Impact of Likeability in Management

¶ … likeability is effected by management in the international workplace. It assumes a phenomenological approach to the notion of likeability, and is based on the idea that likeability in management is fundamental to achieving "connectedness" among employees and to inspiring the drive needed to ensure an organization's success. By conducting a survey of employees and managers from every major business continent of the globe (Asia, Europe, America, the Middle East), it seeks to understand the different ways in which likeability is manifested, discerned, appreciated, and utilized in the cross-cultural international workplace.

Its aim is to fill a gap in likeability research regarding the importance of international managerial likeability and hopes to raise awareness about the essentiality of likeability to success. It also aims to identify the phenomenon of likeability as it appears in different cultures. Identifying that phenomenon and coming to terms with it will help business managers to better develop likeability across cultures and ensure success in the international market.

It is discovered in this study that among the participants interviewed, the majority stated that likeability is something that depends upon how one "relates" and/or connects to others. Personality, behavior, and even exterior qualities, such as "looks" and the way a manager holds himself can contribute to whether one is likeable across cultures. All participants agreed that likeability is a phenomenon that should receive more study and because of the possible beneficial effect it could have in the international workplace environment.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction The accelerating pace and intensity of global competition is compressing the time that managers and leaders have to interact with their reports, peers and own managers. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010) reports a third of all frequently traveling management analysts worked more than 40 hours per week. Meanwhile, the demands of a global economy are felt across the board by managers who must deal with international markets, which "have increased the pace of work" (Blair-Loy, Jacobs, 2003, p. 230) in an age devoted to communication capabilities and outsourcing.

The Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labor Studies showed that globalization has increased "incidence of overtime" in Germany (Burgoon, Raess, 2007, p. 39). And New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman (2005) captured the essence of the problem when he noted that "French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day.

Good luck." Nothing has changed in the eight years that have passed since then: Friedman (2013) notes that companies are more than ever interested in what an employee can "do" -- and with the Internet making jobs virtually open-access all across the globe, the more one can "do" over an extended period of time, the better.

Not only does globalization put pressure on employees to fill a "long hours" role, it places management in the position of overseeing employees, who, like it or not, are facing stiff competition in the global market workforce (Burgoon, Raess, 2007). Ironically, the "long hours culture" is a built-in concept of modern Weber-based societies that invites new demands and challenges for successful businesses (Rutherford, 2001, p. 259) -- but at a very real expense, one that, if not met, can result in billions of dollars in lost revenue for corporations the world over (Pink, 2011).

While the sharp rise in work hours at the turn of the 21st century may be considered as the effect of individual, social, organizational, and economic factors (Feldman, 2002), the point remains that managers are facing a demanding work load in a global marketplace (Bhargava, 2012). This demand comes with its own set of stipulations. Today's management interaction occurs in cross-cultural environments and often in the virtual mode.

The combination of diversity, geographic dispersion and time constraints oblige managers to reduce the amount of human interaction resulting in quick judgment and loss of visibility impact. Where interaction is limited, the opportunity to build trust and to be appreciated (liked) as a person and as a professional, diminishes (Sanders, 2006). Consequently, lack of results is too easily justified by external factors such as cultural differences. Cultural differences exist but in every culture people who are likable are more easily accepted.

Making oneself likeable, available, and committed to a team, an individual, a potential client, an actual client, or an organization is one of the core fundamentals of business success (Holmes, 2007). The likeability factor is key in motivating teams and getting buy-in (Wu, 2012), but in reality managers do not realize the extent of the impact and often complain that "the others" are not motivated or not enough committed (Pink, 2011).

In a global market environment, where demands are high and expectations even higher, managers are tasked with balancing time -- a precious commodity in today's workforce (Holmes, 2007) -- and energy. Therefore, it is necessary to be aware that likeability is a very comprehensive and impactful quality to develop and keep for today's leaders (Shirom, 2007) -- especially in this age when the global economy is unstable, exposure to different cultures is high, and talents need to be retained for companies in order to excel (Bhargava, 2012).

The prospect of maintaining a successful business invites an investigation into the impact of likeability in the successful workplace. It is an invitation which is not always and in every case accepted. In 2007 a survey was conducted among 90,000 employees around the world and it was found that that only 20% were trying as hard as they could to perform well, while the others were disengaged (Bhargava, 2012).

