The Magical Power of Language

Recently I listened to Stephen Fry on Radio 4 talking about the link between language and magic. Performing magic is an ancient tradition, but little did I know that much of its power comes from language. From my knowledge of psychology, and my experiences at home and in the workplace, I recognise the innate power language has to control us, but I don’t often think about how or why, nor do I think I consciously use it to influence others; unconsciously may be another matter. 

So what happened? 

Image source

During the session, with Derren Brown and Stephen Fry, Derren persuaded Stephen to push his hand hard into the desk in front of him, using only language to do so. The language caused Stephen to be unable to lift his hand until Derren released him from his spell - so to speak. In less than 10 seconds of talking, Derren had full control of Stephen Fry's hand. Derren was performing the hypnosis from an office in Manchester while Stephen Fry was in the studio in London; it was only the language Derren used that caused Stephen to experience the effect. 

I have seen Derren work before, but the shock of someone as public as Stephen be so clearly distressed by his experience brought the power of language home to me.  

Hypnosis cannot be used without consent

What was interesting, was the language used was not allowed to be fully broadcast on the radio. It surprised me to learn that there is an act of Parliament that prevents hypnosis being used on the general public without their consent. This clearly suggests that our Parliamentary figures also understand the power language can have to manipulate. 

Image source

Derren then talked about the effects hypnosis can have on those with serious illness. When visiting a hypnotist or a supposed 'healer,' people with arthritis, for example, who haven't been able to move their legs for years, are suddenly able to walk again. He explained that this was due to the adrenalin rush given to them through listening to the 'healer' use specific language. The sufferer believes they are suddenly cured. Sadly, it is likely, as Derren Brown said, they will go home and suffer immense pain again once their adrenalin has worn off. These events are quite frightening, but it doesn't dispute the power of language to control the body at that point in time. 

The power of  daily language

I realise we are not all magicians, but we all use language on a daily basis; it is how we communicate. So can we have the same level of influence over our friends, family, and colleagues if we wish? 

We already know that people learn in different ways, different forms of language are used to connect to people, including: speaking - where tone of voice becomes important -  reading, interacting on-line, meeting face-to-face - where body language comes into play. Each of these shows us that people respond to various forms of language mediums, and that language can have the power to manipulate those around us. 

The power of tone of voice and body language are huge. Studies have shown that 90% of our engagement in what we hear comes from the tone of voice and body language of the presenter. Just as I learnt in the radio show, even if the words being used are complete nonsense, they can still serve to 'hypnotise us'. Magicians and often dictators or cult leaders, use a whole array of language that people don't understand; it is the tone used that draws people in. 

Can stress make us blind?

Image source

Recently I heard about the effect stress can have on the eyesight, where extreme stress can cause eyesight to seriously deteriorate. This again shows the power of our surroundings and language to effect the body and mind. This may explain why talking therapies are so popular and successful, but could also show how much more they could offer with further research. For example, is the tone of voice of the therapist considered in therapy sessions? I don't believe it is. We are certainly aware of things like NLP, hypnosis and magic to influence the mind, but unfortunately, our understanding of the power of the mind and body to interact is still very much in its infancy. 

Is language really so powerful?

Being the psychologist that I am, and fearing the thought that we can be controlled as humans, I would never want language to be used to control, but to influence, it can be very powerful. 

All of this has made me wonder about the power our language could be having in the workplace. Thousands of conversations take place every day, over many different mediums, but do we understand the effect they are having on productivity, efficiency, workplace culture and the mental and physical health of our people? 

What's next?

Right now, I believe we only need to be more conscious of the language we use and be mindful of the effects we have on those around us. Being more aware of our surroundings can serve to create happier and healthier workplaces. 

As a final thought, I will leave you with one of the most famous and controversial experiments in psychology the Milgram experiment, which shows the power of a role and language to change the way we act...

It's certainly food for thought. 

Is Microsoft Acting in Haste?

First it was investment banks, now our IT giants are at it. The latest news has featured yet another organisation is drastically cutting staff to improve efficiency; this time it’s Microsoft, one of the leading providers of IT solutions across the globe.

Founded in 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Microsoft has grown to over 130,000 employees over the last 40 years, but has recently made the decision that it’s time to trim down its mountain of staff to improve productivity.

Image Source

18,000 employees are set to lose their jobs by the end of 2014; this amounts to almost 14% of Microsoft’s combined workforce. Part of the reason for the mass cut, is the acquisition of Nokia in 2013, which added about 25,000 employees to the already monster sized company. 12,500 of the people cuts are expected to come from the Nokia arm of the business, and are due to a perceived repetition in job skills. At first glance, this might make sense, but could these people actually be beneficial to the business?

Is there another way?

Microsoft clearly hasn’t stopped growing; the acquisition of Nokia tells us that, so could they be using some of these people to support that future growth?

An article published today from Fondation EurActiv PoliTech, an organisation that “aids the communication and dissemination of factual information from civil society, to promote debates for the creation of a European democracy for the common good,” suggests "Digital skills are needed to support the transition towards new services, like cloud and data, as well as the transition towards a more resource and energy efficient economy,” but also states “workers should be supported so they could retrain.” Is Microsoft being blind to the potential goldmine of talent and insight it has at its fingertips, by making people redundant instead of retraining?

Do organisations need to consider about the bigger picture?

It can be tempting to make rash decisions when money is at stake, but by thinking about their broader purpose, Microsoft could use much of the talent, and learned business knowledge, that they have in-house, to retrain their people and continue to grow their business. Often, top layer management makes the cost cutting decisions without consulting those on the ‘shop floor,’ so to speak. If Microsoft spent some time learning about the real value these individuals offer, and where their skills might be redeployed or topped up in line with the broader purpose of the business, they may save themselves mass redundancy costs (one report suggested this to be $44,000 per person), and recruitment costs in the future.

So what’s the answer?

I heard a fantastic phrase fairly recently, and I believe it embodies how organisations should think when making decisions about their business:

Children don’t play ‘Follow the Strategy; they play ‘Follow the Leader.’

Image source

Unfortunately, the majority of people don’t follow the strategy that says, ‘efficiency will increase if we get rid of people’; they follow the leader who says ‘our people are easily dispensable.’ The result? Remaining employees with the ethos ‘you don’t care about us so why should we care about you.’

By making rash decisions to cut costs, the longer-term financial and motivational impacts on the business could be major. So let me ask you, is this the right decision?