I was lucky to be interviewed by L. Greg Voisen, an author and scholar on the subject of personal growth and balance. Greg’s blog/podcast, Inside Personal Growth, Awakening the Wisdom Within, is pretty awesome – loaded with information and interviews.  Greg strives for more virtue in the world, and I found the interview a point/counterpoint discussion of business, balance and personal change. I had a wonderful time with Inside Personal Growth and hope to encourage folks to check out the interview.

Also, there is a wonderful book review of I Come First and please take a few minutes to check it out. In summary Greg said:

“I really enjoyed my interview with author Mark Nicholas about his new book entitled ” I Come First-How the Individual Ego Rules Every Business Decision“.   Mark points out that in business we encounter a world very much out of our control.  We find mangers and colleagues of all types, each with individual aspirations, issues and priorities.  Same are very smart and competent; others, difficult, bossy and incompetent.  Mark says that no matter how hard we work, or how powerful we become, the business world is as it always has been: a bit unpredictable, subject to strong personalities and aspiring politicians, and more than a little personal.

Business is the adult version of the neighborhood playground and Mark’s book at its core is a discussion about how we interact in the business sandbox with all of these colorful characters.  You see…the playground is as it always has been, undeniably and overwhelmingly human–and none of us can change the underlying nature of human beings.

First, Mark’s book strives to help you play in the sandbox, and offers formulas for success. Second, he offers short courses in negotiating, and discusses perception issues and political tactics used every day and in a practically every workplace interaction. Third, this book hopes to convey information not from a psychological or therapeutic viewpoint but from the point of view of people who live in the trenches: aspiring, hiring, firing, scrapping, fighting, negotiating and maneuvering every day in some very complex environments.  Fourth, unlike books that direct their attention to people aspiring to the highest levels of the business world, this book is designed for the daily battles in the trenches.  Fifth, you will not be asked to change the nearly unchangeable fabric that defines who you are, but hopefully you will find that you might improve in our ability to see your world more objectively and understand those various tools available to you.

Mark lends some wonderful advice for all of us working in the business world–” The solution to surviving and succeeding within business lies in knowing how to see, understand, and take advantage of the behavior that surrounds you, all the while knowing how to utilize the best and most effective characteristics of your own humanity, along with your talents, skills, and resources in a manner that allows you to get where you want to go. ”

If you are working in business and want a book that will help you navigate the land minds in which we are working, then I highly recommend that you read Mark’s book “ I Come First“.  You can learn more about Mark and his book by clicking here to be directed to his website.

Here is the link direct for the interview.

It’d be fun to bring Mr. Voisen over to I Come First to return the favor!

I am pleased to announce the publishing of my article on politics in the family business.  It is called the Politics of No Politics: 3 Ways to Avoid Politics in the Family Business, a discussion of how politics invades even the most friendly of atmospheres.  The article was published on BusinessZenBlog.  It was a fun write, and I hope you decide to visit the blog.

Here is the link:

http://www.businesszenblog.com/2011/08/31/the-politics-of-no-politics%C2%A03-ways-to-avoid-politics-in-the-family-business/

Seriously… check it out!

The notion a corporation is a person, shorthand to indicate that a corporation as an entity separate and distinct from the people owning it, has become the subject of great political fodder. The politicized nature, whether or not corporations have the individual rights of citizens (such as free speech), masks the fundamental operational flaw of the corporation: that it is never separate but rather comprised of people, oftentimes with interests differing from those of the business itself.

Instead of becoming mired in the debate of whether a corporation is actually a person, a legal distinction with significant practical ramifications, it is on point for us to discuss the conflicts of interest embedded within a business between it, the people who run it, and those who work for it.