This problem did not occur because of lazy employees or staff not being interested in their work, but because of a lack of personal interaction with the leadership resulting in conflict amongst co-workers (Bhargava, 2012). The extensive research of best-selling author Daniel Pink (2011) shows that likeability of leaders motivates teams over the long-term by creating a culture that supports strong autonomy, mastery and purpose throughout their teams (Pink, 2011).

Research has shown that a highly likeable and effective leader will be able to create an excellent foundation of autonomy for their subordinates by concentrating on trust (Gardner & Stough, 2002). These findings suggest that likeability is a common need in the workplace. Laura (2011) suggests that likeability may indeed be a common need in the workplace worldwide.

While there is a wealth of research that conclusively shows how interrelated transformational leadership and Emotional Intelligence (EI) are -- specifically, with regard to the positive outcomes for teams engaged in complex projects (Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann, 2012) -- there is a lack of research on the interrelationship of transformational leadership, EI, and likeability. As transactional leadership styles are highly effective in more routine tasks where immediate rewards or punishments are provided, transformational leadership is more attuned to the needs of more long-term complex projects (Harms & Crede, 2010).

Trust, not rewards (either positive or negative), becomes the currency of effective leadership in more complex and especially in virtual team structures. Trust, transparency, authenticity, EI, success and transformational leadership all have one thing in common -- they are likeable traits and/or abilities and/or ideals.

How are each of these concepts connected to likeability? How does likeability manifest itself across cultures even as cultures come into closer and closer contact with one another in the international workplace? In reality the most skilled transformational leaders including the most effective Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) have the ability to provide a framework and culture that gives flexibility to each team member while unifying everyone to a common goal (Kennedy, 2008).

Virtual teams and the new realities of global competition require transformational leaders to continually improve their EI skills and acumen in leading global teams (Radostina & Joyce, 2009). This is particularly challenging in virtual teams as each team member must sustain their commitment and motivation to completing their own and shared tasks. The most effective transformational leaders have EI skills, which also leads to their likeability (Cronin, 2008).

The aspect of likeability then is the result of a leader's continued commitment to excel in a transformational role, supported and fueled by insights from EI-based skills and acumen in managing situations. The extent of likeability of a leader can often be measured in how transformational they are, what level of emotional intelligence (EI) they exhibit, and how authentic and transparent they are in daily tasks (Radostina & Joyce, 2009). The authenticity, transparency and trust of any leader are the primary foundations of what makes them capable of transforming organizations.

The intent of this phenomenological study is to evaluate these factors of transformational leadership and EI, looking at how a quotient or index of likeability can be used to predict the effectiveness of managers as they are assigned into cultures dissimilar than their own. Predicated on the belief that likeability is an indicator of advanced leadership expertise, studies showing transformational leaders are more effective in assimilating into and leading diverse multicultural teams is presented.

As Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann (2012) have observed from their research, leaders are specifically given the responsibility of creating a culture of achievement and innovation, while also developing a level of trust and transparency to ensure team members have the stability and resilience to deal with uncertainty and rapid change. The best leaders are able to balance the emotional and the logical, underscoring the need for continual improvement and innovation to ensure challenging objectives are accomplished (Den, Deanne & Belschak, 2012).

Theorists and researchers alike show that just creating a culture of trust and transparency is not enough, team members want someone to hold them to a standard of what they can achieve, and help them get to that level of attainment when and if they need help (Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann, 2012).

The leader emerges as coach and mentor, a person capable of creating the combination of transformational factors that gain subordinates' commitment to a challenging goal or vision, while being transparent and trustworthy enough to gain cooperation, all underscored by a high level of EI (Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickmann, 2012).

Likeability in this context is the glue that unifies the Venn diagram of items in Figure 1 together; it is the catalyst that keeps an organization moving forward and morale at a level that is resilient enough to setbacks, negativity and the inevitable challenges that occur when teams and entire organizations are challenged with a difficult goal. Statement of Problem A lack of awareness of how important likeability is in management has been illustrated by Pink (2011), Holmes (2007), and Sanders (2006).

However, no phenomenological study has discovered the diverse ways that likeability is discerned and appreciated in the international workplace. A phenomenological study of likeability in the international workplace would help to highlight how likeability is displayed by different cultures in a cross-cultural environment and how that display can lead to a more effective management style. It would deepen our understanding of expectations regarding likeability, the effects of management likeability on employees, and the socio-business value of being likeable in the international workplace.

