Communications Leadership

You are brought into a room to play a computer game. On the screen you see your avatar, a computerized graphic that represents you in this virtual environment.  You also spot the avatars for two other players, both of whom you assume are physically located with their own computers in similar rooms.

At first it is fun and easy – a simple ball-tossing game over the Internet. Then about half way through the game, you notice something odd. It seems as though the other players are excluding you. In fact, soon they completely stop throwing the ball to you and are interacting only with each other. You don’t know why it’s happening, but you know you are being rejected.

Later you are told that there were no other human players, only a software program designed to exclude the test subject (you!) at some point. But even when you learn the truth, you can’t shake the feeling of being snubbed. You still feel as if you were left out of the game for some personal reason . . .

At least that is how you respond if you are typical of the subjects in this experiment by social neuroscientists at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The research project was designed to make people experience rejection, and then to find out what goes in the brain as a result.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) equipment, researchers tracked the blood flow in the brains of “rejected” subjects and made a surprising discovery: When someone feels excluded there is corresponding activity in the dorsal portion of the anterior cingulate cortex — the neural region involved in the “suffering” component of pain. In other words, they found that the feeling of being excluded provokes the same sort of reaction in the brain that physical pain might cause. It was also found that both physical and emotional suffering respond positively to Tylenol.

For business leaders this research is meaningful, as the experiment shows that it really doesn’t take much to make people left out.

This finding is especially interesting to me as an executive coach and body language expert. As I’ve often told leaders, the nonverbal signals that make someone feel excluded or unimportant are often slight: letting your gaze wander while he or she is talking, leaning back, crossing your arms, or angling your torso even a quarter turn away (in essence, giving someone “the cold shoulder”).

If you were my client, I’d also let you know that an occasional lapse won’t demoralize your team. But if you are continually off-handed, neglectful or unresponsive to certain individuals, your nonverbal behavior could be seriously destructive to the trust and collaboration you are seeking to foster.

I’ve seen how team spirit can disintegrate as those individuals who feel that they are being discounted simply withdraw. The sense of unease created by that withdrawal then broadcasts itself subliminally (by a processes called “emotional contagion”) to the whole group.  And there goes the leader’s hopes for high morale, collaboration, and productivity.

So think about the UCLA research the next time you lead a meeting. Realize that when you appear to play favorites by using more positive nonverbal signals — smiles, eye contact, forward leans, etc. — with some people than with others or when your body language actually excludes some individuals, those behaviors can result in “hurt” feelings that are, actually, painful.

 If all else fails – remember to pass around the Tylenol.

Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D., is an executive coach, consultant, speaker, and author of “The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work .Her new book, “The Silent Language of Leaders: How Body Language Can Help – or Hurt – How You lead” will be published by Jossey-Bass in April. To inquire about Carol speaking at your event, call 510-526-1727, email CGoman@CKG.com. For more information, visit http://www.NonverbalAdvantage.com and http://www.CKG.com.

As for the nice behavior, I want to compliment:

1. Several participants of my fall Strategic Communication Action Group who challenged  themselves, got out of their comfort zones, and tried new things in the spirit of professional development and continuous improvement. One is ending the year in a new and bigger job, which is a much better fit for her talents.

2. The volunteers, including board members, of our professional associations who spend a lot of hours, brain power, and energy trying to help the rest of us improve our skills, network effectively, and maintain our professional standards.

3. Mark Schumann, past chair of the IABC Executive Board, for his 2010 carol for communicators. This is a great example of a fearless communicator in action!

You’re at a business event and the colleague you’ve been having an intense conversation with begins to shift her gaze from your face to look around the room. Ever wonder why that makes you feel as if she has stopped listening? You know it’s not logical. A person doesn’t have to look at you to hear you. People don’t listen with their eyes.
Or do they?

The impact of eye contact is so powerful because it is instinctive and connected with humans’ early survival patterns. Children who could attract and maintain eye contact, and therefore increase attention, had the best chance of being fed and cared for.

