These markers send a clear message to the audience: the speaker lacks confidence and authority.
Lacking confidence is a bad thing, right?
If we break down how Don Lane pitched his idea, we can see two markers of powerless speech:
a disclaimer and a tag question. His disclaimer was “I know this is against the rules, but,” and his tag
question was “What do you think?” Fragale shows that when people have to work closely together,
such as in teams and service relationships, powerless speech is actually more influential than
powerful speech.
To illustrate one of her studies, imagine that your plane has just crash-landed in the desert. You’re
with your coworker, Jamie. You have to prioritize twelve items, including a flashlight and a map, in
order of importance for survival. You share your rankings with Jamie, who disagrees. You’re not a
fan of the flashlight. But Jamie thinks it’s critical, and decides to deliver a forceful message:
The flashlight needs to be rated higher. It is the only reliable night signaling
device; also, the reflector and lens could be used to start a fire, which is another
way to signal for help. Put it higher.Jamie sounds like a taker—and probably is, since takers are inclined to give orders like this. Are
you willing to listen to Jamie?
If you’re like most people, the answer is no. You’re supposed to be collaborating, and you don’t
want to be told what to do, so you resist Jamie’s influence. In trying to establish dominance, Jamie
has lost prestige. But what if Jamie makes the same suggestion, talking more tentatively, and adding
some questions and hedges?
Do you think the flashlight should maybe be rated higher? It may be a pretty
reliable night signaling device. Also, maybe the reflector and lens could be used
to start a fire, which could possibly be another way to signal for help.In Fragale’s study, people were much more receptive to this version. Powerless speech signals
that Jamie is a giver. By talking tentatively, Jamie shows a willingness to defer to you, or at least take
your opinion into consideration. Fragale finds that even when Jamie delivers the exact same message
in the exact same tone both times, adding markers of tentative talk such as hedges, tag questions, and
intensifiers earns greater respect and influence. This is why the creative director was so open to Don
Lane’s idea: Lane signaled that he wasn’t trying to threaten the director’s authority. It was clear to the
creative director that Lane was just trying to share a good idea, and the director knew a good idea
when he saw it.*
Over time, talking tentatively paid off for Lane. He brought ideas up gently and didn’t ask for
credit. “Creative people responded to this approach, and it gave me credibility when I had a creative
idea worth sharing,” Lane explains. Whereas many of his peers had conflicts with creative people,
Lane developed a reputation for being a rare account guy with whom creative people enjoyed
working. Instead of seeing him as an outsider stepping on their toes, they saw him as a helpful
contributor. They frequently requested him on projects, often saying, “He’s helping us. He’s not a
typical account guy. Let’s keep him involved and give him more opportunities.” Knowing that he was