Pink (2011) and Sanders (2006) have shown that likeability is a major factor in achieving business success, yet Holmes (2007) has shown that business leaders fail to fully consider the ramifications of likeability in the workforce. Pink (2011) highlights a serious lack of drive on the part of employees, which is directly related to their feeling of "connectedness" to management. Holmes (2007) argues that many business leaders suffer from an inability to maintain "likeability," a fault which limits their success in the workplace. Unfortunately, little research has been done that can verify these reports.

Management analysts and business administrators may "intuit" a sense of how likeability is a powerful management tool, but academic research which supports this intuition could help to raise awareness of the importance of likeability. This lack of awareness is due to several assumptions which grow organically from the modern Weber-based bureaucratic system of business governance -- a system that stipulates that a successful business is one which operates according to the "right" mechanics (Macionis, 2006).

Weber-based bureaucracies overlook the importance and value of human interaction and human likeability, even as they emphasize the need for communication and creativity (Macionis, 2006). However, if likeability is not being communicated and human empathy and sympathy is not a part of a team's creative core that business will not be running at optimum levels (Holmes, 2007). Because businesses are operated by humans and not by machines, likeability plays a crucial role in business administration all over the world.

The problem addressed in the current study is the lack of awareness of the impact of likeability in the international environment. Studies have shown that a lack of managerial likeability can lead to a number of outcomes -- insufficient sales, de-motivation in the workplace environment, disunity, mission deviation, and stagnation in terms of personal/professional growth and development (Bhargava, 2012; Holmes, 2007). Porter and Kramer (2011) have shown that businesses are failing to consider the needs of their customers -- a factor which leads inevitably to diminished returns.

Uniting "business and society" is key to business success (Porter, Kramer, 2011), which means that an adhesive is necessary. That adhesive is rooted in human empathy and sympathy -- in other words, human "connectedness." Thus, likeability affects businesses not only internally but externally as well. A sense of "shared value" among business leaders, employees, and consumers is essential; without it, organizations are in dire straits and the entire system of capitalism effectively handcuffed (Porter, Kramer, 2011; Holmes, 2007).

Moreover, Pink (2011) has shown that 50% of employers are not "engaged" in their jobs and that 20% are "actively disengaged" as a result of having no connectedness to management (p. 109). Connectedness is one of the core aspects of likeability -- and an awareness of such could help cut the estimated $300 billion annually lost because of disengagement (Pink, 2011, p. 109). Yet, understanding likeability in the international workplace is not as simple as one might immediately think.

In the international environment, likeability in managers is a complicated phenomenon that raises issues of gender in the workplace (Bolino, Turnley, 2003), issues of social cognition (Vonk, 1999), issues of cross-cultural relevance (Wardrope, 2005), and pragmatic principles of communication (Sanders, 2005). According to Sanders (2005) likeability is virtually synonymous with good communication and management success, because conversation, communication, and receptivity are all supported by likeability and friendliness.

Yet likeability factors are determined by behavioral norms which are not the same for genders in different cultures (Wardrope, 2005) -- and that is a point that raises questions about the way in which positive traits in male and female managers are perceived by employees in the international environment (Bolino, Turnley, 2003). Understanding the degree to which likeability plays a part in successful business operations in the international environment depends upon understanding the way in which likeability is perceived by the international community.

And that is a difficult question in today's hyper-global workforce, affected by political, environmental, economical, and social factors on multiple levels. Moroever, the lack of awareness of likeability in the international workforce is threatening the collapse of capitalism (Porter, Kramer, 2011). Likeability factors not only into how managers connect with employees but also into how businesses connect with consumers.

A better awareness of how management can better connect with employees, facilitate their drive, and establish greater connectedness would help companies to save billions all around the world in the long-term (Porter, Kramer, 2011; Pink, 2011). This study will also seek to discover the set of skills and attributes that make a person likable in the professional context no matter the culture. Researchers have already indicated that such attributes as selflessness and modesty are helpful in giving good impressions and establishing likeability (Bergman, Westerman, Daly, 2010; Blickle, Diekmann, Schneider, 2012).

But this study focuses on discovering how likeability is manifested in the cross-cultural international workforce. It should afford others in management positions the opportunity to identify those skills most necessary to a successful manager, and help them both to acquire and to demonstrate them. A phenomenological approach will be used to understand the impact of likeable managers on the international workplace environment.

The conceptual framework of this study is based on the impact of transformational management, trust (authenticity, transparency), and Emotional Intelligence as elements of managerial likeability: the purpose of this framework is to determine how these elements help to explain management likeability across cultures. Research Questions This will be a phenomenological study based on interviews and observation. The two research questions are: A. How does likeability of a leader influence a team's performance? i. What are the tangible effects, if any? ii. What are the intangible effects? B.