And eye contact retains its power with adults. We gaze intently at one another, unconsciously monitoring the wide eyes of surprise or pleasure and the narrowed eyes of suspicion or dislike. We respond (positively or negatively) to dilated pupils that signal attraction, increased blink rates caused by stress, and darting eyes that underscore discomfort or defensiveness.

Over the course of a conversation, eye contact is made through a series of glances – by the speaker, to make sure the other person has understood or to gage reactions, and by the listener to indicate interest in either the other person or what’s being said. It is also used as a synchronizing signal. People tend to look up at the end of utterances, which gives their listeners warning that the speaker is about to stop talking. There is often mutual eye contact during attempted interruptions, laughing, and when answering short questions.

Eye contact is most effective when both parties feel its intensity is appropriate for the situation (and this may differ with introverts/extroverts, men/women, or between different cultures). But greater eye contact, especially in intervals lasting four to five seconds, almost always leads to greater liking. As long as people are looking at us, we believe we have their interest. If they meet our gaze more than two-thirds of the time, we sense that they find us appealing or fascinating.

In fact, the only kind increased eye contact that does not increase liking is staring – which most of us consider to be rude or even threatening. This kind of over-done eye contact generally communicates a desire to dominate, a feeling of superiority, a lack of respect, or a wish to insult.

In the Western world, too little eye contact is interpreted as being impolite, insincere, or even dishonest. One hospital, analyzing letters of complaints from patients, reported that 90 percent of the complaints had to do with poor doctor eye contact, which was perceived as a “lack of caring.”

But people decrease or avoid eye contact for many reasons – when they are discussing something intimate or difficult, when they are not interested in the other person’s reactions, when they don’t like the other person, when they are insecure or shy and when they are ashamed, embarrassed, depressed or sad.

Waiters in restaurants tend to avoid eye contact with their customers to send the message, “I’m too busy to deal with you right now.”  Employees avoid eye contact when the boss poses a difficult question or asks for volunteers. (The general rule here is to look down and shuffle through notes as if searching for the answer or engaged in a much more important pursuit.) And when pedestrians or drivers want to ensure their own right of way, one strategy is to avoid meeting the other’s eyes in order to avoid cooperation.

In intense or intimate conversations people naturally look at one another more often and hold that focus for longer periods of time. A sure sign that a conversation is lagging is when one of the participants begins looking away to pay more attention to other people or objects in the vicinity.

So when your business colleague stopped looking at you and began to gaze blankly into the distance or visually scan the room, she was “saying” with her eyes that she had, in effect, stopped listening.

Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D. is an executive coach and international keynote speaker at corporate, government, and association events. She’s the author of “The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work.” Her new book, “THE SILENT LANGUAGE OF LEADERS: How Body Language Can Help – or Hurt How You Lead” will be released in April 2011. To contact Carol about speaking or coaching, call 510-526-1727, email CGoman@CKG.com. Carol’s website is http://www.NonverbalAdvantage.com. You can also follow Carol on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CGoman.

2.      Luis Urzua, the shift supervisor and leader of “Los 33, ″ the Chilean miners who spent about three months underground.

His situational leadership actions provide three key lessons:

First, speak the truth.
Second, let the majority decide.
Third, follow the Vegas rule, what “What happens in the mine, stays in the mine.”

While not everyone—including the men stuck in the mine with him— may approve of this foreman’s actions throughout the ordeal, we have to acknowledge the amazing results: the safe return of all 33 men.

3. Delegates who refused to be bullied during a national conference.

More seasoned alternate delegates asked a couple of delegates to take actions, which the junior delegates initially agreed to do. However, after thinking about the requests, they independently decided that the demands either were not in the best interest of the organization or were in conflict with their personal values.

These undecided delegates then asked me, as one of the meeting facilitators, if they could say “no.” I said “yes.” So they stood up for their principles to the dismay of some of their colleagues. In their boldness, they reminded me of  Howard Beale in the 1976 movie Network yelling, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

The rest of the delegation backed them up and voted along with them.

