New Eye Contact Rules for Speakers

We all know (likely because we have been told numerous times) that we must look at our audience when we are speaking with/to them.  This does make intuitive sense given that we do want them to feel that we are actually communicating with them and not simply pontificating.  However, new technological advances, most notably the use of eye tracking devices in psychological studies, provide us with more targeted information concerning the appropriate amount of eye contact necessary to connect.

I have long been telling my training participants that you need roughly 3-6 seconds of eye contact with your audience in order to 'connect' with them.  Shorter is good for acknowledging their presence, but we need that longer time frame in order for them to feel as though we are truly seeing and speaking with them.  As it turns out, I was roughly correct.

When speaking with a group of strangers (such as an audience) then making eye contact for 3-5 seconds to connect with and engage them is the right amount.  However, when we are meeting with someone one on one, then we need to look at them longer to connect, 7 - 10 seconds.  Although this may seem like a fairly lengthy period of time, bear in mind that when we are in conversation with someone, as we likely would be when one on one, we will be both speaking and listening.  We will typically look at people more when we are listening, and less when we are speaking, which is one of the reasons why making eye contact when on stage proves difficult for us.

When we are on stage we are speaking all of the time and therefore lack the opportunity to connect with someone while listening.  We must therefore push ourselves to make eye contact more consistently with others while speaking, which may go against some of our natural habits.  Generally we make eye contact with others roughly about 60% of our conversations, more for African-Americans, less for Asian-Americans.
When we are attempting to persuade someone however, some of the rules shift a little.  If we are making a relatively simple request of someone then our eye contact will be a positive benefit in helping us be more persuasive.  If what we need is a little more complex though, and we will be speaking about it for a longer period of time (like a speech or presentation), then too much or too long of eye contact doesn't serve us. We will likely be seen as being a little too pushy.  Additionally, if our audience has an existing position that opposes our own, then too direct or prolonged of eye contact is likely to strengthen their position rather than sway them to ours.  In this case, more eye contact will be associated with dominance and intimidation.

What to do then?  When you know that you are going to be speaking about something controversial then reduce the amount of eye contact a little.  Fall back to the lower 3 second end of the scale.  When speaking about subjects that are fairly safe, or when speaking with those that you already know well, more eye contact will be appropriate.

Of course it is important to actually look at people when you are attempting to make eye contact.  None of the 'faking it' suggestions such as:  look at their forehead, look between their eyes, look slightly over their heads... works.  People know when you are looking them in the eyes and they know when you are not. It is far better to make a solid connection with some than no connection with anyone.

The easiest way to gain some comfort with eye contact is to begin paying more attention to your current conversations.  Start with conversations you have with co-workers and friends that you know well and are comfortable with.  Pay attention to how you're making eye contact, where you're looking, how long you are engaging them through your eyes.  It is far easier to replicate this behaviour, in moments of discomfort, if you are aware of what you do when you are comfortable.


And for even more tips, check out this great resource...

Failure or Near-Win?

So much of how we experience life is based on how we perceive it.  Shakespeare himself highlighted this in Hamlet when Hamlet says "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".  It is our thoughts that shape our perceptions and, in turn, our experiences.  When we apply this to the concept of Success, it stands to reason then that the way in which we view our apparent 'lack of Success' will influence the actions we take in the future and, in turn, the level of Success we achieve.

There is a vast difference in our minds between thinking of our 'lack of success' as a failure or as a near-win. Both mean that we have not  hit our target, to have fully achieved what we set out to.  However, the label we apply to that result determines what comes next.  The 'label' will ultimately serve to determine the actions we take, either propelling us forward, turning us in a new direction or leading us to give up the attempt.

Studies have been conducted that look at the impact of achieving silver or bronze in the Olympics.  In many studies it has been found that Bronze medalists are far happier with their achievement than are Silver medalists.  Bronze winners are happy because they medalled.  They tend to compare their achievements against all those below them, all those who did not medal, and count themselves fortunate.  Silver medalists however, compare their achievement against the Gold medalist, the place that they had aimed and fallen short of.  They are therefore not as happy with their result as are Bronze medalists.  If we were simply looking at who is happiest with the outcome of a race we would then find it better to finish Gold, Bronze and then Silver.

However, further studies have taken a longer term perspective, reviewing the impact of the finish on future performance.  These findings have determined that more silver-place finishers go on to achieve gold in future than do bronze.  That 'Near-win' has served to reinforce their need and desire to train harder, propelling them forward.  That near-win leads them to believe they can eliminate the gap existing between them and the gold, cementing their focus on that goal.

How many of us might have pushed a little further, done a little more, had we categorized our lack of a win as a near-win, rather than as a failure?

How many of us would have stuck with something longer if we had felt we were 'close' to succeeding?

Our perspective of an event not only serves to define how we feel about that event, but also our future actions.  It's those near-wins that push us forward, that propel us to do more, to try harder.  This is what true mastery is about, the ongoing pursuit of excellence.  It is about the desire to continuously improve, whether your skill or knowledge, and to use that new-found ability to do more and better.  Masters of art, of literature, of sport, of music... became so out of the determination to improve upon their near-wins, their 'almosts', their 'can do betters'.  It was the constant pursuit of 'better' that led to their mastery.  The desire for 'better' being driven out of their view that they were almost there.  Not being there yet was not a failure, it simply meant they were close, that they were not done.  Success meant being closer today than they were yesterday.

Think of how this small shift in your thinking and perspective might be applied to your life.  Where have you applied the label of 'failure' to your actions that you could replace with the vision that they were all 'near-wins'?  How does this impact and perhaps alter your choices and future actions?

We tend to thrive when we have more to do, not when we feel we've done it all.  What 'more' is there for you to do and experience in your life?  Focus on your near-wins, turning each into a winning strategy for yourself.