By Paul T. Ayres
Of course, we all want to be liked, whether at work or outside work. And, of course, one should never ignore the common courtesy, respect, and dignity of others. The ‘Golden rule,’ that is, treat others the way you want and expect to be treated, works and is truly golden! What I am referring to in this article is the growing and common advice, ‘To be a better leader, you should work on being likable.’ This advice is likely not going to have the impact you want. In fact, studies show that likability is not a driver of results. Read on.
Our desire to ‘be liked’ and to ‘work with people we like’ is powerful. Our need to be liked is an evolved trait that is critical to our ability to survive and reproduce.
In his "The Evolution of Social Connection as a Basic Human Need," Stephen Braren, Ph.D. (2023) discusses this embedded need in human beings. This research emphasizes that humans have evolved a fundamental need for social connection, which is essential for overall health and well-being. The study highlights that our drive to connect and form relationships is biologically ingrained, comparable in importance to basic needs like food and shelter.
So, what this means is that humans are doing this all the time and everywhere. At work, outside of work, at the gym, at home, at the store, etc. You are already pretty dam good at it, or you wouldn’t have landed the job, the promotion, or the opportunity in the first place! Could it be that we are covering up an accountability issue in our organization rather than an impact from a boss that a couple of people don’t like? Or are you not having those tough conversations because they launch the dysfunction of the egos of your team, and the resulting emotional waste and fallout is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome? Hmm. Could be. People don’t like to be called out on the promise they make when they come to work to execute a role by a manager who notes a drop in performance. And since they don’t like it, do they also not like the manager delivering the news?
Here, there is an underlying assumption that the employee can do no wrong when that employee chooses to deflect or ignore the performance conversation. Employees might think, ‘Can’t be me because this manager doesn’t like me, so I don’t like him.’ And might add, ‘This is unfair, I’m leaving.’ Overstated? Maybe. What’s your experience? I’m here to tell you that managers and employees alike are not perfect and don’t make their best effort all the time.
A study cited in a Forbes article from 2016 by Victor Lipman states that 60 to 70% of employees do not bring their best to their workday. Let’s think about this. Would working on ‘being more likable’ really be the silver bullet in the case where the root cause may be accountability or some other issue? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think a focus on being likable is productive. I think a focus on being a respectful human being, following the golden rule, and being totally aligned with the organizational goal, regardless of position or rank, is where it’s at. What follows is food for thought, which puts your ‘likability effort’ on the back burner. Rather, focus on being authentic and dialed in so you deliver precisely the results your role is charged to do. This is the same for the manager or the employee. Recently on X, Elon Musk said this:
His comment resonated with me, given my personal attempts to build relationships with employees as a primary means to facilitate results don’t work nearly as effectively as I’d like. In fact, my observation through decades of my business and professional journaling of my observations of the human condition at work suggested to me that something else is at work. Over these four decades, I’ve tried a lot of ideas to improve the productivity of employees. Yeah, I read the ‘be likable’ type books too.
My conclusion remains:
"It is ultimately the employees’ decision whether they like you or not, if they are going to be more likely to follow your directive, or not; they decide." - Paul Ayres
The data does not support likeability as a means to better results. However, it is likely a means to better retention. Because all else equal, people would rather work with people they like. Okay, this could be a great point. I believe alignment with an organization is a bigger factor. You must love the game, the role, and the objective of your organization. The entire team must. In my experience, when alignment is not present, all this drift with tertiary issues, including being liked, starts to happen at an accelerated rate. Shared objectives and alignment have a way of creating fellowship. Which I define as trust and loyalty. That’s what we want.
When a team in any battle, game, or industry endures hardship through consistent and disciplined effort toward their shared objective (alignment), we get a fellowship. Virtually every time in my experience, this has happened. Those of you who played a sport had this happen to you. You likely have also seen a team ‘gel’ or become ‘tight.’ My extensive experience managing blue-collar truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, and laborers is no different in this regard than my support staff. If you follow me, you know I love the athletic analogy. Thus, ‘fit professional’ vs. student-athlete. Those lessons from our high school sports held in our professional careers, too. And this is one of the most powerful.
"We don’t chase likability; we chase fellowship through the shared experiences of achieving an objective." - Paul Ayres
We get along, show respect, and apply the golden rule. We help as needed, and we for sure knock the crap out of our role. Our teammates do the same, and fellowship happens. And guess what? We like each other on a whole new and productive level. And these relationships last a lifetime.