What are the common characteristics and attributes of a manager that would be perceived as likable across cultures? i. How is the Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions helpful and/or relevant in this study? ii. What are the common features that work across cultures? iii.

What are the features that do not work across cultures? Purpose Statement The purpose of this phenomenological study is to discover the ways in which managerial likeability is manifested in the international workplace and how likeability is discerned by employees or effected by managers in that environment.

Significance of the study The potential value of the study to the field of management analysis is found in the idea that likeability is a crucial factor in management success -- and that in the international workplace environment, understanding the factors which determine likeability can lead to greater success in that workplace. Researchers interested in the field of likeability scholarship and management analysis may find this study useful for its examination of the interrationship of likeability, cross-cultural norms, and the likeability factors of transformational leadership, trust, and EI.

Another potential value of the study is that it may allow managers to better and more effectively use their time. In the Chet Holmes model of management, effective time management goes hand-in-hand with demonstrating likeability, transparency, authenticity, trust and Emotional Intelligence. Likeability, therefore, is a fundamental concept in one of the most successful manager's management model in the U.S.

This study has the potential to deepen managers' understanding of the reasons why likeability is so essential to management success, whether or not likeability is as crucial in the international environment, and -- if so -- how likeability can be achieved across cultures in that same environment. Research on likeability can lead to greater awareness on the part of employers of managers in all fields, whether sales, development, human resources, customer service, investment banking, and more (Sanders, 2005).

Any employer who has taken an interest in how someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Chet Holmes achieved success may benefit from this study -- for each of them understood the power of likeability. Management analysts will be able to utilize this study as they help other managers to effect real solutions for their workplace environments. Employers who have business dealings in the international workplace will benefit from this study by using it to better understand how likeability is accomplished in different cultures.

Likewise, employees may see how the health of a business, firm or organization is based on the ability of its teams to play a role in keeping a pleasant environment, so that they may achieve results in the best conditions possible. Also, on a management level, more emphasis put on transformational leadership and EI can over time build a solid foundation of trust, which is essential for long-term change in any organization (Radostina & Joyce, 2009).

Combining transformational leadership skills and EI with a willingness to enthusiastically sacrifice their own time and efforts over and above common expectation has proven to be a powerful catalyst of team solidarity and commitment to attaining challenging objectives (Singh & Krishnan, 2008). The outcomes of this level of effort, intensity and personal sacrifice on the part of a transformational leader, is respect and a solid foundation of likeability.

It is presumed that the element of likeability predicated on the factors mentioned in this study are transferable across all cultures, according to the Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions, which also illustrates how altruism is a universally desirable leadership attribute (Laura, 2011). Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in order to ensure consistency and clarity throughout the study. Definitions are crafted by the researcher, but where a citation is given, the definition is grounded in terms expressed by previous researchers and summarizes their words.

Likeability: Likeability is the manifestation of trust in a leader and is sustained through authenticity and transparency (Harms & Crede, 2010). It is rooted in empathy and often accompanied by the feeling of mutual agreeability. Underlying likeability is a fundamental spirit of sameness, oneness, and openness. In general, Americans view "likeability" as a term that invokes or calls upon ideas of camaraderie, friendliness, approval, desirability, and/or interest. Bhargava (2012) defines likeability as a combination of human empathy, a willingness to give freely, and the ability to offer value (p. 108).

Transformational leadership: Transformation leadership is the exchange between leaders and followers that results in a higher motivational force and a greater level of overall morale and initiative (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership utilizes four variables in its strategy of boosting morale and increasing motivation.

Those four variables are: 1) consideration of the individual -- the leader becomes a mentor to the follower; 2) stimulation of the intellect -- the leader challenges the follower by sparking both curiosity and creativity as well as by pushing the follower to develop thoughts, clarify ideas and definitions, and expand knowledge; 3) the ability to inspire and motivate -- the leader does not want slaves but rather inspired followers, who believe in what he believes and will push themselves to rise to the challenges that the belief will demand of them; 4) ideals which influence -- the leader possesses a vision that appeals to the follower; that vision is ethical, transparent, and beneficial.

By utilizing these four variables, the transformational leader is able to transform a team into a unified, solid, disciplined, knowledgeable, driven, proud, ethical, considerate core of individuals who respect one another and the ideal which they are pursuing. Successful management: Luthans (1988) states that "successful managers…are not engaged in the same day-to-day activities as effective managers" but rather are those who "find that the way to get ahead…is to be friendly…both inside and outside the firm…find a common interest…and interact with them on that level" (p. 130).

