Power Pose & Stilettos - Can They Create Confidence?

Yesterday morning, I happened to catch Hoda and Kathie Lee while at the airport. Interestingly, the segment I watched featured two life coaches opining on how to "Create Confidence".  They advised adopting a "power pose," citing research which demonstrated that a power pose for as little as two minutes can boost confidence, making people feel more powerful and more willing to take risks.

The segment continued with advice on how to be more assertive and improve your confidence when walking into a business. Their first piece of advice: "wear stilettos". The positive attributes of that instruction are aligned with research that indicates taller is better and taller is more attractive which is also better and sex sells which is ...well, a fact. However, this strategy fails if you have to walk either fast or any distance. Try and walk six blocks on uneven concrete  to a meeting dragging a wheelie bag. Not only will you fail at impressing, your flat shoed male colleagues will end up either waiting for you, or not.

As an expert in communication, I endorse the idea of using space and body language to your advantage. However, a stiletto might not have been my first go to accessory to suggest. 

What's your "go to" confidence booster? 

Juror Fashion - What Does It Mean?

Jurors showed up today donning sports team wear for the Drew Peterson trial. It is not as uncommon as you might think for jurors to get all matchy matchy during trial. At the Edwards trial, jurors had red, purple, grey and even black days. Sports jerseys were seen recently in a murder trial in an east coast courtroom. Scooter Libby faced a jury dressed in Valentine apparel shortly before his conviction. There are likely dozens of other unreported instances of ‘team jury’ apparel.

 

What does it mean? It could mean the jurors are just messing with us. They want some attention, are releasing tension or have started to bond on a hostage level. Most likely they are trying to amuse themselves. Being admonished daily not to discuss the case and running out of weather (it is just hot) conversation, they have taken to game playing. Think of it as a long boring car trip. You find other ways to entertain yourselves. They are no doubt tired of counting the number of ‘uhms’, guessing what color tie will be worn by which attorney and pondering lunch. But unless they show up in matching orange jump suits…don’t read too much into jury fashion.

Tattoo This

Hello Readers - ZMFer Alan Tuerkheimer is filling in with a guest blog for me since I have spent more time on airplanes than on laptops recently. Talk soon! Warmly, Theresa

Who here thinks about the 1981 Rolling Stones album “Tattoo You” upon hearing the word “Tattoo” 28 years later? Probably not many. Probably not even the members of the Rolling Stones who released that album nearly three decades ago. Back in the ‘80s, my association with “Tattoo” was that album. Since then, society has undergone a rapid transformation from a time when tattoos were the exclusive body design of felons, Hell’s Angels, and seriously rebellious teens. Nowadays, you don’t even have to look carefully to see how mainstream tattoos have become and how many people you would never expect to have them, have them. Men in Armani suits, middle-age women, professionals, salespeople, appellate lawyers, real young, real old, real educated, real uneducated, the list goes on and on and on.

A study in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed that about 24% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 50 have at least one tattoo, and that 36% of those between 18 and 29 have a tattoo.

So what exactly does having a tattoo mean? Is it purely symbolic? Why do people decide to permanently burn a display onto their skin? And of those, how many regret doing it later in life (or 20 minutes later)? Is there significance to where on someone’s body it is? Surely where and what it is means something. Answers to these questions get at the overarching question of what do tattoos communicate? Since communication is a two-way street, we have to look at what the person with the tattoo wants to convey, or more accurately what he or she is conveying, and what the person looking at it interprets the tattoo to mean.

My psychologist friend thinks that those with tattoos covering their entire body have a fear of forming and sustaining attachments to others. Many people will shun someone full of tattoos, so tattoos all over someone’s face and body typically serve as a barrier to anything deeper than superficial personal interaction. However, those who can look past the shell of tattoos are less likely to turn away from that person once they penetrate through the wall of tattoos.