Liz Guthridge is a consultant, author, and trainer specializing in strategic change communications. Department leaders of Fortune 1000 companies hire Liz and her firm Connect Consulting Group LLC when they need their people—who are confused, angry or in denial—to adopt complex new initiatives so they can quickly change the way they work. For more information, contact Liz, liz.guthridge@connectconsultinggroup.com or 510-527-1213. Follow Liz on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/lizguthridge.

If you watch any college or professional football games this season, you’ll probably see at least one team running out the clock. It’s an effective strategic play. (For those who aren’t familiar with it, if you’re leading toward the end of the game, you can try to keep possession of the ball and use delay tactics to keep the opposition from getting another chance on offense.)

Liz Guthridge is a consultant, author, and trainer specializing in strategic change communications. Department leaders of Fortune 1000 companies hire Liz and her firm Connect Consulting Group LLC when they need their people—who are confused, angry or in denial—to adopt complex new initiatives so they can quickly change the way they work. For more information, contact Liz, liz.guthridge@connectconsultinggroup.com or 510-527-1213. Follow Liz on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/lizguthridge.

• How are the actual results achieved to date tracking against predicted outcomes?
• What surprised me?
• What challenged me?
• What bored me that I want to avoid next time if I can?
• What inspired me?
• What touched me?
• What turned out especially well? Not so well? Why?
• What would I/we have done differently?
• What do I want to be sure to do next time?
• What are the biggest lessons I have learned?
• What actions am I going to take now, based on this reflection?

Right after the Super Bowl, CBS will air it’s new show, “Undercover Boss.” But earlier this week Oprah featured “cast members” – executives and employees from the first two companies (Waste Management and 7-11). At the end, executives gave “prizes” to participating employees. A 7-11 truck driver received the keys to his own franchise (without having to pay the regular set-up fees), a Waste Management office worker got a promotion and a pay raise, etc.

You can imagine the reaction from employees of those companies who weren’t on the series, but who watched Oprah: Why did that person get singled out? Why did one person in the same company get a much more lucrative reward than another? What about the rest of us who work here? We work hard too!

“Undercover Boss” is a British import and I assumed that the Brits probably handled things a bit differently. But to make sure, I checked with Stephen Martin, the Clugston CEO (and participant in the UK version of the show) whom I’d interviewed for the Washington Post article, “Would YOU be an Undercover Boss?”

Here is his reply:

Hi Carol,
Wow – as you say things are certainly bigger over there in the US! 

The UK version of ‘Undercover Boss’ could be described as very low budget in comparison.

However, I would comment as follows, as one with experience in the process.

I feel that there is a potential underlying friction between what the program makers want to produce i.e. an entertaining television show that guarantees great ratings and what I, as a company boss, want i.e. genuine feedback from employees on what is and is not working within my business so that I can make positive improvements.

And here’s the rub – what makes great telly does not necessarily make great business and vice versa!

Indeed, the producers of the program wanted me to give out great rewards at the end of the program after the televised ‘reveals’.  I, however, resisted on the basis that it would be grossly unfair to single out individuals for treatment over and above what I could realistically achieve with the rest of our workforce.

Furthermore, I went undercover soon after I had made over 100 employees redundant and I felt that it would have been in poor taste to throw money around in such a sensitive business environment.

In terms of ‘rewards and recognition’ for the three individuals singled out by me for the televised ‘reveals’, this is what I did:

1)    Leon Bever – I gave him the opportunity to move to a bigger project where he had the potential to earn more money, as he would be site based and, consequently, have to travel further and work longer hours.  I also gave every single person at his work site the same opportunity – some accepted and were moved, whilst others did not want to travel and accepted that they would earn less money but get home earlier every evening.

2)    Les Parker – I moved him from a temporary contract to a permanent contract. His wages and terms of conditions of employment remained exactly the same. This turned out to be a great morale booster for all temporary employees as they could see that if they worked hard they had the potential of gaining a permanent position with Clugston and all of our permanent workers were delighted that Les gained a place on our apprenticeship programme.  There was no pay rise or promotion.

3)    ****** Sutton – I asked ******, alongside his normal duties, to undertake a mentoring role with our less experienced workers so that he could pass on his valuable skills to our next generation of workers.  There was no pay rise or promotion.

