Body Language of Stardust Chairs or Stardust Seating Positions
Cue: Stardust Chairs or Stardust Seating Positions.
Synonym(s): Sitting Left Or Right Of The Head Of The Table.
Description: Sitting to the left or right of the head of the table.
In One Sentence: The stardust chairs are those to either side of the leaders whom share some of the leader’s power through their proximity to the head of the table.
How To Use it: Bosses should reserve the stardust seats for their close confederates. These should be trusted and high ranking officers whom can offer useful advice when unsure. By reserving these seats in rank order, leaders are showing the rest of their team that they must fall in hierarchy and also work more diligently to raise in the rank. This will incentivize them to work harder.
If seating is not assigned, leaders should be watchful of who takes their flank as these are people whom want to exact influence over your decisions.
Context: Business.
Verbal Translation: “I’m either trying to get close to the leader or actually am close to the leader so I enjoy some of his power as it trickles down from the head seating position.”
Variant: See Head Of The Table.
Cue In Action: a) The boss habitually had his two favourite employees flank his left and right in the boardroom. b) She was keen to enjoy the greater power and responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the company. She often showed up early to secure the stardust position in the meeting to get close to her boss.
Meaning and/or Motivation: The seats flanking the head of the table are those with the second most power. They are called stardust because they are close enough to the leader that his star power or “dust” is likely to rub off on them. When these chairs are usurped it signifies that a person is a wannabe leader rather than one deserved based on performance. When the chairs are assigned it sends a strong message about the thoughts and feelings of those in charge.
Leadership shows a trickle down affect based on the seating arrangement. If the head of table is deemed the leader, then the person to their immediate side holds the next most powerful position, and so forth. In ancient times, the leader held the head of the table, with his lieutenants at his sides. The person who sits opposite the head, even today, is usually the most task oriented, whereas those sitting in the middle are usually “affiliators,” normally woman, who wish to interact with the greatest number of people and create active participation with everyone.
Cue Cluster: Those in the stardust positions usually show great leadership qualities. They are often calm, relaxed and loose, speak with authority and to the point.
Body Language Category: Authoritative body language, Dominant body language, Leadership body language, Power play.
Resources:
Argyle, M., & Dean, I. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.
Boucher, Michael L. Holzberg, Jules D. (editor). Effect of seating distance on interpersonal attraction in an interview situation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1972 38(1): 15-19.
Broth, Mathias and Lorenza Mondada. Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2013. 47: 41-58.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/nonverbally-negotiate-conversation-walking-away/
Bania, Amanda E. ; Stromberg, Erin E. Call, Joseph (editor). The Effect of Body Orientation on Judgments of Human Visual Attention in Western Lowland Gorillas.
Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2013. 127(1): 82-90.
Belhiah, Hassan. Tutoring as an embodied activity: How speech, gaze and body orientation are coordinated to conduct ESL tutorial business. Journal of Pragmatics. 2009. 41(4): 829-841.
Broth, Mathias and Lorenza Mondada. Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2013. 47: 41-58.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/nonverbally-negotiate-conversation-walking-away/
Cook, M. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human Relations, 1970, 23, 61-67.
Clack, B., Dixon, J., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Eating together apart: Patterns of segregation in a multi-ethnic cafeteria. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 1-16. doi:10.1002/casp.787
Castelli, Luigi ; Carraro, Luciana ; Pavan, Giulia ; Murelli, Elisa ; Carraro, Alessia. The Power of the Unsaid: The Influence of Nonverbal Cues on Implicit Attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2012 42(6): 1376-1393.
Coutts, Larrym. ; Ledden, Maribeth. Nonverbal Compensatory Reactions to Changes in Interpersonal Proximity. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1977 102(2): 283-290.
Chance RMA (1962) An interpretation of some agonistic postures: the role of “cut-off” acts and postures. Symp Zool Soc Lond 8: 71–89.
Danielle Jackson, Erika Engstrom and Tara Emmers-Sommer. 2007. Think Leader, Think Male and Female: Sex vs. Seating Arrangement as Leadership Cues. Sex Roles. 57 (9/10): 713-723.
Eddie Harmon-Jones and Carly K. Peterson. Supine Body Position Reduces
Neural Response to Anger. Association for Psychological Science. 2009; 20 (10): 1209-1210. http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/supine-body-posture-reduces-aggression/
Felipe, N. Connotations of seating arrangements. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1967, 2, 37-44.
Gifford, Robert ; O’Connor, Brian. Nonverbal intimacy: Clarifying the role of seating distance and orientation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1986 10(4): 207-214.
Gardin, Hershel ; Kaplan, Kalman J. ; Firestone, Ira J. ; Cowan, Gloria A. Lanzetta, John T. (editor). Proxemic effects on cooperation, attitude, and approach-avoidance in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973. 27(1): 13-18.
