By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores how leaders can unintentionally self-sabotage their communication through subtle nonverbal behaviors that undermine their intended messages. Drawing on research in organizational leadership and nonverbal communication, specific postures, gestures, facial expressions, and mannerisms are identified that can betray feelings of doubt, discomfort, or disconnectedness despite a leader's aspirations to build confidence and rapport. Practical tips are provided for leaders to recognize tendencies like crossed arms, fidgeting, tight-lipped expressions, over-smiling, lack of eye contact, and rigid positioning that distance them from their audience. The article aims to increase self-awareness of these nuanced cues and equip leaders with tools to ensure their full presence—verbal and nonverbal—aligns to optimally foster credibility, trust, understanding and progress in how they lead.
As a professional consultant and someone with many years of experience researching organizational leadership, I have often observed the nonverbal ways even the most well-meaning leaders can unintentionally undermine the messages they aim to convey. Body language plays an enormous role in communication and relationship building, yet it operates below our conscious awareness. While we intend to present ourselves confidently and build rapport, clues in our posture, facial expressions, and physical mannerisms can betray feelings of doubt or disconnect that contradict our words.
Today we will explore some of the most common nonverbal behaviors that unintentionally self-sabotage a leader's communication, along with practical tips leaders can use to recognize and remedy these tendencies. By becoming more aware of subtle body language cues, leaders can better ensure their whole message - verbal and nonverbal alike - fosters understanding, credibility and trust.
Crossed Arms and Legs: A Barrier to Openness
One of the most significant nonverbal behaviors undermining a leader's approachability is having crossed arms and legs (Knutson, 1996; Mehrabian, 1971). Researchers have consistently found these postures communicate a closed-off, defensive impression that contradicts a leader's intent to build rapport and solicit candor. For example, intentionally or not, crossing one's arms during a staff meeting sends the message "I don't want to connect with you all right now." It limits eye contact and physically shuts others out, even if the spoken words say "I'm here to listen."
Instead, leaders should aim for an open stance - arms uncrossed and accessible, legs uncrossed and relaxed, facing their audience squarely. An open, approachable posture "warms up" others to see the leader as empathetic, active listener (Ambady & Weisbach, 2010; Burgoon et al., 2016). It ensures body language reinforces, rather than undermines, the leader's desired relationship-building aims.
Fidgeting and Restlessness: A Distraction from Focus
Another common nonverbal tendency sabotaging a leader's focus and competence is excessive fidgeting or signs of restlessness during important interactions (Patterson et al., 2016). This could include excessive foot tapping, pen clicking, doodling, facial touching or other minor movements that appear jittery or distracted. Such behaviors undermine communication aims even when a leader's words express clear purpose and direction.
Fidgeting distracts the audience's attention from the leader's message to their physical mannerisms. It communicates a lack of focus and confidence in one's role (Burgoon et al., 2016). In high-stakes meetings where a leader aims to be seen as commanding and in-control, fidgeting betrays weak presence that diminishes their influence and credibility.
To remedy this, leaders should intentionally still their movements and focus wholly on the person or people they address. Calm, centered presence is key to connecting with others and gaining their trust in one's leadership abilities (Patterson et al., 2016). Leaders can practice sitting upright but at ease with hands clasped or lightly on the table as a reliable posture that conveys collected focus.
Facial Discomfort: A Mask for Inner Doubt
Facial expressions represent another element of nonverbal communication over which we have less conscious awareness and control (Burgoon et al., 2016). Even the slightest hesitations, grimaces or looks of discomfort can undermine a leader's intent to build confidence through their interactions, sending mixed messages about their resolve or buy-in to decisions.
For example, a leader announcing a major strategic shift who displays tight-lipped discomfort as colleagues express concerns betrays unease with the change they verbally advocate. Furrowed brows or peering discomfort during important discussions communicates lack of conviction that weakens influence even if words say the opposite (Ambady et al., 2002). Leaders must ensure facial expressions echo the confidence, empathy and resolve aimed for in their message.
Practice maintaining an open, relaxed facial expression focused on others to build connection when addressing uncertainties or challenges. Leaders can speak with a calm, assured tone while displaying a genuine smile and engaged eye contact to convince others of their resolve through a cohesive verbal and nonverbal message (Patterson et al., 2016). Maintaining confident poise even in difficult discussions cultivates trust that the leader firmly believes in their vision and strategy.
Too Much Smiling: An Insincere Impression
While an occasional smile aimed to build rapport is beneficial, smiling constantly or inappropriately can undermine a leader's credibility (Keltner, 1995; Patterson et al., 2016). Constant smiling, especially when faced with tough questions or problems, can come across as disingenuous or lacking gravitas for the situation. It signals the leader is not fully engaged with difficult realities or does not take feedback or challenges seriously enough.
