professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this

About ten years ago, when “going postal” was very much in the news, I was hired to teach a series of conflict resolution classes at… the US Postal Service. Seriously.

In order to prepare for the event, I had to go through three days of training. It was during that training that I participated in an exercise that changed my life. During the exercise I was paired off with another person and we were told that the objective was to see if one person could get the other to open their fist in 30 seconds or less. (I love a challenge.)

Before we started, I doubted anyone would be able to get me to open my hand. No way. Heck, I grew up with six siblings; this was not going to be easy for anyone. As it so happened, the person opposite me clenched her fist first and it was my job to get her to open up (physical contact was not allowed). I hesitated for a moment. I considered bribery, threats and trickery, but instead went for the direct approach and said, “Would you please open your hand?” To my surprise, she smiled and opened her fist.

I thought that was the end of the exercise, but then the facilitator told us to switch. Now I had my hand clenched before me. This time it was my “opponent’s” turn. She looked at me, she smiled, and she asked, “Would you please open your hand?”

And I did. I couldn’t help it.

So why did I open my fist when moments before I was absolutely committed to not opening it? What caused me to change my mind? It was then that I realized that "my opponent" had as much control over my behaviors as I did. When she had opened her hand for me first, she set the tone for our relationship. When it came my turn, I felt obligated to open for her. I couldn’t let her down. I owed it to her.

As a professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this p

e if one person could get the other to open their fist in 30 seconds or less. (I love a challenge.)

Before we started, I doubted anyone would be able to get me to open my hand. No way. Heck, I grew up with six siblings; this was not going to be easy for anyone. As it so happened, the person opposite me clenched her fist first and it was my job to get her to open up (physical contact was not allowed). I hesitated for a moment. I considered bribery, threats and trickery, but instead went for the direct approach and said, “Would you please open your hand?” To my surprise, she smiled and opened her fist.

I thought that was the end of the exercise, but then the facilitator told us to switch. Now I had my hand clenched before me. This time it was my “opponent’s” turn. She looked at me, she smiled, and she asked, “Would you please open your hand?”

And I did. I couldn’t help it.

So why did I open my fist when moments before I was absolutely committed to not opening it? What caused me to change my mind? It was then that I realized that "my opponent" had as much control over my behaviors as I did. When she had opened her hand for me first, she set the tone for our relationship. When it came my turn, I felt obligated to open for her. I couldn’t let her down. I owed it to her.

As a professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this

nsidered bribery, threats and trickery, but instead went for the direct approach and said, “Would you please open your hand?” To my surprise, she smiled and opened her fist.

I thought that was the end of the exercise, but then the facilitator told us to switch. Now I had my hand clenched before me. This time it was my “opponent’s” turn. She looked at me, she smiled, and she asked, “Would you please open your hand?”

And I did. I couldn’t help it.

So why did I open my fist when moments before I was absolutely committed to not opening it? What caused me to change my mind? It was then that I realized that "my opponent" had as much control over my behaviors as I did. When she had opened her hand for me first, she set the tone for our relationship. When it came my turn, I felt obligated to open for her. I couldn’t let her down. I owed it to her.

As a professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this

. I couldn’t help it.

So why did I open my fist when moments before I was absolutely committed to not opening it? What caused me to change my mind? It was then that I realized that "my opponent" had as much control over my behaviors as I did. When she had opened her hand for me first, she set the tone for our relationship. When it came my turn, I felt obligated to open for her. I couldn’t let her down. I owed it to her.

As a professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this

professional speaker, I’ve used that exercise with thousands of people in organizations throughout the US. The results are always the same. About 80% of the time, people mirror each other: If number the first person opens, the second person opens, if the first person keeps their hand closed, the second person stays closed. The odds would dictate that it should be about 50%, but that rarely happens.

There’s a fancy name for this phenomena. It’s called the “Law of Reciprocity.” In a sense, it’s the human equivalent of the Law of Gravity…both laws are invisible and both laws are impressively powerful. The way I see it, The Law of Reciprocity sets the tone for virtually all human interactions, whether it’s repaying the kindness of strangers, the sudden flare-up of road rage, or the escalation of international conflict.

Recently on the PBS series, NOVA, scientists revealed that hidden deep within our brain, there are tiny cells called mirror neurons. Essentially their purpose is to send signals to the emotional part of our brain (the limbic system) so that we feel on the inside what we see on the outside. So let’s say someone walks into the room angry, we see their behaviors and we actually feel their anger. If they enter smiling, we feel good. This is potent stuff.

A few years back, when I was giving an after-dinner speech, a slightly intoxicated audience member stood up, walked (ok, stumbled) to the center of the room and tried to take control. The audience immediately got tense, started murmuring and looked to see how I was going to handle it. Years ago I would have gotten nervous and defensive…thus adding more negativity to the room. Instead, I realized that within me, I held the power to change the tone in the room. So I did the opposite of what my instincts (or was it my mirror neurons?) told me to do. Instead of getting defensive, I asked the crowd to quiet down so we could hear what he had to say. And then, after he spoke, I told him that I agreed with some of the things he said and I asked the audience to thank him for being willing to share his thoughts. They applauded and our impromptu speaker gave a self-satisfied smile and sauntered a