Greenberg, J. 1976. The role of seating position in group interaction: a review, with applications for group trainers. Group & Organization Management 1 (3): 310-327.
Haase, Richard F. ; Dimattia, Dominic J. Berdie, Ralph F. (editor). Proxemic behavior: Counselor, administrator, and client preference for seating arrangement in dyadic interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1970 17(4): 319-325.
Howells, L. T. and S. W. Becker. 1962. Seating arrangement and leadership emergence.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(2): 148-150.
Hietanen, Jari. Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research.2002 66(3): 174-179.
Harrigan J. and Rosenthal R. Physicians’ head and body positions as determinants of perceived rapport. J. appl. Sot. Psychol. 13, 496, 1983.
Jackson, Danielle; Erika Engstrom and Tara Emmers-Sommer. 2007. Think Leader, Think Male and Female: Sex vs. Seating Arrangement as Leadership Cues. Sex Roles. 57 (9/10): 713-723.
Kaminski, Juliane ; Call, Josep ; Tomasello, Michael. Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans
Animal Cognition. 2004. 7(4): 216-223.
Kenner, Andrew N. ; Katsimaglis, George. Gender differences in proxemics: taxi-seat choice. Psychological Reports. 1993 72(2): 625(2).
Lawson, Rebecca P. ; Clifford, Colin W. G. ; Calder, Andrew J. About Turn: The Visual Representation of Human Body Orientation Revealed by Adaptation. Psychological Science. 2009. 20(3): 363(9).
Leventhal, G. 1978, Sex and setting effects on seating arrangement. Journal of Psychology. 100: 21-26.
Lott, D. F. and R. Sommer. 1967. Seating arrangements and status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7 (1): 90-95.
Michelini, RL, Passalacqua, R., & Cusimano, J. 1976. Effects of seating arrangement on group participation. Journal of Social Psychology. 99: 179-186.
Mackinnon, Sean P. ; Jordan, Christian H. ; Wilson, Anne E. Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 2011 37(7): 879(14).
Michelini, RL, Passalacqua, R., & Cusimano, J. 1976. Effects of seating arrangement on group participation. Journal of Social Psychology. 99: 179-186.
Mehrabian, Albert Holzberg, Jules D. (editor). Inference of Attitudes From the Posture, Orientation and Distance of a Communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1968. 32(3): 296-308.
Mehrabian, Albert Deese, James (editor). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin. 1969. 71(5): 359-372.
Montgomery, Derek ; Moran, Christy ; Bach, Leslie. The influence of nonverbal cues associated with looking behavior on young children’s mentalistic attributions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1996. 20(4): 229-249.
Moore, Monica. Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: Girls Just Wanna Have Fun. Journal of Sex Research. 1995. 32(4): 319-328.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/girls-just-want-to-have-fun-the-origins-of-courtship-cues-in-girls-and-women/
Norum, G.A., Russo, N.J., and Sommer, R. 1967. Seating patterns and group tasks. Source: Psychology in the schools. 4(3): 276-280.
Riess, M. and P. Rosenfeld. 1980. Seating preferences as nonverbal communication: a self-presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Communications Research 8(1): 22.
Remland, Martins. ; Jones, Tricias. ; Brinkman, Heidi. Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, and Touch: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Age. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1995 135(3): 281-297.
Robinson, Jeffrey David. Getting Down to Business Talk, Gaze, and Body Orientation During Openings of Doctor-Patient Consultations. Human Communication Research. 1998. 25(1): 97-123.
Straube, Benjamin ; Green, Antonia ; Jansen, Andreas ; Chatterjee, Anjan ; Kircher, Tilo. Social cues, mentalizing and the neural processing of speech accompanied by gestures. Neuropsychologia. 2010. 48(2): 382-393.
Stephenson, G. M. and B. K. Kniveton. 1978. Interpersonal and interparty exchange: an experimental study of the effect of seating position on the outcome of negotiations between teams representing parties in dispute. Human Relations 31(6): 555-566.
Scherer, S. E., & Schiff, M. R. Perceived intimacy, physical distance, and eye contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 835-841.
Scott, J. A. Comfort and seating distance in living rooms: The relationship of interactants and topic of conversation. Environment and Behavior, 1984, 16, 35-54.
Sommer, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 1959, 22,247-260.
Sommer, R. The distance for comfortable conversation: A further study. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 111-116.
Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1969.
Underwood, M. K.. Glares of Contempt, Eye Rolls of Disgust and Turning Away to Exclude: Non-Verbal Forms of Social Aggression among Girls. Feminism & Psychology. 2004 14(3): 371-375
Weiss, M., & Keys, C. The influence of proxemic variables on dyadic interaction between peers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association; Chicago, 1975, August.
Zweigenhaft, R. L. 1976. Personal space in the faculty office: Desk placement and the student-faculty interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (4): 529-532.