communication: The zoning of public interaction. Communication Theory, 1(4), 294-310.

Eales-White, R. (2003). Creating growth for yourself as a leader. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(7), 247-257.

Fulfer, M. (2001). Nonverbal communication: How to read what's plain as the nose-or eyelid-or chin-on their faces. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 20(2), 19-27.

Grahe, F. & J. Bernieri (1999). The importance of nonverbal cues in judging rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(4), 253-270.

Guramurthy, R. & B.H. Kleiner (2002). Effective hiring. Management Research News, 25(6), 60-69.

Inman, T.H. (1978). Communications and the small business manager. Journal of Small Business Management, 16(3), 5-61.

Kendon, A. (1994). Do gestures communicate?: A review. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(3), 175-200.

Kickul, J. (2001). Promises made, promises broken: An exploration of employee attraction and retention practices in small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(4), 320-336.

Kipp, M.F. (1999). Finding the key dimensions of leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27(4), 49-53.

Kuratko, D.F., J.S. Hornsby, D.W. Naffziger & R.M. Hodgetts (2000). Crime and small business: An exploratory study of cost and prevention issues in U.S. firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 1-14.

Leanard, D. (2002). The limitations of listening. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 93-97.

Lincoln, M.G. (2000). Negotiation: The opposing sides of verbal and nonverbal communication. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 29(4), 297-306.

Lloyd, B. & P. Wickens (2000). Energizing your enterprise: The key challenge for leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(2), 120-127.

Lussier, R.N. & S. Pfeifer (2001). A crossnational prediction model for business success. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(3), 228-240.

Manning, G.L. & B.L. Reece (1992). Selling today: An extension of the marketing concept. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 76.

McAtarsney, D. (1999). Review, critique, and assessment of customer care. Total Quality Management, 10(2), 636-647.

Menezes, D. & N.F. Elbert (1979). Alternate semantic scaling formats for measuring store image: An evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 80-87.

Mindell, P. (1996). The body language of power. Executive Female, 19(3), 48-52.

Molnar, P. (1997). Nonverbal communication: Where nature meets culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mongrain, M. & L.C. Vettese (2003). Conflict over emotional expression: Implications for interpersonal communication. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 545-556.

Netzley, M. (2001). Alternative dispute resolution: A business (and) communication strategy. Business Communications Quarterly, 64(4), 83-90.

Osgood, C.E., G. Suci & P.H. Tannenbaum (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Pearce, C.G., I.W. Johnson & R.T. Barker (2003). Assessment of the listening styles inventory. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(1), 84-104.

Perrella, J.E. (1999). The importance of working together: Individuals add; team players multiply. Vital Speeches of the Day, 65(14), 437-440.

Rabey, G. (2001). The five steps to accomplishment. Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(7), 198-204.

Sadler-Smith, E., Y. Hampson, I. Chaston & B. Badger (2003). Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style, and small business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 47-67.

Sampson, E. (1995). First impressions: The power of personal style. Library Management, 16(4), 25-29.

Scott, G. (2001). The voice of the customer: Is anyone listening? Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(4), 221-224.

Shepherd, D.A. & A. Zacharakis (2003). A new venture's cognitive legitimacy: An assessment by customers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(2), 148-168.

Slattery, L. (2002). What does that smile mean? The meaning of nonverbal behaviors in social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), 92-103.

Tiedens, L.Z. & A.R. Fragale (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558-569.

Wardrope, W.J. (2002). Department chairs' perceptions of the importance of business communications skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), 60-73.

Warfield, A. (2001). Your body speaks volumes, but do you know what it is saying? Business Credit, 104(2), 20-21.

Robin T. Peterson, New Mexico State University

Andreas W. Stratemeyer, The University of Texas at El Paso

Table 1: Analysis of Impressions of Sales Reps and Prospects
(Mean Scale Values)

 Experimental Group

Scale Impression Reps Prospects Difference

Liking 2 2 0
Respect 2 2 0
Interest 1 1 0
Defensiveness 1 -1 2
Disagreement -1 -1 0
Boredom -2 -2 0
Trust 3 2 1
Agreement 1 1 0
Shock 0 0 0
Understanding 3 2 1
Negative feelings -2 -2 0
Uncertainty -2 -2 0
Approval 2 1 1
Secretiveness -2 -3 1
Withdrawal -2 -3 1
Doubt -1 -1 0
Frustration 0 0 0
Careful consideration 3 2 1
Presentation analyzed 2 1 1
Hostile -3 -3 0
Totals 5 -4 9

 Control Group

Scale Impression Reps Prospects Difference Con-
 trasts

Liking 2 2 0 0
Respect 2 2 0 0
Interest 1 1 0 0
Defensiveness 0 -3 3 * 1
Disagreement -1 2 3 * 3
Boredom -2 -1 1 * 1
Trust 2 2 0 * 1
Agreement 1 1 0 0
Shock 0 0 0 0
Understanding 3 1 2 * 1
Negative feelings -2 -2 0 0
Uncertainty -1 -2 1 * 1
Approval 3 1 2 * 1
Secretiveness -2 -2 0 * 1
Withdrawal -1 -3 2 * 1
Doubt -2 0 2 * 2
Frustration -1 0 1 * 1
Careful consideration 2 3 1 0
Presentation analyzed 2 0 2 * 1
Hostile -2 -3 1 * 1
Totals 4 -1 21 16

* Indicates a significant difference between the experimental and
control group difference scores, according to a Tukey k test at the
.05 level.

Table 2
Self Reports of Listening Categories

Listening Category Group One Group Two

Active 7 4
Involved 9 7
Passive 11 15
Detached 3 4
Total 30 30