Comments

  1. says

    Hi Nick,

    This is an excellent inforgraphic. I do have one comment though: it’s a bit long. Usually people like infograhics because they can read the whole thing in a couple of minutes, and benefit from an abundance of information. It takes a good 5 minutes to read yours.

    Quick thing: I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia as a reference. It is now mostly edited by kids and spammers, and the information there is mostly unreliable.

    • Nick MorganNick Morgan says

      Thanks, PM, for your comment. I was an expert advisor on the project, so ultimately I didn’t have control over the length, and I certainly wouldn’t use Wikipedia as a reference. But both points are well taken.

  2. says

    This is great with one exception. The 55% body language, 38% tone, 7% words statistics I believe comes from an old study that is really misleading when it comes to teaching people how to communicate effectively. The original experiment wasn’t a true communication situation, but a research experiment involving the repetition of single words or phrases.
    The fact is that effective communication is achieved when there is congruence between what a person is saying and how they are saying it. If body language and tone are terrific, but the words do not ring true or are irrelevant, then listeners may love you personally, but will not buy from you. Conversely, if your content is terrific, but your body language and tone are low energy, monotone, etc,. listeners will be bored and likely not buy either. The truth is it is easier to have good delivery when your content is on track. A good presenter needs both content and delivery. Please, let’s lose that 55, 38, 7 research. It makes students of presentation think more about their hands and stance that it does about their content and gives presentation training a bad rap.

    • Nick MorganNick Morgan says

      Thanks, Ann, for your comment. You’re absolutely right. I didn’t have editorial control over that part of the graphic. And I’ve argued and posted many times about the inaccurate application of the Mehrabian study you refer to. I was sorry to see it slipped in there, even vaguely worded as it was.

  3. says

    Hi Nick,
    Fun and interesting! Thank you for posting, I’m curious how/why you used Gengo – would love to know more. (I went to their site but a quick review provided no useful info for my brain.) Also, should we stop using Mehrabian? It’s what – 4 or 5 decades old – and was unique to certain F2F conversations. Your thoughts about its validity today would be great!
    Thanks so much.
    Sue

    • Nick MorganNick Morgan says

      Hi, Sue –

      I worked with Gengo because they came to me — I think they wanted to do a little public service marketing, and I thought the end product would be helpful, so it was a good fit. And yes, Mehrabian’s one little study gets endlessly misquoted and misunderstood — but it’s still debated because it gets at an important truth: when your content and body language are in conflict, people always believe the body language. The details of how they decode that body language are less important (to most people) than the essential insight that your body language is how you embody your true attitudes, feelings, and intents.

  4. Maxine Ketcham says

    Great info graphic!! I lead many remote meetings where body language can not be a part. Any suggestions for a successful on-line meetings?

  5. Keri P. says

    This is a great infographic! thanks for creating it. I have an important meeting today and this is just the boost I need to keep my body language in check. How about an infographic on the 5 story lines of a speech?

    • Nick MorganNick Morgan says

      Thanks, Keri –this was fun to do, but took months! Not sure I would live through the process again on stories!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 3 = six

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>