The Function of a Business

A business exists solely to achieve the goals of that business. Perhaps these goals are purely monetary, philanthropic, altruistic or more commonly a blend. This is summarized by the legal shorthand that a for-profit corporation has a fundamental obligation to maximize shareholder value. This lingo is used to summarize the important point that a business’ goal is to mirror the goal of its owners, and the most common goal of investors/shareholders is to make money. This stated purpose was not intended to be absolute, but rather to confirm that the business is owner-oriented.

Then people come along to mess the whole thing up.

The purity of corporate goal is corrupted from the very beginning not by design but because of human nature. Businesses make decisions every day that are contrary to their business goals, but more aptly, reflective of the goals of the individuals within the business. That is because “businesses” don’t make decisions. Individual decision makers have their own requirements, emotions, personal conflicts and aspirations. While an effective business will find ways to become more united in purpose, in which individuals will act and make decisions contrary to their own best interests, the business faces this challenge constantly.

This is not about individual weakness or isolated selfishness, but rather functions at the core of human nature. Human beings face a constant struggle with anxiety and apprehension, relative perception and outlook, risk profile, etc.  There is the constant tension of the group vs. the individual’s need (perhaps to keep the job, get promoted, pay bills, etc.). For instance, while a business may wish to operate on a 2-5 year (or longer) timeframe, individuals may be week to week or annual review to annual review. We’re talking about conflicting goals, group dynamics, game theory and cognitive dissonance, all shorthand for the inevitable self-interest imbedded in an otherwise cohesive group.

From the Officers to the Janitors

There are countless examples of self-interest (or group interest) acting contrary to business interest. For instance, corporate officers pay themselves the maximum salary and bonus that they can individually negotiate – not the least amount necessary to stay and work hard.  The opposite would be in the business’ best interest – as an officer acting in the business’ interest would theoretically take as little as possible; a clear conflict of interest. Instead, the business pays more than it needs – and the decision makers fully understand that the business’ value is lessened by this conflict.

Our human psyche rationalizes as justifiable many areas in which individuals act contrary to the business – from the rationalization (I Come First as relative fairness) which is used to justify why expense reports are improperly bolstered, pens and paper are taken home, and broader personnel conflicts and politics are permitted by otherwise decent people. We see this in the way money is spent as personal value is sought to be demonstrated or departments fight for budget funds. In other cases, money is spent not out of necessity, but so that future resources can be allocated. Some departments are starved of resources and others flooded, because of the personalities of the department heads (and their negotiating ability) rather than the true needs of the business.  Short term profits and instant wealth become fair goals at the individual level. Efficiencies and savings are lost, oftentimes from the perception that corporate money is abstract, or even unlimited.

We also see this tension in personnel as well. Individuals make decisions that favor their friends, employees and department over others. Some sabotage others to garner favor. Some corporations make contributions to political parties when the business cannot be improved by the contribution but rather when the expenditure mirrors the political preferences of the decision makers.

We see this as well in the way in manner individuals ultimately find themselves in hot water, such as the creation of Ponzi schemes in which money is brought in to cover an act that may have been improper in the first place (many perpetrators will reveal that the scheme was intended to be short term to fix a one-time problem, but just got out of hand).

And so forth.

Politicizing Human Virtue

It is no surprise that in an era which has suffered so greatly from self-interest that this little topic of human behavior would become so politicized and controversial. The modern buzzwords relate to capitalism and free market versus government interference, over-regulation, free market, socialism, etc. This detracts from the inherent conflict that we should be discussing.  We need to understand the conflicting goals so that we can better spot it.  Only when we spot it can we stop it.

However, the notion that corporations are people simply because corporations are comprised of people is inherently incorrect. Instead, the corporation, as a person, would be displeased with many of the people comprising it – if it could only have a say in the matter.

The Moral of the Story

The moral of this story is that your business’ value will be maximized only when the individual human preference is minimized. This requires hard work to get to know the reason why people are thinking the way that they are and in particular the “stake holders” and “advocates”.  Constantly question the assertions being made by those individuals – particularly those in which the individual’s decision or position mirrors that same individual’s personal best interests.