 So, the joy of these three individuals cannot be measured in monetary terms – but in terms of being the people I chose to be representative of the hundreds of hard working individuals we employ up and down the length and breadth of the UK and deserving of praise directly from the top.

 As I mentioned to you previously, I also personally visited everyone I met during my two weeks undercover afterwards for their own personal ‘reveal’ – the only difference being that this time the cameras were not rolling.

In terms of ‘rewards and recognition’ for our workforce in general, I threw a party for our entire workforce at a local hotel to celebrate and recognize their invaluable support and hard work for Clugston over many years.  This was the first time in our 73 year history that operatives had ever been invited to a party and was incredibly well received by all employees – so much so, in fact, that in December I threw the first ever Christmas party for our operatives too!

What you say is correct in that I actually published what I learned from my undercover experience in the form of my “Top Ten Tips” which have been put onto our website for all employees to read and I also published extracts from the diary I kept while I was undercover so that employees, who were not directly involved, could learn more about what happened.

So to ultimately answer your question, what I learned was indeed transferred into corporate-wide policy and not just individual reward for 3 individuals who became the focus of a TV program.

I think my response poses a further question though – how do you make compelling reality television while remaining true to both your own personal and company values?

Best regards,

Stephen

Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D. is the author of nine books including CREATIVITY IN BUSINESS and  “THIS ISN’T THE COMPANY I JOINED” — How to Lead in a Business Turned Upside Down. She delivers keynote speeches and seminars to association and business audiences around the world. For more information or to book Carol as a speaker at one of your events, please call: 510-526-1727, email: CGoman@CKG.com, or visit her website: http://www.CKG.com.

What do 2-year-olds and CEOs have in common? They should be asking lots of questions.

According to Peter Senge, asking good questions is one of the most effective ways to open our mind, be more present and learn from others.

When we ask good questions, we take an important first step to explore the uncertain.

The start of a new year—especially the start of a new decade and a tumultuous 2009—is an opportune time to consider the questions you and your leaders are asking.

From a leadership communications perspective, start asking questions about these three key categories: purpose, people and process.

Purpose Questions

• What’s our reason for being and are we still true to it? (As the Wall Street Journalist columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in Look Ahead with Stoicism—and Optimism, many institutions seemed to have forgotten their mission the last decade.)
• What’s the organization’s focus? In other words, how well do your 2010 plans and goals sync up with your mission?
• How well can your stakeholders articulate your mission? Do they know the organization’s priorities and their own? Do they need support from you?

People Questions

• How well are you and the leaders listening to your stakeholders? What insights are you gathering from customers, employees, partners, vendors and others?
• How well are the leaders connecting with employees and inspiring them? Do employees know what you expect of them? To what extent are they taking responsibility for what needs to be done, rather than sitting back and waiting on having the right authority? To what degree are employees anticipating customer needs?
• From the perspective of someone who’s helping leaders with their communication, where’s the leverage? How have you divvied up responsibilities? What are you delegating to each other? What’s the most efficient? What’s the most effective?

Process Questions

• What can you stop doing this year to save time and resources? You either want to stop it because it’s not effective; it’s wasteful or no longer valued. For example, are there standing meetings that have outlived their usefulness? Reports? Questions on surveys?
• What could be working better? Do you need to tweak ways you’re working? Are you using the measurement data you’re gathering to fine-tune your communication channels, messages and meetings? And when did you last consider whether you’re easy to work with or not? (For some ideas, read the article “Are you easy?” in the January issue of THE LEAN COMMUNICATOR™.)

• What do you need to start doing? Do you need to listen to more voices? Involve people more? Measure more relevant issues? Experiment more with social media?

These simple questions can start some very involved and thorny discussions. They also may expose some vulnerabilities in processes, people and purpose.

In fact, Senge says the mere act of asking difficult questions can show a sense of vulnerability, which is why leaders (but not 2-year-olds) are often reluctant to ask challenging questions that will ignite demanding conversations. Yet, these conversations are necessary to make sure you’re on the right track for 2010 and the rest of the teens.

