An interview with a consummate word meister - Communication Development Pres. Charles Cleveland - Interview

Charles Cleveland, Ph.D., president of Communication Development Company (CDC), Des Moines, Iowa, which specializes in analysis of everyday language to help clients develop communication behaviors that are comfortable to their employees or result in increased customer satisfaction. CDC works in 19 languages worldwide and uses the study of signs and symbols and nonverbal communication in situations that satisfy - and situations that don't satisfy - a constituency.

GG: Please explain what your company does - and the process you have developed for measuring language patterns to determine their effect on the communication process.

CLEVELAND: Overall, this company does three things. It determines what is meaningful to people, what is motivating, and how people think things through to make a decision to engage in one behavior versus another. To determine what is meaningful, we have developed a set of processes and developed knowledge in a field called semiotics, the study of how people use language.

Semiotics is different from linguistics in that linguistics is primarily the study of how language is properly formed, how you properly form a sentence.

When you study how people talk, as opposed even to how they write, you begin to realize that language is not quite according to the book.

GG: Could you give an example of how you analyze language?

CLEVELAND: Take a lawyer standing in front of a jury who says, "I represent the XYZ Corporation and we began marketing that product to the public in 1964." Now he might be pretty sure what he meant to communicate, but just to make sure, let's say he looked every one of those words up in an English dictionary that says a corporation is a legal entity having a set of goals and purpose and a group of people to move it toward its goals and purpose.

Given that definition, I would argue that he used the word "corporation" just the way he should have. However, the question is: What counts? What he thought he said? What the dictionary said he said? What a jury took him to mean?

I think we would all agree that what the jury takes as the meaning is the meaning that counts.

When we looked at the word "corporation," the word the lawyer had used, in this context, we found that a corporation was perceived as a large, unfeeling, cold, inhuman, uncaring entity.

And we found that the perception of the word "marketing," was "to position or to manipulate."

So in essence, what the jury heard was, "I represent a large, unfeeling, cold, inhuman, uncaring entity that began manipulating the public in 1964."

GG: Now that we understand that words affect perception, how can one use language to actually affect a desired response, or even behavior - the way a person thinks?

CLEVELAND: The first thing we wanted to do was deal with meaning - because an audience will be receiving meaning.

When a person talks, he or she indicates certain subjects, verbs and direct objects. By analyzing these, you can actually measure the level of motivation.

Third, we can look at the decision-making process. If I say to you, "If it rains, I'll take an umbrella," I have told you what my decision-making criteria or decision-making processes are.

And, in fact, one of the key words is the word "if." If I do computer retrieval of text, and I go after all the "ifs," I can begin to see how a person makes a decision, and I can get at the decision-making processes.

We have a series of computer tools that we use to organize what people talk about; we can then determine the meaning, the motivation and the way in which those people make decisions.

Now, let's go to a work-place example that involves downsizing and layoffs and delivering the bad news.

For instance, you have just been given the assignment to tell some 250 people that their next of kin was on TWA Flight 800 - not exactly an enjoyable task. So how do you do it? For the most part, it is possible to deliver news in a manner that listeners accept you as a human being who gave them support and in such a way that didn't cause them to hate or mistrust you.

The same thing is true when you communicate layoffs. How do you lay somebody off and still make them feel like a whole person?

If I say to you, "We don't need you any more," you're not going to have a very good feeling.

But if I say to you, "You are a very talented person and you need to realize your talents. The problem is I don't have the money to pay for those talents, and so for me to keep you here, I would not be paying you the kind of money that you deserve, and you really need to go look elsewhere because you deserve that kind of reimbursement for the talents you have, and this is not going to be a place that is going to give you that kind of reimbursement...."

One of those statements cuts you down and makes you less than whole, and one of those statements builds you up. In most downsizings, when people cut other people out, to make themselves feel good, they tend to decrease the value of the other person.

When we have done these types of interviews - especially involving violence in the work place - the question is - how do you let somebody go and not make them angry at you?

The answer is, you don't debilitate them as human beings. You reinforce their value as human beings and you emphasize that the place where they are right now is not a place they want to be.

Especially with downsizing - you literally are laying off people who are very talented, and if they can grasp the perception to go forward, they'll do a lot better and you'll have less grief, because you made them feel like whole people.

GG: How did you create your message to affect the behavior - obviously you're giving them positive feelings - were you building up their egos to a certain extent?

CLEVELAND: Well, you can say "building up an ego," but I feel this definition makes it sound cheap. We have found that the organization's typical reaction is to have the people they're retaining totally separated from the people who are leaving.

GG: Can you do that?

CLEVELAND: You don't want to. You want to involve the people who are staying in helping the people who are leaving. The minute you do that, they feel better about themselves and they feel better about the company.

GG: What kind of coaching, or training, can be provided for this?

CLEVELAND: The coaching comes from analyzing the language of the people who tell you they had a good experience with the person who was letting them go.