This is similar to the definition of the successful manager given by Holmes (2007). Successful management is concerned with progress, going beyond the status-quo, doing more than is required in order to boost numbers, morale, desire, demand, and overall growth.

The successful manager is one whose every task is geared towards "getting ahead." Trust: The concept of trust is based on both a feeling and a knowledge of ability, follow-through, stability, and reliability in an "other." Trust can take several different objectives, from the physical to the metaphysical; for example, one may "trust" one's car to get him where he wants to go; one may "trust" that Providence will provide for him.

In the workplace, trust may be synonymous with confidence and the comfort level which one experiences when relying on another. Trust has also been used as the basis for a specific management style: Trust management has been defined as "the activities of creating systems and methods that allow relying parties to: 1) Make assessments and decisions regarding the dependability of potential transactions involving risk; and 2) Allow players and system owners to increase and correctly represent the reliability of themselves and their systems" (Grudzewski, Hejduk, Sankowska, Wantuchowicz, 2008, p. 38).

Employee trust in management stems from all of these factors -- managerial transparency, efficiency, forthrightness, ethic, ability, and empathy. The ability to effect trust may not be dependent upon each of these factors or on any of them; trust is a process, or a habit, that one engages in daily if necessary -- and not simply a foundation, which, once laid, needs no further attention. Like any living entity, it must be nurtured by continual positivity.

In an action sense, trust may be defined as an act of benevolence in which the receiver is granted the benefit of the doubt by the giver. Such benevolence is crucial in establishing economic and social growth (Fukuyama, 1995). Authenticity: Authenticity is frequently likened to "sincerity, honesty, and integrity," yet has been defined as an attribute that is perceived rather than effected (Goffee, Jones, 2005, p. 86).

Authenticity is perceived when words match deeds; certain audiences expect certain words, certain personalities: "authentic leaders seem to know which personality traits they should reveal to whom, and when" (Goffee, Jones, 2005, p. 86). Authenticity can thus be effected by intuitively adjusting to the demands of every environment while maintaining "distinctiveness" as an individual (Goffee, Jones, 2005). Transparency: Transparency is the quality of an individual or group of individuals that enables an "other" to anticipate, understand, follow, and appreciate the individual's or group's actions with little risk to themselves (Draghi, Giavazzi, Merton, 2003).

Transparency may also be understood as the "informational arrangement" that allows an organization to be "less of a cumbersome machine" (Cetina, Bruegger, 2001, p. 180). When applied to individuals, transparency may be understood similarly as the quality of one who is forthcoming with relevant information that may allow another to act both in his own best interest and in the best interest of the community. Emotional Intelligence: EI is defined differently by scholars, according to different EI models.

This study will use the Mayer and Salovey (2001) definition of EI as "the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth" (p. 232). It can be divided into four categories of ability: 1) the ability to perceive emotions; 2) the ability to harness and use emotions; 3) the ability to understand emotions and the language of the emotions; and 4) the ability to manage the emotions, to regulate them in oneself and in those around one.

The International Environment: The International Environment is understood as the business/market environment in which multinational corporations engage in commercial transactions. These transactions consist of but are not limited to people, skills, capital, and are made for goods and services (Joshi, 2009). Limitations of the Study 1. It has been stated that the Hofstede Model utilizes a theory and methodology which contains inconsistencies (Ailon, 2008).

Of course there are other levels upon which cultures may be analyzed, and this study does not suggest that the Hofstede Model is in any way a comprehensive analytical apparatus. This study employs only the guiding principle inherent in the Hofstede Model, which is that cultures may differ from one another in the way certain ideas are approached, accepted, or embraced. Hofstede's idea of the universality of altruism is also tested. a. However, the idea of universality is not tested in a quantitative way but rather in a phenomenological way.

The data acquired is based on a phenomenological approach. The researcher attempts to submerse himself in the experience of the individual employee and manager in order to observe how "likeability" is viewed by them. It is an intuitive method, and in that regard may not yield the empirical results that quantitative analysts expect. 2. The study is further limited by the size of the sample.

Because the researcher is restricted by time and funds, it is impossible to have an ideal sample size that would allow for a more in-depth analysis and comparison of subjects. However, the sample size in this study is sufficient enough to grant an initial investigation into the interrelationship of transformational leadership, EI, and trust in the international workplace environment. 3. One final limitation is the subjective character of the study.