To the individuals, from the business owner to the most junior employee, we’re on to you. Being good-for-business means managing yourself and others to identify behavior and decision-making contrary to the business’ ultimate purpose. This is not just about the Enrons and the Madoffs, but about every decision in every business. Cognitive dissonance can obstruct even basic objectivity. This is not about punishment but a constant check and balance on the process.

Failing to understand the psychology inherent in business is a significant disadvantage. The perceptions, motivations, needs and frustrations of individuals who are making decisions on the business’ behalf are highly relevant. Great companies do this better.

The premise of Leaders Don’t Fart is simple. The great leader is like a superhero – and we all deserve to follow leaders whom we feel are a step above the average Joe. Of course we recognize that everyone is human, but leaders should be inspirational and aspirational. Worthy or not, these are the people whom we trust with our lives and livelihoods.

We are not here to jump on the run-over-coach-Paterno bandwagon. In case you haven’t read the facts, please check out this story. There are facts that we don’t know, conversations we were not privy to, and subjective determinations we are not capable of understanding because we simply don’t know the people involved. The facts, however, do look pretty bad. Of course we could spout endlessly on our feelings related to this matter, but it seems as if everyone else is already doing that. Instead, let’s spend some time assuming that Coach Paterno (a.k.a., Coach P or JoePa) did not know of his subordinate’s behavior and instead take our time to focus on the legitimate leadership issue regarding this leadership stink bomb.

Our lesson today could be summarized as follows:

Don’t be friends with child rapists.

The Irrelevant Difference between the Principal and his Associates

Is there a difference between farter and a non-farter who spends his time with gaseous friends? No, and that’s Joe’s problem.

As we discuss in I Come First, humans do judge others by their associates. We share in the stink of our company. Their stink is ours, and ours is theirs. Does it matter if you don’t know that a friend is a farter (or in this case, a child rapist)? No. You’re tasked to know. It is our context.

This is a hard lesson to teach. It is often ill-received to tell promising employees that friendships with certain others will be detrimental. It is perceived as insulting when anyone tells another to stop being friends with certain people. It seems an unjust invasion into others’ lives, and apart from the perception issues, it might be. Yet context is how we determine each others’ character. When I determine who to follow, for instance, I want my leader to be the person who best resembles someone I’d aspire to be, not the one who associates with someone or something regarded as any less.

The doctrine that something that stinks in a room converts everyone else in that room into vicarious stinkers is even embodied in certain laws, both civil and criminal – e.g., a driver is responsible for his passengers’ possessions; and a homeowner is responsible for his guests. Civil forfeiture laws (like them or, like me, hate them) have been known to pass the financial burden for an offense onto others who may be otherwise entirely innocent. When a crime is committed, society always looks first at those who are associated with the victim, then the suspects, and then the suspects’ associations. For our business purposes, when we promote someone, or if they are a leader – follow them, we look at their associations. It legitimately tells us quite a bit about the person. Like any employment reference, context is what that tells us if the person is one of esteem or mere common-ness.

To summarize: leaders associate with leaders (superheroes associate with superheroes). Criminals associate with criminals.

When Association Becomes Disgrace

In this case things may be a little worse for JoePa than a mere bad association. Was Joe told with specificity the witnessed behavior of this assistant coach? There is testimony indicating that he was told something specific enough to immediately run to his superiors. The decision not to do anything given the severity of the allegations (see Joe’s own statement) is enough to suggest that there was something akin to a masking of the issue, and maybe a coverup. There is acquiescence related to some very bad acts. Was this a mere cowardly act? It is hard to know.