How many of you have a bunch of teammates you’d love to catch up with? Yeah, me too. And here is an interesting side benefit. Those individuals you thought initially ‘sketchy’ or ‘awkward,’ or you didn’t care for them, well, they become likable. The same way: You saw them knock their role out of the park, contributing as much or more than you ever did. We like these people; we want to work with them. And at worst, we’ll have a beer with them at the company function. At best, and this usually does happen, we look forward to hanging out with those who made the sacrifice of hard work, exhaustive effort, emotional, mental, and physical investment, etc., with us at the next opportunity. They become your crew. And we ‘like’ being with them. Trust and loyalty should be your focus. That is trust and loyalty efforts are always directed at the goal.
Trust and loyalty through healthy execution are the leading indicators. Likeability is lagging. Let it be the result of good management. It just isn’t consistent that likability reigns supreme in getting results. I think this is what Elon means; this is my interpretation.
Not that he’s going against a ‘biologically ingrained human trait.’ I found Elon’s quotes timely with the reality of getting workers to work on themselves to become ‘change-ready.’ It is also my experience that my standing as ‘likable’ and my attempts to be ‘more’ were driven more by being agreeable. Agreeable doesn’t yield results for many reasons. Is this consistent with your experience?
Elon Musk is arguably one of the most brilliant and successful people on the planet. The context of Elon’s comment was a discussion on ‘good.’ The reality of good vs. the perception of it. He goes on to say, ‘…
Maybe it's a bit of a stretch for me to reference his post here, but it is a focus on ‘being liked’ and not so far off of ‘looking good.’ Why is looking good a desire? Are we back to ‘being liked’ as motivation? That ‘biologically ingrained’ human need? Elon seems to imply this in his exchange with the reporter (Elon’s 11/6/24 7:44 pm post on X). Although his context is different than my use herein, I think there might be a bit of a lesson here. No, we are not all Elons nor have his contextual reality. However, I invite you to try this on for a bit. Try on the possibility that ‘wanting to be liked’ is more problematic than productive in a work environment in pursuit of an objective (like Elon’s Humans on Mars, for example, or your quarterly earnings target).
I believe if we honestly reflect on work peers, regardless of position relative to us, the normal distribution of who we like and who likes us is not so far off from life in general. Attempts to alter it may, in fact, create more issues than fix them. And we know that the pursuit of the goal by developing trust and loyalty is going to result in fellowship which automatically follows. Likability is lagging.
My Humble Advice:
1. Don’t start with it.
2. Be authentic.
3. Do your role and build trust through aligned effort.
4. Build loyalty by granting trust to others.
5. Followed by support. Then, watch the magic happen.
Most people can pick off those that are trying to be likable. It’s not authentic behavior. It backfires unless the person is one hell of an actor.
Acting is not going to build trust and good relationships like an authentic personality manifesting itself in pursuit of a shared goal.
Yes, we can trust people and not like them. As I already stated, we start not liking someone around us. It's human nature not to like everyone, especially initially. Be in your role at your job because you love the industry and competition the company is in. Focus, and the rest will happen.
A shared goal means alignment; there is that word again!
It’s impactful for people to be aligned with the objective of their team. So, when professionals are approached to ‘be more likable,’ how many people really can pull that off anyway? So, the ‘sell’ is ‘be likable’, and reality ends up being work on mindset, work on alignment, work on transparency, work on communication of deliverables, work on communication of the business reason for the action, work on what’s in it for the employee, etc. These items build trust. Managers end up being more ‘liked’ because of the clarity, cooperation, and results that land because of the work just mentioned. So, it’s a question for you to decide: is it focus on being likable or focus on being a great manager, building trust and alignment toward goals? It’s easier to ‘like’ those we trust.
Likability is a continuum. We don’t have to move toward the ‘love’ end of the spectrum to be productive. Such pursuits are wasteful (and, of course, taken to the ‘love end’ problematic 😊). We end up working on our mindset with regard to those around us. So, it may not actually be precisely about being likable, but that ‘sells’ the class, the seminar, or the book. Our entrained need compels us and we try more to be liked. When a team is very much aligned with the corporate objectives, the issue of likability is minimized. We are working to get along and obtain a result. When working together toward a result, with respect, courtesy, and dignity present, when we treat others the way we want to be treated, results happen. Fellowship shows up, and likeability is no longer an issue. Finally, work environments produce the opportunity to obtain results, and the team obtains their version of a win. We still may not be way over to the bestie end of the like spectrum. Work on those items that build trust, loyalty, alignment, and likability will take care of itself.
Not enough to chew on? Still, think likability is top of your chart? Some will insert 'emotional intelligence' as a synonym for likability.