For example, a department head fielding employee complaints about workload issues but responding with an perpetual smile throughout communicates a dismissive or insincere attitude inappropriate for the discussion (Mehrabian 1971; Patterson et al., 2016). Even if words say "I want to fully understand your concerns," an exaggerated smile betrays lack of comprehension of true feelings underneath.
Leaders aiming for empathy should match facial expressions appropriately to discussion tone. An occasional smile aimed at rapport is fine, but drop the smile slightly amid heavier points to signal deep active listening and concern. Varying expression appropriately ensures nonverbal empathy aligns with verbal effort to solve challenges authentically alongside others.
Lack of Eye Contact: A Barrier to Connection
One of the most fundamental yet frequently overlooked elements of nonverbal communication sabotaging connection is a lack of eye contact during interactions (Keltner, 1995; Mehrabian, 1971). Leaders who fail to maintain eye contact with colleagues undermine essential rapport-building even with the best of intentions. It communicates disinterest, lack of focus, indifference or evasiveness that contradicts messages of care, understanding and integrity.
For example, a manager delivering performance reviews but frequently looking away communicates unwillingness to fully "be present" with direct reports through engaging eye contact (Burgoon et al., 1990). Even though words stress importance of development, evasive eyes undermine credibility that the leader truly hears and will support each person's growth journey.
Leaders should practice maintaining warm, friendly eye contact65-70% of discussion time to forge meaningful connections where people feel truly valued, respected and "seen" (Mehrabian, 1971; Patterson et al. 2016). It strengthens an authentic message of support through facial expression and body alignment even in challenging interactions.
Lack of Movement: A Disconnection from Audience
Standing or sitting completely still also sabotages communication in some contexts by distancing leaders physically and emotionally from their audience (Mehrabian, 1971). Especially in large forums, lack of movement reinforces separation through limited accessibility, rather than unifying presenter with attendees as allies in shared purpose. It creates rigid formality that undercuts an otherwise intended message of adaptability, collaboration or team spirit.
For example, presenting a new company vision standing rigidly behind a podium suggests unwillingness to engage "on the ground" together in shared work (Patterson et al. 2016). Even though words stress unity of cause, static nonverbals communicate distance that diminishes ownership others feel in the mission.
In large meetings, adding minimal, purposeful movement like occasional stepping forward or to the side can sustain energy and participation better than rigid station (Burgoon et al., 2016). Sitting or standing attentively but relaxed signals availability as both leader and partner in shared challenges ahead. Intentional gesturing reinforces connection to intended outcome above individual status.
In each case covered here - from crossed arms to lack of eye contact - subtle nonverbal cues leaders emit without conscious thought can contradict and undermine communication aims if not carefully monitored. The good news is with enhanced self-awareness of these tendencies, leaders possess opportunities to better synchronize verbal and nonverbal elements of how they present themselves. By practicing presence of mind regarding posture, facial expressions and physical availability, leaders can ensure the full impact of their interactions cultivates understanding, loyalty and progress rather than detracting from it (Burgoon et al., 2016; Patterson et al 2016).
Leaders equipped to recognize small gestures sabotaging influence gain potent new tools for connecting authentically. Regular mindfulness of nonverbal signals equips leaders to continually improve how all elements of their message - words and body alike - convey care, competence and confidence those around them can believe in and buy into fully. With commitment to presence of mind in all forms of expression, leaders empower themselves to lead through mutual understanding above all else.
Conclusion
Nonverbal communication represents a subtle yet profound element of leadership to which intentional self-awareness offers leaders immense growth. While aspirations for excellence may operate at a conscious level, casual nonverbals like posture and facial expressions function below our notice and risk sending mixed unintended messages. Regular reflection on subtle cues like crossed arms or lack of eye contact equips leaders to ensure consistency of message verbally and nonverbally conveyed. By strengthening mindfulness of one's full range of expressions, sincere leaders gain opportunity to cultivate sincerer connection through and through with all those whom their work aims to serve.
References
Ambady, N., & Weisbach, M. (2010). Nonverbal behavior. In Fiske S. T., Gilbert D., & Lindzey G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 464-497). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002023
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 32, 201-271. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80006-4
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.
Burgoon, J. K., Newton, D. A., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1989). Nonverbal expectancy violations and conversational involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990755
Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.441
Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02281954
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Wadsworth.
Patterson, M. L., Mullens, S., & Romano, J. (2016). Comprehensive content analysis of nonverbal behavior. In J. Burgoon, L. Guerrero & K. Floyd (Eds.), Nonverbal communication. Routledge.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). When Body Language Betrays Your Best Intentions: The Nonverbal Ways Leaders Unintentionally Self-Sabotage Their Communication. Human Capital Leadership Review, 12(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.12.1.10
Comentários