Research shows that when people need help getting a job done, they’ll choose a congenial colleague over a more capable one. This tendency has big implications for every organization–and for everyone who seeks to be persuasive as a presenter.
When given the choice of whom to work with, people will pick one person over another for any number of reasons: the prestige of being associated with a star performer, for example, or the hope that spending time with a strategically placed superior will further their careers. But in most cases, people choose their work partners according to two criteria. One is competence at the job, the other is likability. Obviously both things matter. Less obvious is how much they matter–and exactly how they matter.
To gain some insight into these questions, researchers at Harvard Business School asked people in North America and Europe how often they had work-related interactions with every other person in the organization. They then asked them to rate all the other people in the company in terms of how much they personally liked each one and how well each did his or her job.
These two criteria–competence and likability–combine to produce four archetypes (imagine them as four quadrants on a graph): the competent jerk, who knows a lot but is unpleasant to deal with; the lovable fool, who doesn’t know much but is a delight to have around; the lovable star, who’s both competent and likable; and the incompetent jerk, who …well, that’s clear enough.
These archetypes are caricatures, of course. Companies weed out the hopelessly incompetent and the socially clueless. Still, people in your organization can be roughly categorized in the matrix, I’m sure.
The research showed that no matter what kind of organization studied, everybody wanted to work with the lovable star, and nobody wanted to work with the incompetent jerk. Things got a lot more interesting, though, when people faced the choice between competent jerks and lovable fools.
The studies done in four very different organizations consistently showed that most people would choose a “lovable fool” (someone who, to varying degrees, is more likable than competent) over a “competent jerk.”
At first glance, such a choice is both understandable (it’s nice to be around people you like), and cockeyed (why would you prefer to work with someone who is, to a certain degree, incompetent?)
The answer has something to do with social networks, getting work done without friction, and the fact that it’s easier to teach someone how to do a task than it is to change a personality. After all, if everyone likes the fool, they’ll help him out and enjoy doing it. In fact, the lovable fool may actually contribute to the productivity of the group.
Isn’t it strange how powerful personality is? A good personality covers a host of sins. I’m always drawn to a speaker with a personality, and I think I’m more likely to buy what they’re selling and remember what they say.
And isn’t it wonderful that we can point to evidence that Tweet: Being more likable than competent is valuable to the work process–more valuable than being a highly competent jerk. http://ctt.ec/0r3pa+
Looks like an emotional decision can be rational after all.