This, too, is weakly, at best, correlated to job performance that drives results. Of course, definitions matter, and emotional intelligence is a subject beyond the scope of this particular article. So, we are back to being a decent human being; respect others, the golden rule, execute your role, etc. Again, looking for evidence of likability yields a discussion of it being associated with traits like agreeableness and extraversion, which are assumed to be valued in professional settings. However, research indicates that likability is not a strong predictor of job performance. You can find vast research and studies supporting this conclusion.
Here is a quick Chat GPT list if you want more:
"The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis" by Murray R. Barrick and Michael K. Mount (1991). This comprehensive analysis found that conscientiousness consistently predicts job performance across various occupations, while agreeableness and extraversion show weaker and less consistent correlations.
"The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings" by Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter (1998). This study highlights that general mental ability and conscientiousness are the most reliable predictors of job performance, whereas traits related to likability, such as agreeableness, have minimal predictive validity.
"Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis" by Joanna Grobelny et al. (2021). This meta-analysis indicates that while emotional intelligence has some correlation with job performance, its impact is modest compared to cognitive abilities and conscientiousness.
"The General Factor of Personality and Job Performance: Revisiting Previous Meta-Analyses" by Dimitri van der Linden et al. (2017). This study re-evaluates earlier meta-analyses and finds that while certain personality traits correlate with job performance, likability-related traits like agreeableness have minimal predictive value.
"Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Meta-Analytic Evidence for the Validity of Narrow Cognitive Abilities" by Christopher D. Nye et al. (2022). This meta-analysis demonstrates that cognitive abilities are significant predictors of job performance, whereas personality traits associated with likability, such as agreeableness, show weaker correlations.
The problem with working on being likable is that it often drives to be agreeable. Leaders or managers work on getting things done through other people. The objective of an organization is typically not up for consensus.
A college football team, for instance, doesn’t have a question about wanting to chase perennial national championships. It’s not negotiable. Agreeableness and other attributes of likeability may collapse in any bit of impact they might contribute when we run into non-negotiables. The issue might indeed be that you need to identify what is non-negotiable for your organization. Then, work up or work out employees until you get a “team of the willing.” As I’ve pointed out in other TheFitProfessional1 media, it is the employee’s responsibility to show up engaged, committed, and qualified to execute their role.
WHAT ABOUT MANAGERS?
The likable boss impact theory is different than likable employees, or is it? Remember, we all have this trait as humans compelling us to like and be liked already. So, what’s the difference if we work on it as bosses/leaders? While likability in managers is often valued, research indicates it does not necessarily drive better results.
Here are a couple more studies supporting this conclusion:
"The Impact of Manager Likeability on Sales Performance" by Nwamaka A. Anaza and Victoria L. Rutherford (2019). This research indicated that manager likability did not have a direct effect on sales performance, suggesting that other factors play a more significant role in driving results.
"High Power Distance Enhances Employees' Preference for Likable Managers: A Resource Dependency Perspective" by Cong Wei et al. (2017). This study found that while employees in high power distance cultures preferred likable managers, this preference did not translate into improved performance outcomes.
These studies collectively suggest that manager likability is not a significant predictor of improved performance or organizational results.
LIKEABILITY AS A CONTINUUM
What the hell is likable with regard to work, anyway? Getting along and being likable ‘enough’ is the price of being in the game. That is to have your job. In most job descriptions and offers of employment, there are requirements stating that we must get along. But they go further, we are supposed to be productive when we are getting along. The issue, starting with the simple thought, ‘if they like me better, they will then do what I say, and then I’ll be a better leader/manager/boss/team member,’ has created a distraction in professional minds. It is very likely we are already likable enough! After all, it is about the result. All of this likable focus is actually about improvement; that is a better result in something. To assume someone doesn’t like us given non-verbal or other forms of communication or behavior is likely right. I say this given our ingrained need to be liked, so our radar is honed over our entire lives.
"We very much know enough to get along and be ‘likable enough.’ Yes, being liked is important. Being liked more can drive a willingness to listen more or help more. Being aligned, however, is more impactful."- Paul Ayres
The individual chooses to contribute, and that choice drives social behavior. Remember, we are already instinctual in likability. And we are getting paid to be there and get along and contribute through our role to the corporate objectives. We are not there primarily to find buddies. Again, this will happen soon enough if you let fellowship develop. So, it is a focus on the process and the shared experience, especially when successful, that drives fellowship, which then provides a positive movement on the likability continuum. So, an effort to improve is likely wasteful. This is not to say being an asshole is ok. In fact, there is a great book called, ‘The No Asshole Rule,’ by Robert I. Sutton, PhD.
It sums all this up nicely. It’s not about likability, it’s about not being an asshole. Really. You just are not going to like everyone, and not everyone is going to like you. So, move on. Just don’t be an asshole; do that by following the golden rule and being courteous and respectful.
