Personal Chemistry

I have a newspaper clipping quoting J. Gerald Simmons, president of Handy Associates, an executive search firm. (Put aside your prejudice against people who use their first initial and middle name, like J. Edgar Hoover or G. Marvin Weinberg, and hear the man out.) Simmons emphasizes the importance of "personal chemistry" in choosing among otherwise equally qualified candidates. Among the ingredients of personal chemistry are appearance, personality, style, articulateness, energy, attitude, thoughtfulness, composure, sparkle, breadth of interest, and an aura of leadership. These desirable qualities sound a bit like the Boy Scout creed, but let's not give up yet.

Simmons asserts that personal chemistry can be developed, lending hope to the troubled masses yearning to be executives. But his advice on how to develop this chemistry often has the phony ring of a counterfeit coin. For instance:

Appearance: Conspicuous obesity or extreme emaciation are negative marks. (Advice: lose or gain weight.)

Energy, drive, ambition: Cultivate the quick stride, fresh appearance, and tone of superb physical health.

Composure: The nail-biter, hair-twirler, foot-tapper, chain-smoker, or twitcher rarely gets past one interview. (Advice: try to eliminate distracting habits.)

Aura of leadership: An erect carriage, a head held high, an agreeable manner, eye contact, and a certain amount of self-confidence connote leadership qualities.

When I read such items, I'm reminded of my mother nagging me to "sit up straight" or my teacher bellowing "don't chew gum." The advice, when given, seems to me to be less than useless. Worrying about whether you emit an aura of leadership is apt to drive you to nail-biting, mouth-stuffing, or simple mind-squashing.

Yet there's no doubt that Simmons is right. We'd all prefer to be in the presence of people who are nice-looking, energetic but composed, and agreeable. The problem is what to do about it if we're not that way. If you're depressed about life, the easiest thing in the world is to attract advice: "Don't be depressed." Or are you obese? Then how about this advice: "Don't eat so much." Ambrose Bierce defined advice as the smallest current coin. Advice is usually free--and worth every penny. To my mind, most of the advice about "personal chemistry" or other success formulas merely serves to becloud the very few deep principles of true happiness and success. Bertrand Russell wrote about these in his classic book The Conquest of Happiness, a book I try to reread every year to restore me to the simple track. I say "try" because my copies are always out on loan and tend not to return. Just now I can't find a copy around the house or office, but Russell's number-one point doesn't need any reminding.

According to Russell, perhaps the greatest philosopher of our century, health comes before all else in producing happiness. Or perhaps it goes the other way--lack of health destroys any other formula that promises success. Consider Simmons's "personal chemistry." If you're healthy, you won't look obese or emaciated. Your stride will naturally be quick. You'll look and smell fresh without spraying your body with a thousand unpronounceable ingredients. You'll probably not bite nails, twirl hair, tap your foot, or drum your fingers. You'll do very little twitching and probably no smoking at all. You'll sit up straight and you probably won't look like you're having trouble digesting your lunch simply because you're not having trouble digesting your lunch.

By curious coincidence, the modern view of health is that it's largely a matter of body chemistry (you are what you eat) and activity (you are what you do). If that's the case, then perhaps "personal chemistry" is no more than "real" chemistry and physics--about as basic as you can get. But rather than give you advice, let me just relate some stories.

We all know Gary Gulper, that dedicated programmer who's dedicated mostly to stuffing his face with junk food. He thinks he's impressing the boss by working through lunch and eating only a candy bar and a Coke from the vending machine. Then there's Susan Sitter--her secret formula for success is to work sixteen hours a day, hoping the boss will notice before she dies for lack of exercise or is immobilized from calluses on the butt.

I'm well acquainted with such people because I display all their qualities. What we share is an honest dedication to our work--so much dedication that we abuse our own bodies, if necessary, to get the work done. Now there's nothing wrong with honest dedication, until it's carried to the point where it destroys our ability to work effectively. What's the sense of working over-over-overtime if in so doing we cause the quality of our work to deteriorate? Why skip lunch for a candy bar to accomplish a task that we'd accomplish much more quickly with a properly nourished brain and relaxed body?

Well, let's be honest with ourselves. It's fun to abuse our bodies once in a while. Who can honestly deny the seductiveness of a candy feast, a beverage binge, or an all-night work orgy? So, while we can argue that we're doing it out of dedication to our work, we've got a perfect excuse for fulfilling our innermost desires. And besides, a little excess never hurt anyone, did it? And sometimes the job really does require an all-out, self-sacrificing effort.

Okay, so here comes the moralizing. Too many professionals--including me--develop the habit of sacrificing their bodies to their work. They develop this habit when they are young, when their bodies are much more resilient. Then one day they discover that their bodies don't snap back as quickly or as easily as they once did. But when they discover this deficiency, it's usually far too late, for several reasons:

1. The habit is too ingrained to be gotten rid of easily.

2. The deficiency has been there for a long time before it gets bad enough for them to notice it. But others have been noticing for a long time, so their career has already suffered.

3. They're too old to learn new habits readily.

4. The troubles with their health are likely to multiply, and we all know how hard it is to deal with two interacting system errors.

5. Even if they do start cutting back on excessive workloads