Coach Paterno, who was fired just as I began this entry, is among the most dramatic and painful falling of a leader that can occur. Today Mt. Everest fell down Coach was a superhero. The rose smell has not only worn off, but he now now stinks of a smell of humanity, perhaps worse given the subhuman nature of the facts. This is utterly painful to witness. We love what he has accomplished, but can no longer celebrate the man if for nothing more than the quality of his associations. Still we ask questions and cringe as we learn about the extent of the potential complicity. Our insides turn at the thought of what was known and not acted upon and it is eerily possible that some senior officials at Penn State knew that a member of the community was molesting/raping children – and for some reason allowed that person to remain a part of the community.

For what it’s worth, leaders know that their associations matter, Joe more so than most. Once this story broke, I’m sure Joe pretty much knew how this would play out.

Can Joe Come Back?

Well… President Clinton overcame his utterly human behavior to become respected (although tainted). Others too – like Martha Stewart (insider trading), Lawrence Taylor (drugs/behavior) and Michael Vick (dog fighting – although the “naked Vick” story seems to be churning in the press). But the gloss of the humanity – a.k.a., the stink – never entirely washes off.

So today I sit here now like the rest of the world, wondering what Joe knew. As a leader, it doesn’t really matter. The associations and “perceived” inaction were enough to bring him down. Turns out, he had some pretty sour friends and his few admissions about acting in hindsight suggest much more than a mere failure in perception. The respect we will give to him now and through the remainder of his days is much more a respect for the idea of what has been accomplished rather than for the super hero who did the accomplishing. It is a sad day today to see humanity rear its ugly head -

- particularly when it applies to such a man.

* * *

M.H. Nicholas is an attorney, speaker and author of the human behavior book entitled I Come First.

It sure would be nice to see some friendly faces.   Stop by if you’re around!

Everyone negotiates. Like it or not… you do too.

We talk with our friends about what restaurant we will go to when we get together. Unless everyone wants to eat the same exact thing, and they never do, we are negotiating. We negotiate with our family when we talk about who will run an errand, or when, what we will see on TV or in the movies, or where we will go for our next vacation. We negotiate most often with ourselves, weighing and deciding among different options. Through the internal or external dialogs our different preferences are worked out.

Getting things decided is really all “negotiating” is. To not negotiate is equivalent to not carefully evaluating your options, or with others having any say in the dialog related to the decisions that are made. We don’t just take what everyone gives us. We work stuff out – that’s just what people do.

Negotiating is predominantly a remarkably simple dialog. The facts are laid out and each participant gets a role in deciding what to do. For instance:

“I want to eat Italian food tonight”
“We had Italian food last week. How about seafood?”
“I’m not too fond of seafood.”
“I heard that there is this new place down the block. They have seafood and other stuff like steak.”
“I can go for that.”
“Awesome. We can do Italian food next week if you’re still up for it.”

Do you see how this worked? You have facts and preferences, offers and counteroffers, and concessions – in this case from both sides to a certain extent. This is a conversation that we all have in some context on a daily basis. Maybe your conversation today went something like this:

“When can you get me the report?”
“It’ll take a few days”
“I really do need it by Monday”
“No problem, Monday would be fine.”

What about if Monday wouldn’t have worked:

“I was planning on taking Friday off. Are you sure we couldn’t do Wednesday?”
“That might be too late. Tuesday might be ok”
“Ok, Tuesday it is.”

Most negotiations truly are this simple. Everyone wants to work together for the long term, and getting along and making reasonable decisions are preferred so that relationships are maintained. Perhaps it is about simple problem solving or delivery dates, or the services that someone (or you) will provide, or the hours your employees (or you) will work, etc.

The simple premise, that negotiating is a critical element of one’s success is often misconstrued, particularly by those who share an aversion to “haggling”. The vast majority of negotiations involve no haggling whatsoever. [Secret: most non-hagglers haggle far more than they think they do.]

We’re going to dive in to negotiating. I think it’s tremendously fun – not only because I love business and finding opportunities for success, but also because negotiating is largely the embodiment of how people think, what they like, want and need, what they fear, and what keeps them up at night. This is the study of practical human behavior, and when we look at negotiating as a craft, it can all be brilliantly interesting (as well as amazingly helpful).