One quick note, I personally agree with NY Times columnist David Brooks who feels that, while there are exceptions, most people who have tattoos thought they were unique and doing something only few others were doing. However, now, they are realizing all they have done is something incredibly mainstream, non-rebellious and non-individualistic. Since many people initially got tattoos thinking they would be making a statement and were being rebellious, it is ironic that now only the truest of non-conformists seem not to have tattoos.

So I decided to give it a shot and ask people their thoughts. Here are some of the consistent thematic responses my question generated. Remember, I just asked what people think of tattoos and what they think of people who have them.

• Tattoos are fine if they are tactful.
• People are trying to satisfy some internal desire to take a walk on the wild side/be naughty while being able to keep it hidden when desired.
• If you get one, I hear you want another.
• If you get one, people regret getting them.
• They make people feel special, unique, powerful.
• It is a 'tramp stamp' for women and for men they want to impress people (i.e., with the “look at my biceps burst through barbed wire” tattoo).
• It is a statement. Not sure what. Depends on tattoo.

Interestingly, people often go into personal stories about their own tattoos, as if an excuse or story is necessary to justify the ink. For example, someone who knows someone who got a tattoo and then a month later broke up with the person who inspired them to get it in the first place. Drunken stories about people getting tattoos and then having mixed reactions the very next day abound. Many of the people asked also took on a defensive posture when answering the question, as if the question itself seems to search for criticism of people who have tattoos. The point is that similar to many topics, there is an array of opinions about and experience with tattoos that makes it difficult to generalize what is communicated by having one. Other than the situation and venue (i.e., bar versus job interview) what will help determine what a tattoo communicates is a) what the tattoo is, b) the relationship of the people communicating, c) any incongruity with the tattoo and the person, and d) the range of attitudes people hold about tattoos in general.

Alan Tuerkheimer, M.A., J.D. utilizes his background in psychology and law as a litigation consultant for ZMF. His experience conducting jury research has given him an in-depth understanding of people’s attitudes, biases and decision-making processes. He is highly sought-after due to his ability to deliver solutions that bridge the communication gap between trial team and jury. Alan earned his J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School and completed his graduate and undergraduate work in Psychology from Connecticut College and University of Wisconsin, respectively.

Dress To Impress?!

In my quest to get out more in the blogosphere, I read a recent post in the WSJ Law Blog about Women Litigators and their Courtroom Footwear Dilemma. The question posed – if a woman litigator “appeared before an 80-year-old male judge in something actually comfortable, not to mention a jury, would you be doing your clients a disservice?” As someone who makes my livelihood studying how jurors respond to lawyers (and also a shoe fan), the post and more than fifty subsequent comments struck a nerve. The conversation even held my interest. That is until two weeks ago when I walked into a federal courtroom and saw a woman who defied all conventional wisdom.

This was much more radical than a pantyhose or no pantyhose debate…let me paint the picture of what I saw.

The subject of this pondering was a smart as a whip, female attorney whose daily attire was a men’s dress shirt, men’s suit, men’s belt and men’s shoes. She was clearly wearing men’s clothing – this was not a case of a preference for men’s styling. Her clothes were men’s clothes tailored to fit her perfectly. (I know – I am an expert shopper.) She wore very small earrings and a large ring on her left hand that resembled a college class ring. Her hair was slicked back into a ponytail and appeared to wear no makeup. For more than two weeks, this attorney maintained the same unwavering image in front of a jury of housewives, accountants, bookkeepers and teachers.

So let’s open the discussion shall we? Let’s first assume this isn’t about sexual orientation at all – let’s take that completely off the table. The question for me is why someone would deliberately choose to depart from conventional expectations of dress. Expectation theory suggests straying from societal norms would be risky behavior and could damage her credibility with the audience. In trial, the stakes are high – a lawyer’s credibility and persuasiveness are of upmost importance and can be the difference between a victory and a loss.

So, my question to the group – have you seen this before in your workplace? If so, do you agree with the experts that a strategy this far from the “norm” is a burden you probably don’t want to bear?