Liz Guthridge is a consultant, author, and trainer specializing in strategic change communications. Department leaders of Fortune 1000 companies hire Liz and her firm Connect Consulting Group LLC when they need their people—who are confused, angry or in denial—to adopt complex new initiatives so they can quickly change the way they work. For more information, contact Liz, liz.guthridge@connectconsultinggroup.com or 510-527-1213. Follow Liz on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/lizguthridge.

At some date in the first months of 2010, women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Females already make up the majority of university graduates in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries as well as the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. And women already run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France.

As a speaker at business conferences, I’ve addressed organizations around the world, and I’ve seen the genuine commitment that many companies have made to develop the leadership abilities of female employees and to create workplace environments with family-friendly policies and flexible work arrangements — all in hopes of attracting, retaining and grooming women for top management roles.

But despite this effort and this progress, far-too-many talented females, still bump their heads on a glass ceiling: Only 2% of the senior leaders of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women.

In my book, “The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work,” I talk about the power of silent signals in the workplace. So I was fascinated to come across research that helps explain why even the best-intentioned efforts at developing women leaders are failing.

This is research that deals with emergent leadership in groups of equal status. And the findings have everything to do with body language.

Doré Butler and Florence Geis at the University of Delaware compared the nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders and found that intellectual assertiveness by women in mixed-sex discussions elicits visible nonverbal cues of negative affect. Females taking a leadership role in the group received fewer pleased responses and more displeased responses from fellow group members than male leaders speaking up and offering the same input.

From earlier research, we know that displeased expressions by fellow group members
cause a leader’s contribution to be rated less valuable than the identical contribution when
embedded with cues of approval. So you can see how women’s ideas can be devalued
simply by receiving less positive and more negative responses than men’s contributions of
the same objective quality.

Here’s what can happen in a team meeting: A woman states her opinion. In response, negative nonverbal affect cues — frowns, head shakes, eye contact avoidance, etc. — are displayed, processed, and often mimicked by the entire group to produce a negative consensus about the value of her contribution. And all of this occurs without individuals on the team being aware of what’s happening.

At a time when conscious responses (direct answers on questionnaires, etc.) are becoming increasingly egalitarian, covert, unconscious responses still reflect discrimination against women taking a leadership role. Since hiring, salary, and promotion (especially to top leadership positions) often depend on being recognized as an emergent leader, this puts females at a distinct disadvantage.

Three key points:

1. This was a study of leadership behaviors in peer groups. There is no evidence to suggest that women in formal leadership roles generate any greater negative (or less positive) emotional cues than do their male counterparts.

2. This was not about men discounting the contribution of women. The groups in the study had an equal mix of male and female members.

3. The power of nonverbal communication lies its unconscious nature — and bringing the covert into awareness can help nullify its effect. (So, circulate this article!)

So, if you want to groom women for top positions in your organization, keep doing those things that have proven to be helpful: Offer females the coaching, mentors, and career opportunities that develop leadership potential.

But, in addition, pay attention to your own body language. Employees look for and emulate the nonverbal signals they get from their bosses. Current leaders can help create a level playing field for emergent leaders by providing the same cues of positive affect (eye contact, smiling, nodding, leaning forward, etc.) when listening to women as they do when listening to men.

Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D. is the author of nine books including CREATIVITY IN BUSINESS and  “THIS ISN’T THE COMPANY I JOINED” — How to Lead in a Business Turned Upside Down. She delivers keynote speeches and seminars to association and business audiences around the world. For more information or to book Carol as a speaker at one of your events, please call: 510-526-1727, email: CGoman@CKG.com, or visit her website: http://www.CKG.com.

I’ve learned a few things about selling a house. I know, for instance, that much depends on timing (economic timing as well as the time of year you put the house on the market), and of course the mantra “location, location, location” is still paramount. I’ve also found out that a property needs “curb appeal.” That is, it needs to make a special, positive, and instant impression when prospective buyers first see it.