So until next time… get in the game (and maybe even have some fun while you’re at it).

The premise of Leaders Don’t Fart is simple. The great leader is like a superhero – and we all deserve to follow leaders whom we feel are a step above the average Joe. Of course we all recognize that everyone is human, but leaders should be inspirational and aspirational. Worthy or not, these are the people whom we trust with our lives and livelihoods.

It has been quite a week of farting leaders. We have another teacher cheating scandal, political chest bumps, and bad behaving district attorneys. We’ve had our share of great leaders this week as well, including the ongoing tribute to Steve Jobs, and the philanthropy of Sir Richard Branson. In this edition of Leaders Don’t Fart, we’ll highlight the potty-mouthed spoiled brat Carol Bartz, now former CEO of Yahoo.

Ms. Bartz is the walking example of the emotional, ungrateful person and is the kind of case study that brought I Come First into existence. She is each of us on a bad day, a natural victim. Even while under performing in her job she expressed feeling screwed (her word) despite pulling down $47.2 million dollars in salary (in 2009) [more than either Leslie Moonves (CBS), J.R. Elliott (Boston Scientific), Brian Roberts (Comcast) or William Weldon (Johnson & Johnson)] (later reduced in 2011 for under performance). She claims that the company “screwed her over” and behaved cowardly by firing her – and by phone nonetheless. She made her disgruntlement public with rather silly insults and allegations kfor no obvious benefit or advantage. You see… Ms. Bartz was destined to be fired, and in this world of cell phones and travel, having this obvious conversation by phone just happens to be a commonplace occurrence.

The High School CEO

At what point do people who aspire to be respected think that it is okay to insult others, bully, curse, take private conversations public, etc.? Is this a person who wanted to be cool when younger and is seeks to prove coolness finally at an older age? She obviously equates bluntness (her word, not mine) and profanity to effectiveness. Is this a person so much better than everyone else that she deserves license to behave in a sub-leaderly fashion? At what point did “bluntness” for CEO Bartz become the equivalent of “effective leadership”? This is just plain wrong. Effective leadership might be blunt from time-to-time, but that’s as far as the connection goes. Effective leadership can also be tactful, thoughtful, wise, calm, contemplative and respected.

Ms. Bartz has been farting along for quite a while. Known as an abrasive CEO of a floundering company, she has been cursing in interviews (TechCrunch, 2010, Esquire, 2010) and insulting other CEOs publicly (Jack Ma, CEO Alibaba, 2009) since the start of her tenure (FYI, the Wall Street Journal has also just published a list of Bartz’ most memorable quotes). I’ve thought about writing an article about her for a fair while, but was probably just waiting for her termination first. Who knew that her termination would be so interesting.

A Message to Ms. Bartz

Ms. Bartz, you were an under performing employee. Maybe some of it was your fault, and some wasn’t, but in the world of CEO performance, you weren’t the right person for this job (now, probably any job). There are millions of people fired from jobs earning far less than your $47.2 million who have actually gotten “screwed over” (again, your words, not mine) – some by their jobs, others the economy, others by co-workers, the financial sector, wall street, rogue brokers/advisers, banks, Madoff, Goldman Sachs, and the toxic political environment. You, however, didn’t.

This display is indicative of a person who is not capable of effective leadership of others. The leadership of a company, and its CEO, that does not earn respect with their words must offer extraordinary performance, or the position fails under its own weight. The Board of Yahoo knew that – and were probably pretty embarrassed by her all along. Here, Ms. Bartz’ behavior is reminiscent of a person who could neither be a leader in title or position, and while her departure could have generated empathy, we are instead left with proof beyond doubt that this person needed to be ousted. We are left not with a great leader, but of an emotional petty potty-mouth.