You need to avoid the statistically unique vocabulary to the negative and find the statistically significant language to the positive. From this, we create a set of computer programs that literally counts the words in each of those files and does a statistical comparison to see what the unique vocabulary is.

First I get a computer file of separation discussions that went extremely well the person walked out with his or her head held high (group 1). Then I take a series of discussions where the person walked out with head held low, with seething anger (group 3). Then ! have a series of discussions that are in the middle saying "I don't feel too good but I don't feel too bad" (group 2). When I compare the language of the good versus the neutral versus the bad separation discussions, I will find that there are certain words and ideas used, and I can discover the words and ideas that did not occur in the other groups.

From that analysis, we come up with a set of criteria and a set of directions that we can use to train the facilitators in the use of that language, by not only being able to tell them what language works and how it was used, but also what language doesn't work and what to avoid. We train them literally in how to use that language.

GG: How long a process is this?

CLEVELAND: It takes about four weeks. And then probably a week, to a week and a half, of training the trainers on how to really use that language.

GG: How can this apply, for instance, to an association or perhaps an educational institution that wants to increase membership and perception of values?

CLEVELAND: Let's take the association, that's a little easier. Academia operates on a totally different set of dimensions.

Let's look at an association in terms of what it is, what it does for its members and what its members can do because of the association. Those are three criteria that define perceptions of reality. The first we call "features," the second we call "benefits," and the third we call "end-end benefits."

The features are what the association "is," the benefits are what the association "does for me," and the end-end benefits are "what I can do because of the association" that is positive, that furthers my career. If we go in and look at what the features are, I can ask somebody, "On a scale of one to 10, where one means 'I don't have any solid perception of what the features are of this association,' to a 10, which means 'I have very solid perceptions of what the association is,' "I can differentiate my respondents by finding their solid perceptions of features, then I can find out what those features are.

Second, we know that when somebody makes a decision to belong to an association, or be involved in an association, they have to see benefits, and they have to see end-end benefits.

Let me take it one more step. Let's go to what we call a value/cost ratio. We noticed several years ago that when people say something has a high value, they can articulate a whole set of benefits and end-end benefits - and when they say it has a low value, they can't articulate the benefits and end-end benefits.

We also know that when they talk about cost, a distinct difference is defined between cost and price. Price is what I pay for it and cost is price plus inconvenience.

So when I belong to an association, I not only consider the price I have to pay to belong, but also the time I have to spend to get anything out of it. That's the inconvenience. If we take price plus inconvenience and divide that into benefit plus end-end benefit, we have a value/cost equation.

I take an association and say, "How do I increase the perceived benefit - that is, what it's going to do for me? How do I increase the perceived end-end benefit? How do I decrease the inconvenience?" By focusing on that kind of equation, you increase the perceived benefit and you then dramatically increase the perceived end-end benefit, and decrease the inconvenience, you increase the overall value/cost relationship. Then you can increase the price you charge people.

What you do next is find people who are receiving a lot of benefits or a lot of end-end benefits. Then you start working through, and analyzing, those issues, and from this process, you create a message so that others will perceive the benefits, perceive the end-end benefits, perceive the reduction in inconvenience and hassle. They perceive that the organization has a lot more value than they thought. And the cost didn't go up, the cost actually went down.

GG: How would an organization, or consultant, learn about this process for their own use?

CLEVELAND: What we call our "Genesis Institute" offers a course where we say to a new, starting business: "Okay, there are basically six things you need to communicate to the public for them to understand what you are, what you do and what you mean to them, and how you're going to be significant in their lives so they want to do business with you."

The same thing applies when you develop a new product.

GG: And what are these six things?

CLEVELAND: I've actually given you a couple of them already.

The first one is what we call the "problem/need."

What has to happen is that a person must perceive he or she has a problem, and is in search of a solution. Therefore, they perceive they have a need and then, and only then, can you sell them on the basis of the need.

The second is what the product "is," its features and functions. You'd be amazed at how many companies never tell you what the feature or functions are of the product they're selling. So you have no idea what it is.

Third, what kind of "promise" am I going to make the public, what I'm going to do for them. That's the benefit.

My process will help you make sure that your message is meaningful, help you make sure it's motivating, and help you make sure that when a person thinks through a decision, that person is going to think of you.

Now I've done something for you, right? I've told you what I'm going to do for you. That's clear enough language.

The fourth is what we call the personal advantage, or the end-end benefit - what you will be able to do because of the product or service you just got. What advantage are you going to have if you buy my product or get my service? The focus on the benefit, or service, is what the product does for you. With the end-end benefit, the focus is shifted from the product to the individual that is the purchaser of the product. What are they going to be able to do better?

Next is the positioning. What is the situation in which you would want to buy the product, you would need to buy the product? How do I connect the product to your life? What you want to do is connect yourself to the situation at hand, and if you do, and people think of you first, then you've done a good job of positioning.

The value/cost, which we've just gone into before - that's the sixth point.