So when I read Drew Westen’s fabulous book, The Political Brain (about the role of emotion in politics), I wasn’t at all surprised to learn that curb appeal is also crucial in political campaigns.

Of course, Westen is referring to personal curb appeal. According to Westen, “One of the main determinants of electoral success,” he explains, “is simply a candidate’s curb appeal. Curb appeal is the feeling voters get when they ‘drive by’ a candidate a few times on television and form an emotional impression.”

Research shows that personal curb appeal can be assessed quickly. Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Bob Rosenthal conducted experiments involving what they called “thin slices of behavior.” These studies have been referenced in numerous writings – most famously, in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink. In one such study, subjects watched a 30-second clip of college teachers at the beginning of a term and rated them on characteristics such as accepting, active, competent, and confident. The results were startling. Raters were able to accurately predict how students would evaluate those same teachers at the end of the course.

Personal curb appeal is also primarily a nonverbal process. When Ambady and Rosenthal turned off the audio portion of the teachers’ video clip, so that subjects had to rely only on body language cues, the accuracy of their 30-second predictions remained just as high.

How’s your personal curb appeal? When your co-workers, clients, and business partners “drive by” you, how do you come across? If you’d like to improve, here are five tips to keep in mind:

1) Dress for success.

Joyce is a successful educator and entrepreneur. One of the secrets of her success is the way she dresses. Even when traveling for a vacation, Joyce is in a business suit and heels. Her motto: “Wear great clothes. You never know whom you’ll meet!”

When it comes to curb appeal, the way you dress matters. A lot. Clothing has an effect on both the observer and the wearer. It has been proven that people are more likely to give money (charitable donations, tips) or information to someone if that person is well dressed. And, if you’d ever watched actors at their first dress rehearsal, you’d be convinced of the power of the right costume to powerfully impact what the wearer feels.

Dressing for success doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to wear a suit to work. Many organizations have a more casual dress code. But it does mean that whatever you wear should help you make the statement that you are a competent professional.

2) Maintain positive eye contact.

Eye contact is most effective when both parties feel its intensity is appropriate for the situation. This may differ with introverts/extroverts, men/women, or between different cultures. But, in general, greater eye contact — especially in intervals lasting four to five seconds –almost always leads to greater liking.

Looking at someone’s eyes transmits energy and indicates interest. As long as you are looking at me, I believe that I have your full attention. In my book, The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work, I offer a simple way to improve your likeability factor: Whenever you greet a business colleague, remember to look into her eyes long enough to notice what color they are.

3) Learn to speak the body language of inclusion.

Back-to-back doesn’t do it. But belly-to-belly – facing people directly when talking with them – does. Even a quarter turn away signals your lack of interest and makes the speaker shut down.

Remove barriers between you and the other person. Take away things that block your view. Move the phone or stacks of paper on your desk. Better still, come out from behind your desk and sit next to the person you’re dealing with.

Use palm-up hand gestures when speaking. Keeping your movements relaxed, using open arm gestures, and showing the palms of your hands — all are silent signals of credibility and candor. Individuals with open gestures are perceived more positively and are more persuasive than those with closed gestures (arms crossed, hands hidden or held close to the body, etc.).

Synchronize your body language to mirror your partner’s. Subtly match his stance, arm positions and facial expressions. You may not realize, by the way, that you do this naturally with people you genuinely like or agree with. It’s a way of nonverbally signaling that you are connected and engaged.

4. Use your head.

The next time you are in a conversation where you’re trying to encourage the other person to speak more, nod your head using clusters of three nods at regular intervals. Research shows that people will talk three to four times more than usual when the listener nods in this manner. You’ll be amazed at how this single nonverbal signal can trigger such a positive response.

Head tilting is another signal that you are interested and involved. As such, head tilts can be very positive cues when you want to send messages of empathy and understanding. But a tilted head is also subconsciously processed as a submission signal. (Dogs will tilt to show their necks in deference to a more dominant animal.) And in business negotiations with men, women – who tend to head-tilt the most – should keep their heads straight up in a more neutral position.

5) Activate your smile power.