This stuff is symbolic of a person who does not understand that every word by a CEO of stature should be something to be considered, wise and thoughtful; but add emotion and profanity, insults and abrasion, and the respect is lost even if the substance exists. Contrary to comments of journalist Jeff Jarvis who believes that the heightened criticism here is because she is a woman (and it is only okay for male leaders to curse), it isn’t. Leaders should act their role (men as well as women). She farted every time she looked like a petty child in an interview, and she looks like one now. This nonsense is barely cool when you’re young, and never cool when you’re the highest paid tech CEO in the country.

Now, she can curse all she wants somewhere else. She’ll certainly have all the money in the world to do it.*

* She will be receiving millions of additional dollars in severance.

Mark H. Nicholas is a lawyer, entrepreneur, creative enthusiast, and the author of I Come First, a book about business, leadership, & life. He blogs right here at www.icomefirst.com and can also be found on Twitter and Facebook at @MHNBooks

There has been a bit of a dust up lately over whether or not it is okay to discriminate against the unemployed, a particularly significant problem given the problems our nation is facing. We need to get unemployed people employed once again. No question about that.

While this problem crystallized for many following a series of news stories from earlier this month in which it was revealed that the discrimination had become quite explicit in job listings actually providing that current employment is a condition for applicants, this form of discrimination is nothing new. While there are broader implications with respect to the impact on protected classes, discrimination against the unemployed is actually quite logical – and if you are unemployed (and even if you’re not), you should pay attention to the way businesses think (in general) when they fill positions. When it comes to filling positions with people who are unemployed, businesses assume a greater risk than normal (although these risks are always present).

Reasons why Employers Discriminate Against the Unemployed

Here are a few of the reasons why:

1.       The unemployed person may actually have been fired as part of a process to remove lower performing employees,

2.       The unemployed person may be desperate and willing to take anything (such as the first thing to come along),

3.       The unemployed person may not be honest about his or her capabilities, and

4.       Once employed, the re-employed person may utilize this place of comfort to look for a better job instead of the first job that came along.

The ultimate risk is that it is very expensive to remove poor performing employees in terms of time, effort, lost productivity and litigation risk.

In short, the turnover for people who come from unemployment can be significant and tremendously expensive to business. The savvy business has become sensitive in this regard.

Advice for the Unemployed

So what are the unemployed folks to do (seriously, these job interview tips apply to all applicants, including folks who are employed as well as unemployed)? I Come First offers some guidance for navigating in this environment.

1.       See the world from the employers perspective,

2.       Adapt to the person the business wants and needs, while managing the risks that are indicated above.

3.       Give yourself a job.

It is sad to say that discrimination oftentimes makes good business sense. The law helps to address this problem, but the perception problems remain and the risk will continue to factor into all of the business’ decisions. So if you want the job, and you are the victim of discrimination, don’t wait for the law to help. Fix the problem yourself.

If the world is discriminating against you because you are unemployed, get a job. You can do it in a matter of minutes.  How? Offer yourself a job. Need business cards? At nextdayflyers.com you can get 500 double-sided full color cards for a whopping $21.95! A website will cost you $12 for the year and a few extra bucks for hosting. Maybe pick up a WordPress theme (free – or a premium theme for $30 or so – from Themeforest.net) and customize to your heart’s content.

Don’t overdo it of course (read I Come First for guidance on this stuff), but when it comes to managing perceptions – that is in your court. If you aren’t savvy as to the business’ fears, then you may not be the person the business wants to employ anyway.

Perspective employers are looking to get work done without added risk to the business. It naturally perceives anything that is inconsistent with its needs as a bad hire. Don’t be a bad hire.

I am of the opinion that resumes are generally dead. We’re covered in the resumes of millions of applicants. They drip from our mailboxes, our computer screens and our email. What we have, instead, is a system that embraces networking and ­relationship building. While we all strive to employ people we believe in, we mostly employ people we know, and among those, the people we like. That means that introductions matter more than anything else. If you have ever tried to sort through even just twenty resumes looking for the best candidates, you know what I’m talking about.

