Looking at Yourself Through Half Closed Eyes

"What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Way back in the mists of my professional career, I did a piece of work with a division of [insert name of international organisation here] looking at their selection and promotion processes. I was fresh from studying work psychology for a masters degree, and subjected my client, the head of the division, to a mind-numbing lecture on the importance of two-tailed significance in establishing the predictive validity of random intercorrelated variables. He looked at me pityingly, shook his head and, in an arm-round-the-shoulder tone of voice said: "Phil, let me tell you how we make our promotion decisions round here. We watch you walking along the corridor, we half close our eyes and we say: 'Does he look like someone the next level up?' If the answer's Yes, we promote you."

In my purist naivety, I was appalled, yet years later I have come to accept the human truth he was expressing. Evolution, for subtle reasons of its own that doubtless made sense a million years ago, has trained us to draw swift conclusions about people from the way they move. You may well be familiar with the scary statistic that most hiring decisions are made within the first 30 seconds of the interview - just about long enough for you to walk in the door and sit down. On the basis of this and other related factoids, a whole industry has grown up around what is now called 'personal impact'. The aim is a simple and noble one: to help an individual use their voice and body in a way which shows them at their best. Which is why I am inevitably intrigued by the suspicion - and frequently, hostility - aroused in individuals by this particular discipline.

I run sessions for groups of leaders on the concept of 'status', starting from the premise expressed so eloquently by my erstwhile client - that suitability for a senior position is judged, in effect, through half closed eyes. You would be amazed at how het up people get by the word 'status'. They are suspicious of it, as if it is a byword for bullying and exploitation. Usually, by the time I've finished bullying - sorry, influencing - the group, they will accept that true 'high status' is simply a matter of being at ease with oneself - being comfortable in one's own skin, if you will. The aggressive examples that spring to mind on hearing the phrase are, paradoxically, examples of over-compensating for an inner lack of status. Think about the leaders you truly respect and ask yourself: wherein lies the impression of authenticity you get from them? I submit it comes from their physical presence being in harmony with their words.

The idea that 'impact' is all about becoming more authentic and true to oneself gets lost in accusations that one is somehow being manipulative or dishonest by making adjustments to one's own body language. Yet the same people who spit blood about the artifice of exploring how to walk into a room think nothing of wearing a smart suit to a job interview. Are we not really talking about the same thing? You are presenting a version of yourself which, as long as the suit is yours and fits you, will have a positive impact on the party you are dealing with.

I think a lot of confusion arises because of the assumption that Impact is in essence an 'identikit' discipline - that there is a 'right' way to walk into a room, or give a presentation, or greet a new colleague. The truth is, in fact, that success and mastery of the discipline will only come when 'right' means 'right for me'. Let me finish with an example. I was working with a client who had to give a critical presentation about a new product. What was holding him back was, in his words, "I'm no good at presenting" (ah, the power of labelling - that needs an article in itself). I asked him: what are you good at? Talking to people individually, he said; connecting with them and reaching a joint understanding. Aha, I said, in that irritating way that coaches have of seeing everything as simple when they don't have to do it themselves; in which case, don't present - talk to the individuals in the room instead.

I sat in on the final presentation. No Powerpoint; no declamatory speeches. He began by giving an item connected to his topic to someone in the audience and asking them questions about it; then he brought other individuals in in a similar way. He ended up having a conversation with everyone in the room. People told me afterwards it was the best presentation they had seen in ages. He was not trying to 'be' a presenter, following a textbook approach; yet had he been able to see himself through half closed eyes, he would have seen someone who was good at 'presenting'; someone standing in front of a group totally at ease with himself. It is the very opposite of manipulation.