It's not what you say

Everyone knows you catch more flies with honey. Now add a lower buzz.

At least for a man, how you sound may be twice as important as what you say. According to a joint study of nearly 800 CEOs by Duke University and University of California-San Diego, deep voices mean rapt attention. They also mean dollars; the deeper the executive's voice, the more he earned. The April 24 issue of the Wall Street Journal reported that this isn't only true in the business world; a separate Duke study last year concluded that voters also prefer political candidates with deeper voices.

The percentage effect the quality - or frequency - of executives' voices had on listeners was 23 percent. The content accounted for only 11 percent.

Researchers emphasized that this is a correlation; it does not prove causation as factors such as behavior were not considered. However, it is suggestive, especially when taken with the similar study of politicians. The CEO with a median sound had a 125.5-hertz vocal frequency, earned $3.7 million, ran a $2.4 billion company and was 56 years old. For perspective, researchers offered that James Earl Jones's voice is lower/deeper - around 85 Hz.

His fame matches sound-alike CEO success; executives with voices lower than 125 Hz earned an average $187,000 more in pay and led companies with $440 million more in assets. The trend didn't vary when experience and education were taken into account.

For women, things are different. Apparently the quality of the female voice has little impact on her success. A study comparing 423 female executives (gender equality still hasn't permeated at the CEO level) by Quantified Impressions, a business communications consulting company, found the voice quality of top-earners was merely of average pitch. They did find, however, that female leaders do tend to speak with more energy and volume.

Now consider speed. A study in the 1970s cemented the impression that fast talkers get more results, but now we know it depends on the listener's attitude. A 1991 University of Georgia study found that fast-talking indeed works best when convincing listeners to change their inclinations (counter-attitudinal), but the opposite is true when they were already inclined your way (pro-attitudinal). Why? Because when you talk slowly, the listener has time to think of counterarguments.

All of this begs the suggestion that the average person could be far more aware of such influences, to consciously focus more on content than delivery to reach more reasoned and independent decisions. It can be done, but it takes consistent effort in this sound-bite, text-littered, impatient modern world of fading focus.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a skeptic and columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at [email protected].