Today’s question is deceptively easy: would you prefer to be liked or respected?
To which you, if normally constituted, will answer that you want to be both liked and respected. End of story.
So, why does it happen that in the business world people who are merely liked are not considered to be executive material while people who are respected are.
Kate Mason writes in the Financial Times that being likeable is a backhanded compliment. It suggests that the person is non-threatening, for reasons that, quite honestly, escape me.
Wharton psychologist Adam Grant has weighed in on the side of respect, against likeability.
Mason writes:
In a work context, the term is frequently used in reference to those not yet seen as leadership material. “Great leaders don’t obsess about being liked. They care about being respected,” organisational psychologist Adam Grant posted on LinkedIn recently. “Liking is shallow affection. It comes from being pleasant — you bend over backwards to accommodate others. Respect is deep regard. It’s earned by being principled — you stand up for your values.”
I probably do not need to tell you, but when Mason extols the value of likeability she is promoting values associated with women. It involves being nice and being accommodating, doing what you need to do to get along with other people. But, that also means, avoiding conflict, not being too assertive, not being too threatening.
For example, Mason writes this:
As the former prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, said: “One of the criticisms I’ve faced over the years is that I’m not aggressive enough or assertive enough, or maybe somehow, because I’m empathetic, it means I’m weak. I totally rebel against that. I refuse to believe that you cannot be both compassionate and strong.”
True enough, once upon a time Jacinda Ardern was the great feminist hope. Now, not so much.
There is a gulf between Jacinda Ardern and Winston Churchill. I am sure you did not need me to tell you that Churchill did not succeed as prime minister because he manifested boundless empathy or because people liked him.
People respected him for leading his nation through its greatest trial, but, saying that he was likeable is quite a stretch.
That’s clearly not all.
Mason makes the case for likeability:
The contradiction shows a misunderstanding about how we view not just likeability, but the range of qualities a leader should embrace. In truth, likeability is more complex than shallow. It is the ability to create teams of allies and friends, corral people to your cause and build trust. When genuine, it can be a powerful currency.
Likeable colleagues and managers are not simply compliant; they have qualities others enjoy. This is something most people will have observed in their working lives. When you like someone professionally, you want to go in to bat for them and get them on your team. You want to promote them, work harder for them, or give them bigger opportunities.
This feels overly optimistic. Whatever does it mean to say that others enjoy your qualities.
In truth, being a good teammate has little to do with being likeable. You become a good teammate by putting on the uniform, observing the grooming code, playing by the rules, following insstructions and placing the good of the team ahead of your personal interests.
Moreover, being a good teammate means performing the tasks that contribute to team success. If the player cannot hit a fastball you are not going to use him as a pinch hitter because you like him.