Across cultures, people use two fundamental judgments to assess the quality of others: warmth and competence. People who express warmth are more likeable and comfortable to be around. We find more similarity, affinity, and positivity with those we experience as warm and caring.
This is counterintuitive but true. I like the equation trust = character + competence from The Speed of Trust by Stephen Covey. The mistake I made early on as I transitioned into a CEO role was first emphasizing character and culture building, neglecting competence building. We're running a business, which, if operating well, represents job security for the livelihoods of the teams we're responsible for. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, confidence in producing results is the most important. While I don't regret the time I spent figuring out my leadership values and principles, I wish I had emphasized the skills I needed to run a business effectively. This is one of the fundamental dichotomies of leadership to hold in tension.
That's the equation I use when evaluating relationships. Another great example is getting the right people on the bus (Collins. GOOD TO GREAT). Plus if a company is looking to scale, they often won't be able to interview for character. They will only be able to see competence. The character value is seen (or not) as you work with that individual.
Wow, you went deep today. I love it. I wonder if the everyday need for warmth and caring first stems from our developmental psychology - a mother's love is one of the first things we experience and is important for establishing trust and relationship building skills. I find myself giving people more slack if they are smart/competent and lacking warmth or other interpersonal skills. I think we all want to be on the winning team and sometimes 'nice guys finish last'. One observation I've made over the years with very smart/competent leaders is they fall into two buckets: 1) I'm the smartest person in the room and I make sure everyone knows it; and 2) I'm the smartest person in the room, but I don't have to 'flex' all the time. People will follow both, but I think trust and commitment run deeper with #2 leaders.
Yes. It is much easier to grant trust to those who don't feel the need to amplify their own credibility. Humans tend to fill the void when they sense a leaders (or anyone) resists self promotion. Less self aware people never leave room for others to fill that void for them.
I'm at risk of this "moving toward" behavior and work hard to control/minimize the negative effects. It comes on during times of uncertainty and when there is high drama. I grew up being the peacekeeper in my family and friend group. I'm good at deescalating tense situations, but sometimes, tension is good and I'm too quick to defuse it.
True stuff. We are constantly supposed to be moving. Additionally, one must be wary of the law of likeability (Cialdini. INFLUENCE). This is useful for some. Sometimes all the crew wants is someone that can competently do their job. If we are expected to teach and train; we better know how to do it right. It all depends on our audience.
I think everything in leadership comes down to us knowing whether we are an advisor or decision maker (Peter Drucker). Not what we wish we are, but WHAT we really are (how we are wired).
If we choose to lead from the rear majority of the time, then solid team players and true leaders often get overlooked. I suppose saving face should be a last resort (in my experience and opinion). Oftentimes it is too late, if this point has been reached.
This is a fascinating and insightful Field Note. I never quite thought of leadership relations in terms of order. Looking back, I have an advantage as an introvert since warmth is something I must choose to exude. Therefore competence--in as much as I possess any--naturally projects first. To be an effective leader, though, you absolutely need an abundance of both.
There are times as well, for the observant leader, where they might choose to flex the other direction as well.
This seems a healthy way to have this conversation instead of accusations of leaders being manipulative, when the best are simply flexing between the two at times.
I can think of plenty of personal examples of where this is true in both scenarios. Sadly the combo has been rare. Given the prompt I need to work on the competency. I have plenty of warmth. In my experience the warmth has come from "nice" blokes, but poor leaders and the competent managers have lacked the warmth and still been poor leaders.
This is counterintuitive but true. I like the equation trust = character + competence from The Speed of Trust by Stephen Covey. The mistake I made early on as I transitioned into a CEO role was first emphasizing character and culture building, neglecting competence building. We're running a business, which, if operating well, represents job security for the livelihoods of the teams we're responsible for. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, confidence in producing results is the most important. While I don't regret the time I spent figuring out my leadership values and principles, I wish I had emphasized the skills I needed to run a business effectively. This is one of the fundamental dichotomies of leadership to hold in tension.
Good morning Josh,
That's the equation I use when evaluating relationships. Another great example is getting the right people on the bus (Collins. GOOD TO GREAT). Plus if a company is looking to scale, they often won't be able to interview for character. They will only be able to see competence. The character value is seen (or not) as you work with that individual.
Thanks for your time.
Wow, you went deep today. I love it. I wonder if the everyday need for warmth and caring first stems from our developmental psychology - a mother's love is one of the first things we experience and is important for establishing trust and relationship building skills. I find myself giving people more slack if they are smart/competent and lacking warmth or other interpersonal skills. I think we all want to be on the winning team and sometimes 'nice guys finish last'. One observation I've made over the years with very smart/competent leaders is they fall into two buckets: 1) I'm the smartest person in the room and I make sure everyone knows it; and 2) I'm the smartest person in the room, but I don't have to 'flex' all the time. People will follow both, but I think trust and commitment run deeper with #2 leaders.
Yes. It is much easier to grant trust to those who don't feel the need to amplify their own credibility. Humans tend to fill the void when they sense a leaders (or anyone) resists self promotion. Less self aware people never leave room for others to fill that void for them.
There is also the “I’m the nicest person on Earth and a complete pushover” type too. They may be the worst of all.
I'm at risk of this "moving toward" behavior and work hard to control/minimize the negative effects. It comes on during times of uncertainty and when there is high drama. I grew up being the peacekeeper in my family and friend group. I'm good at deescalating tense situations, but sometimes, tension is good and I'm too quick to defuse it.
You just described me in that assessment too, David.
True stuff. We are constantly supposed to be moving. Additionally, one must be wary of the law of likeability (Cialdini. INFLUENCE). This is useful for some. Sometimes all the crew wants is someone that can competently do their job. If we are expected to teach and train; we better know how to do it right. It all depends on our audience.
I think everything in leadership comes down to us knowing whether we are an advisor or decision maker (Peter Drucker). Not what we wish we are, but WHAT we really are (how we are wired).
Thank you for your time.
There is a mix of a few things that keep leadership an art form instead of just following best behaviors. Often that simply shows up in...
1) a leader's awareness of other's status and
2) where other might be in their attempts at saving face.
I am torn between saving face.
If we choose to lead from the rear majority of the time, then solid team players and true leaders often get overlooked. I suppose saving face should be a last resort (in my experience and opinion). Oftentimes it is too late, if this point has been reached.
Right with you, there.
Only bringing up saving face as an act done by a leader for others.
Not mentioning it as a motivation for leaders needing to save their own.
This is a fascinating and insightful Field Note. I never quite thought of leadership relations in terms of order. Looking back, I have an advantage as an introvert since warmth is something I must choose to exude. Therefore competence--in as much as I possess any--naturally projects first. To be an effective leader, though, you absolutely need an abundance of both.
There are times as well, for the observant leader, where they might choose to flex the other direction as well.
This seems a healthy way to have this conversation instead of accusations of leaders being manipulative, when the best are simply flexing between the two at times.
I can think of plenty of personal examples of where this is true in both scenarios. Sadly the combo has been rare. Given the prompt I need to work on the competency. I have plenty of warmth. In my experience the warmth has come from "nice" blokes, but poor leaders and the competent managers have lacked the warmth and still been poor leaders.