A smile is an invitation, a sign of welcome. It says, “I’m friendly and approachable.” The human brain prefers happy faces, recognizing them more quickly than those with negative expressions. In fact, a smile is such an important signal to social interaction that it can be recognized from 300 feet — more than a football field away.

Most importantly, smiling directly influences how other people respond to you. When you smile at someone, they almost always smile in return. And, because facial expressions trigger corresponding feelings, the smile you get back actually changes that person’s emotional state in a positive way. This one simple act will instantly and powerfully increase your curb appeal.

Drew Westen found that, after party affiliation, the most important predictor of how people vote is their emotional reaction (gut feeling) toward the candidate. I found similar results in the work place. We all want to do business with and work for people who come across as friendly, trustworthy, competent, confident, and empathetic.

I can’t guarantee you’ll win a political election. But improve your curb appeal and I will guarantee that you’ll be more successful in your career.

Do you stay grounded in the basics when it comes to leadership communications?

The basics entail:

1. Appreciating that information overload is a significant barrier to effective communication.

2. Regularly using face-to-face as one of your channels.

3. Being accountable, which involves measuring, adjusting and reassessing.

How can you tell if your organization is teetering toward disengagement?

Here are four common warning signs. None of them will surprise you, but perhaps you should remind yourself just how ominous they are.

If you notice even one, you should take action. If you don’t act, you will soon notice another one, and then another, and eventually all four.

Not in My Silo. Companies consist of divisions and departments. In the best organizations, these divisions and departments work together. There are lots of cross-functional efforts to resolve issues and develop new products and services. The “enemy” is understood to be the competition, not another part of the same company. In the worst organizations, the various divisions and departments keep to themselves and scorn one another. They never exchange best practices or collaborate on common challenges. The executives in one division or department may not trust or even know their counterparts elsewhere in the organization. So you hear blame and recrimination when you should hear camaraderie and collective good will. Most organizations are somewhere between the extremes. Which way you’re trending is an important indicator. When in doubt, ask the smokers who take breaks outside with smokers from other departments. They have the inside scoop.

The Proverbial Gorilla. Let’s say you are planning the agenda for an important management meeting. Everyone knows that a particular issue needs to be addressed. But no one is willing to say so. The planning proceeds apace, and the agenda gains final approval—without any mention of the critical issue. What you have here is fear and cynicism. No one wants to risk censure for speaking up, and no one expects anything to change anyway. So everyone just goes along. You can bet the issue will come up at the important management meeting. It just won’t be on the agenda, and it won’t have a microphone. It will be in the hallways, in whispers.

The Three Monkeys. Japanese folklore offers a wonderful metaphor for this common problem: the three wise monkeys who hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Similar to the Proverbial Gorilla, this phenomenon instead describes the reluctance of employees, supervisors, and middle managers to alert senior management to imminent delays and problems, until it is too late to do anything about them. Research shows that almost everyone is aware of a pending issue of some sort, but few people have the courage and confidence to speak up. Management that “shoots the messenger” is usually why.

The Naked Emperor. We all remember the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale about the emperor who buys new clothes from swindlers who sell him such fancy silk that only the smartest and wisest people can see it. Of course the emperor is embarrassed to admit, even to himself, that he cannot see the fabric. So he proceeds to dress in his new “suit,” and he goes out in public stark naked. No one dares tell him he is naked, save a little boy who is too innocent to know better. If, as a manager at any level, you do not have relationships of candor and honesty, you risk walking naked in public. At the very least, you need someone to tell you the truth about your leadership. If you have no one, get a coach and listen to her or him. Above all, don’t shoot the messenger!

There are others, but in most organizations with engagement issues, these four are the most common. The good news is you can see them plainly. The tough part is turning things around.

Don’t Miss Any Posts at MindingGaps.com. Click Here to Subscribe Free.

Thomas Lee has been benchmarking best-practice companies in organizational communication for almost 15 years. To date he has personally benchmarked almost 30 leading American corporations, including 3M, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, DuPont, Weyerhaeuser, Levi-Strauss, McDonald’s, Shell Exploration, Duke Energy, and many others.