Any company that articulates those six points about their product or service will be clear and have a high likelihood of response.

GG: What is the expense involved in doing a program such as this?

CLEVELAND: The technique for developing that kind of analysis normally runs about U.S. $30,000 for us to develop a concept.

GG: Do you conduct these on site, or at your company location?

CLEVELAND: We do a lot here, but we also, if we have a large enough group, do it in the field.

GG: Do you continue working with people during the analysis - or is it self-contained and self-perpetuating?

CLEVELAND: Well, for us it depends on the client. Some clients want to have their hands on all the way through, in which case we work with them very closely. Others say, "Go away, bring us the results."

Our preference is that clients work with us, because they will get a much more in-depth understanding, and they'll have much better knowledge of the reality of their consumer.

GG: What do you think the areas are that are most affected by language analysis?

CLEVELAND: Well, the most effective communication is in areas where people are aware of what they're doing. If you're making a decision between one medication and another, as a medical doctor, there's a concrete decision and high level of awareness. If, on the other hand, you are making a decision to use your credit card, because people deny they use credit cards as much as they do, there's a low level of awareness and, therefore, it's much more difficult to measure.

GG: I have your listing of the 50 words that you say account for 40 percent of usage; can you explain why certain words affect negative or positive reaction?

CLEVELAND: One thing I would emphasize is that anybody who's a professional communicator should pay attention to the little words in life, because they tell you more than the big words in life.

The 50 words of English that account for 40 percent of the usage are the little words of life.

I can find that out if I look at the word "the" and the word "a" - what do you "the" and what do you "a"? If I say "a boat" and "the car," what am I telling you?

GG: You're telling me the car is more meaningful?

CLEVELAND: I'm being more specific to "car" than I am to "boat." So it turns out if you keep track of your "a's" and your "the's," that's a pretty important thing to do.

By the way, the 50 most frequently used words are normally called, in almost any language analysis, "N" words or "non words." We would suggest here that they're the big words. They may be small in number of characters, but they're big in terms of their impact. And it's not that you want to pay attention to those words, but you want to pay attention to what occurs with those words - the pronouns.

Pronouns will tell you what the distance is between yourself and somebody else.

If I talk about "I" and "you," I'm talking about a perfectly proper but close business relationship. If I talk about "we," I have just become intimate.

Now, if you talk about "they" - "they" is the enemy and they can be shot on sight. So if you talk about your members or you talk about your customer as a "they," you've just told them they can be shot on sight, they're the enemy.

GG: Or "those people"?

CLEVELAND: "Those people," yes. Not our people, but those people - "those" are the outsiders. "I" and "you," we're the insiders. But "those" - "them" - "that" -

I guess the major thing I'd like to cover is that language is data. We tend to treat data - or language - as qualitative. In other words, somebody who is a communicator and deals with language usage actually has data - the language itself becomes the metric, the way of measuring.

So if you have somebody working in a company and you say, "What is the culture of this company?" the language to a large extent is the culture, at least it directly reflects the culture.

There is something called "relative frequency" - that means if you take all of the words that could be or have been used in a company, and you take the word that occurs most often in that company and you take the word that occurs least often in that company, then you have another metric called relative frequency.

Now let's say that we take a new term or a term that didn't occur very often, but all of a sudden we move it way, way up the list of relative frequency. What we have just done is change the culture or the reality of that company, because how often a word occurs in a given time frame defines the corporation's reality. In most realities in American English speech usage, the word "the" occurs most often. In British English usage the word "it" occurs most often. Medical doctors in the United States, however, tend to use the word "I" most often.

Reality for any individual or organization is defined by relative frequency. Any time you move a word up, you also move another word down. I see communicators as being people who have the ability to measure the relative frequency, and if you can measure it, you can manage it. And if you can manage it, you can control it, and if you can re-measure it, you can give direction to change it. I perceive with the computer-text processing tools available to professional communication specialists, this specialization can be a major force for executive management to change the organization and its culture.

Out of 600,000 words in the English language, 50 words account for
40 percent of usage. Below are the 50 most frequently used words out
of a 1,014,232-word sample.

the                               69971
of                                36411
and                               28852
to                                26149
a                                 23237
in                                21341
that                              10595
is                                10099
was                                9816
he                                 9543
for                                9489
it                                 8756
with                               7289
as                                 7250
his                                6997
on                                 6742
be                                 6377
at                                 5378
by                                 5305
I                                  5173
this                               5146
had                                5133
not                                4609
are                                4393
but                                4381
from                               4369
or                                 4207
have                               3941
an                                 3747
they                               3618
which                              3562
one                                3292
you                                3286
were                               3284
her                                3037
all                                3001
she                                2859
there                              2724
would                              2714
their                              2670
we                                 2653
him                                2619
been                               2472
has                                2439
when                               2331
who                                2252
will                               2244
more                               2216
no                                 2201
if                                 2219

COPYRIGHT 1997 International Association of Business Communicators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group