Your future is in your hands. Trust me when I say that we are all discriminating against people, mostly just against the people we don’t yet know. But you might actually end up building yourself a business that actually works, and whether it does or doesn’t, meeting a ton of people along the way.

See for instance:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2011/02/discrimination-v-unemployed-job-seekers.html
http://atlantapost.com/2011/03/21/unemployed-need-not-apply-here/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/unemployment-discrimination-slideshow_n_917641.html#s321678&title=Frankel_Staffing_Entry

Be sure to check out my latest posting (and my first post) on BusinessZenBlog on ways to manage politics in the family business.

https://bitly.com/qjUTRO

What does your body language say about you?

Body Language and Sales Expert, Kevin Hogan states that “studies indicate you only have 4 seconds to make a good first impression and that first 4 seconds will be used as a yardstick for all future communication by those whom you meet.” In the first 4 seconds you will be judged and the person has already decided whether or not they like you, if they will do business with you and the level of your intelligence. He reminds us that “you can’t make a good first impression through your words alone.” “In fact,” he explains “non-verbal communication is between 60 and 75% of the impact of a communication. But despite being the most important aspect, body language is also the most misunderstood and misinterpreted.”

I’d say that Mr. Hogan might be a bit conservative. If I am speaking to someone who is looking at their Blackberry, rest assured that this individual’s body language will dictate 100% of what I think of them.

Paying attention to the body language of others may help you navigate the work place and better understand your colleagues. Do you know when someone is interested in or is tired of listening to your pitch? By paying attention to important and subtle signals you can interpret much about the other person. People communicate in many ways and body language or kinesics is one that is often over looked and can be very useful.

There is more to “body language” than how you move your body. Understanding body language can consist of not only how we/or they position the body but also facial expressions, eye movements and breathing patterns can be very telling as well as the pace, pitch, and tone of the voice.

For your own good, learn to recognize your own position and subtle “tells”. Can you feel our eyes shift, hand twitch or an increase in blinking? Are you aware when you turn away, fold your arms or tap your foot? Do you recognize when you can’t make eye contact, or can’t look away? Do you even sense when you look back to your computer screen or phone? Understanding your own body language – seeing yourself in an objective sense can be tremendously helpful.

When it comes to conscious body language and position, mirroring (sitting in a similar position and posture) can be an effective way to establish trust and rapport. When you mirror another’s body language it establishes trust with them. It helps to nurture feelings of similarity and understanding. It makes the person feel liked and accepted, thereby letting down their guard and likely wanting to do business with you. More importantly, it can create a sense of cohesiveness. Likewise, if your body language signs are too different and over powering the meeting will feel forced and uncomfortable. “The mismatched signals can translate into unconscious feelings of discord, discomfort or even rejection.”

Still, you could use a mismatched position to teach or inspire change (to calm/slow someone down), or to utilize the discomfort if I am questioning/interrogating a person about something. For instance, when a person is too hyped up, leaning forward assertively, I might sit back and slow way down to try to bring that person down to my pacing.

You can use your body language to your advantage making you appear more powerful, confident and trustworthy. It is often not what you say but how you say it. By creating a safe, comfortable space you will ease others’ feelings of anxiety and establish a lasting connection. People recognize negativity right away and gravitate towards positive individuals and goals. For fun, I’ve added a few interpretations (from www.businessballs.com) of body language that you may find interesting…

• ear tugging or ear-pulling given suitable supporting signs can instead indicate indecision and related pondering.
• pinching or rubbing nose, while listening – thoughtfulness, suppressing comment – In many cases this is an unconscious signaling of holding back or delaying a response or opinion.
• scratching nose, while speaking – lying or exaggeration – Nose-scratching while speaking is a warning sign, unless the person genuinely has an itchy nose. Often exhibited when recounting an event or incident.

Your body language speaks volumes. Make sure you know what it’s saying!