Being Impressive

Posted: March 9, 2007 at 4:12 am in management, people

In the Columbia program, our first professor (and founder of the program), Art Langer, spoke in the fall about the ingredients of being a leader. One of the things he emphasized was the importance of “being impressive”. It’s easy to dismiss that – it seems subjective and difficult to control.

But I was sitting in class last week and realized that there were certain classmates of mine who I always paid attention to – if they were making a comment in class, I wanted to hear it. There are other classmates who don’t demand my attention in the same way. And what’s interesting to me is that I suspect that if I did a survey of my classmates, most of us would pick the same few people as being the ones whose comments are found useful; in other words, the ones who are impressive.

So what goes into being impressive? Part of it is the general demeanor of quiet confidence. Confidence is obvious, as if one doesn’t believe in the value of what one is saying, it’s definitely not impressive. But the quiet part is important as well. The ones who really impress me are quiet most of the time, observing the conversation, but when they decide to join in, they have something significant to contribute, which makes me hang on their words. If they spoke all the time, the perceived import of their contributions would be lessened.

Experience also helps. It’s easier to be credible if one has had first-hand experience with the topic of discussion. I can blather on all day about a topic, but as soon as somebody says “well, when I was doing that…”, people pay attention. The people whose comments I find impressive in class are the ones that have clearly thought through the issue and considered the various options. They have often figured out how to apply the concept in their own life, and can speak from that basis. We can tell when somebody is just throwing an idea out there to hear themselves speak versus when they are sharing hard-earned experience.

So the obvious next question is if these are the ingredients of being impressive, how can I be impressive? Let’s tackle the second characteristic first. Phil Agre describes the process of becoming a leader in your field, which involves picking a focus and becoming the locus of communication for it. Jofish has the theory of serial expertise, wherein one picks areas where one can quickly become an expert. Until one has that solid base of knowledge, it’s difficult to have the confidence to speak authoritatively.

As an aside, this is one of the advantages of being a generalist. If everybody else is expert in one field, and you are merely competent in many, your expertise will exceed theirs in most areas. Of course, when you run into a real expert, your bluff will be called (I was talking about art with a liberal arts major last year and was almost keeping up my end of the conversation until the point where she stopped and said “Oh, wait, you know way less about this than I thought”. Ow). But the rest of the time, “in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”, as they say.

The quiet confidence is harder to cultivate. There is definitely a need for social awareness. It does matter how one is perceived. People that realize that their comments reflect on themselves and their reputation are necessarily more reflective and circumspect. They will be reserved and will only speak when they have something valuable to contribute. This is a skill I’m obviously still developing, as I spent too many years defiantly not caring how I was perceived. Unsurprisingly, the image others had of me was negative (complainer, troublemaker, etc.). Now I’m realizing the value of keeping my mouth shut and of waiting until I have something to contribute, to not complain about problems unless I also offer solutions.

It’s a tricky balance. Caring too much about what others think turns one into a sycophant. So there’s the tension between asserting one’s own expertise and bragging, between being aware of others’ opinions and being controlled by them. There’s a line to be walked, and the ones that manage it truly do stand out as impressive. And they’re the kind of people that I would line up to follow.

P.S. Speaking of following compelling leaders, a coworker and I had a disagreement, so I’m throwing it out to the blogosphere. Should one call one’s employees minions or acolytes?

P.P.S. Posting this way too early in the morning because nehrlich.com was down last night when I wrote this.

9 Responses to “Being Impressive”

  1. Jofish Says:

    D00d. You didn’t even *mention* the importance of having a British accent. Works every time.

  2. Beemer Says:

    “Minions”, of course.
    Acolytes? Pshyeah, whatever!
    “Henchlings” is also an option, though.

  3. Jen L Says:

    Minions, definitely. Minions must do your bidding, whereas acolytes has religious overtones that imply that you and the acolytes both worship the same idea (divinity, corporate structure, whatever), and therefore you and they both serve the ends of a larger power.

    I also like lackeys, and if you want a militaristic variation, myrmidons.

  4. Christy Says:

    Monkeys, definitely.
    Monkey Minions, if at all possible.

    Can they fly?

  5. Christy Says:

    On a more serious note: you and I both have the (problem?) that we tend to think out loud, or rather, problem solve through conversation. This means we’re just not good at sitting back and processing until it’s time to drop an impressive comment- we talk too damn much to ever be impressive by this metric.

    Certainly there are other ways to be impressive- Jofish mentions cultivating an accent, which seems to work wonders for him even though he’s hardly parsimonious with his speech.

    Other routes to being impressive: track record (your advice turns out to be RIGHT, dammit), depth of knowledge, voice, height?

    Clearly you should develop an accent and be just a little bit taller.

  6. Wes Says:

    I HATE that height usually counts. But then again, I love that brains usually count, too, so I guess that’s a wash.

    But back on point. I don’t find quiet confidence to be as impressive as engaged confidence. I gravitate more towards the leader of the conversation than towards the one lobbing the occasional nugget of wisdom into its midst, and I also prefer to be the former over the latter.

    I am enjoying reading the links you have provided, and will stop talking now so that I can resume reading.

  7. Eric Says:

    And posting a comment now, nearly 24 hours later, not having slept in the interim because I’m stupid and crazy.

    To Wes’s comment, I’m actually always surprised to realized that you are not as tall in person as I think you are – you are impressive and that’s what matters. Whereas I tend to slouch which takes away any height advantage I might have – it projects that I don’t think I have anything worth hearing so nobody should listen to me.

    I think part of the reason that the quiet confidence impresses me is because it’s the opposite of my style, as Christy points out. I tend to be the one in the middle of conversations that are of interest to me, so having somebody else in that role means we’re fighting for control, whereas the conversation works better with a quiet deep thinker, which makes sense when I think of it in terms of the recipe for a good conversation.

  8. cyberlyra Says:

    MINIONS!!!!!
    :) :) :)

  9. Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist || Leadership || May || 2009 Says:

    [...] Is it about being impressive? [...]

Leave a Reply

RSS feed

LinkedIn profile

Twitter

Ripping the groomers on a snowboard yesterday, doubles sand volleyball this morning: California living!

Recent Posts

  • Hosting update
  • Don’t act like a special snowflake
  • Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
  • 2013 review
  • Inequality, Globalization and Technology
  • Random Posts

  • Seizing The Moment
  • “The Guy” and community
  • 21 Dog Years, by Mike Daisey
  • Crime pays, or why people suck
  • Amusing anecdotes


  • Archives

  • Categories