We know the requirements: Use their name, care about their personal pursuit of happiness (and to do that, you can’t be an asshole! You must ask and chat and invest and remember!). Most of us do this anyway. We all know how, just do it. You can be better than me at this, or I can be better than you. When we are in an organization, the effort is compounded because we understand and respect the role of our counterparts. Work to get there if you’re not already. Then skip the likability efforts per se and get on to hammering out your team’s organizational objectives.
And my final question and point: is there a threshold of likability that creates a great leader? I say no. Do you think ‘they don’t like me enough?’ What’s ‘enough likeability, then? And who determines it? And to what standard? Wait a minute, let’s think this through. The quick and dirty approach to more ‘likeability’ is often back to agreeableness. Don’t go there.
Stand pat on the non-negotiables that drive the results needed.
Do not agree to compromise to coddle other’s preferences with respect to your organization's non-negotiables.
Focus on the goal.
Be authentic.
Execute your role.
Jack up accountability, and
Work on alignment.
All of this will build trust, consistency, and discipline, leading to better results over time. It will establish loyalty in the form of employees who make the daily decision to arrive at work committed, aligned, and engaged. This is the task. Create the opportunity for your employees to use their knowledge, skills, and discipline to accompany you on your organization's journey to success.
There are so many peddlers and pundits hocking quick-fix ideas with promises of the road to the promised land by becoming a more likable leader. Beware. Think. And consider just what you are trying to accomplish. When they hired you, you were likable enough. That was the test. When they promoted you to a leadership position, you were likable enough. It was other attributes that got you there in addition to being likable enough. Focus on improving those. Focus on improving management, communication, and alignment activities. Convey your trust in others and be loyal to them in terms of the organizational goals.
There are so many more high-impact skills you can work on besides worrying about likability. Aligned teams move in a positive direction on ‘likeability’ each and every day they knock their role out of the park. Every day they offer a hand to a co-worker in pursuit of the objective and the good of the company. Every time they respect others and recognize their worth with simple acknowledgment – thank your co-worker, gratitude is everyone’s responsibility.
Of course, there are exceptions to all ideas in the science and art of business. I’d love to know your experience and opinion on this discussion of likability after you consider the possibility that likability is not some golden egg. I hope this look at likeability has helped you sharpen your approach and focus your attention on highly productive professional activities that ultimately move your career and organization forward. Best wishes for success!
Paul T. Ayres
Business, Executive, Leadership & Life Coach
Email: paul@thefitprofessional1.com
Website: www.thefitprofessional1.com
Or, Connect with me on socials!
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fitpro1coach/
Edited by Nova Salvador
SOURCES:
Anaza, N. A., & Rutherford, V. L. (2019). The Impact of Manager Likeability on Sales Performance. Finding: Manager likability did not directly impact sales performance, indicating other factors drive results.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Finding: This meta-analysis found that conscientiousness is a strong predictor of job performance, while agreeableness (often linked to likability) is less consistent.
Bauch, K. A., Kotzian, P., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2020). Likeability in Subjective Performance Evaluations: Does It Bias Managers’ Weighting of Performance Measures? Finding: Likable employees may receive favorable evaluations, but this does not equate to higher performance outcomes.
Braren, S. (2023). The Evolution of Social Connection as a Basic Human Need. Finding: The study highlights that the human drive for social connection is a fundamental need comparable to basic necessities like food and shelter and affects interactions across different settings, including the workplace.
Grobelny, J., et al. (2021). Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Finding: Emotional intelligence shows a modest correlation with job performance compared to cognitive abilities and conscientiousness.
Katebi, A., et al. (2021). The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Finding: Job satisfaction has a stronger influence on job performance than likability-related traits.
Lipman, V. (2015, updated 2018). People Leave Managers, Not Companies. Forbes Leadership.
Nye, C. D., et al. (2022). Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Meta-Analytic Evidence for the Validity of Narrow Cognitive Abilities. Finding: Cognitive abilities significantly predict job performance, while likability-related traits are weaker predictors.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Finding: This study highlights that general mental ability and conscientiousness reliably predict job performance, whereas likability-related traits show minimal predictive value.
TheFitProfessional1, LLC (2024).
Van der Linden, D., et al. (2017). The General Factor of Personality and Job Performance: Revisiting Previous Meta-Analyses. Finding: Traits associated with likability, such as agreeableness, have a minimal impact on job performance compared to other personality factors.
Wei, C., et al. (2017). High Power Distance Enhances Employees' Preference for Likable Managers: A Resource Dependency Perspective. Finding: In high power distance cultures, employees preferred likable managers, but this did not translate to improved performance.
Comments