It does not propose to be authoritative in any regard, and presents itself more as a reflective study which may be used as a beginning point for later observation. Assumptions 1. The hypothesis that likeability/altruism are universal ideals is assumed. This assumption is based on the work of Hofstede, Laura (2008), Holmes (2007), and Sanders (2005). The hypothesis will be tested only in the sense that a gauge of cross-cultural attitudes towards likeability as a factor in the successful workplace will be taken by the researcher through phenomenological observations.

Because the researcher is taking an intuitive approach to the study, immersing himself in the experience of the employee and the employer, the assumption that likeability is a universal ideal will be used as a tool with which the researcher can explore the EI-trust-transformational leadership relationship in the international environment. 2. Bradberry and Su (2003) have criticized the ability model of EI because it has little "predictive validity" in the work environment.

Their criticism is not relevant to this study because this study is not concerned with measuring EI but rather in observing the relationship of EI to trust and transformational leadership, all of which are understood to be factors in the establishment of likeability. The ability EI model is used simply as a means of defining EI for the purposes of this study. A greater examination of EI may be undertaken at a later point.

Organization of the Study The chapters that comprise the study are Chapter 1, which provides an introduction with a background to the study, a statement of the problem, a definition of key terms, and the significance of the research. It also includes a discussion of the limitations of the study, a description of the research questions, and a statement of the study's hypothesis and assumptions.

Chapter 2 will provide a review of selected literature, including an overview of how and why the literature was selected, and an interpretation of the literature's different conclusions by way of comparing and contrasting the perspective of each. Chapter 3 will provide an overview of the methodology used in the study. It provides a form of the two questionnaires that will be utilized by the researcher in interviews with the sample participants in the study.

It discusses the observational technique as well as how the theoretical approach to the study will be applied. Summary A better awareness of managerial likeability could potentially save businesses billions in international commerce. Likeability is a crucial factor in establishing connectedness between managers and employees (Sanders, 2006), yet Pink (2011) shows that likeability receives too little attention in the bureaucratized, need-for-instant-results business environment. Understanding how likeability is viewed and effected in the international workplace can help businesses succeed.

Various factors have been identified as pertaining to likeability, such as the ability to build trust, communicate, connect, deliver sufficient resources, adapt to different people, sociability, and education (Mahlamaki, Uusitalo, 2009). Decades' worth of research indicates that likeability is essential to effective management (Thomas, Tartell, 1991), and even such successful businessmen as Bill Gates, who wrote in 1997 that a good manager must "like people," see that management likeability is a powerful tool.

Identifying how likeability translates into success and which factors translate into likeability in the international environment is pivotal in embracing and implementing the conclusions already arrived at by researchers and successful American managers like Gates and the late Chet Holmes. This phenomenological study aims to discover how likeability is manifested in the international workplace, how EI, transformational leadership and trust factor into the establishment of likeability, and how likeability is viewed from a cross-cultural perspective. The selected literature of Chapter 2 will further illustrate this point.

CHAPTER 2 Review of Selected Literature This chapter provides an extensive review of relevant research and is divided into sections (a) history of research on likeability, (b) importance of the issue of likeability, (c) likeability and this study's research questions, (d) current selection practices, and (e) recommended selection practices. Preceding this division is the methodology used in the collection of the literature. The Literature Review Collection Procedure The literature samples were selected according to key word searches in Google Scholar and a variety of databases such as JSTOR, PsychINFO, and Questia.

Key word searches included "likeability in management," "transformational management, likeability," "management transparency, likeability," "value of likeability in the workplace," and "likeability in international business." These key word searches allowed the researcher to develop a general perception of popular notions of how likeability was perceived in the workplace. Two of the first works of literature to be reviewed were Bhargava's (2012) Likeonomics and Sanders' (2006) The Likeability Factor. These books gave an overview of the subject of likeability -- but more in-depth analysis of case studies was desired.

The researcher noted key words which occurred in these popular writings and searched them in the various databases available on the Internet: "success and popularity in the workplace" yielded the Columbia University study by Holloway (2011).

The Holloway (2011) study focused on "trust," which led the researcher to utilize that key word in further searches, alternately coupling it with "management," "international corporations," "likeability and management," and "EI in the workplace." The selection of key words was based on context (how much importance or value was given to the words within the study), the number of times the words were used, and the overall popularity of the terms in modern academic discourse.

As key word searches developed and grew, a greater list of relevant literature presented itself to the researcher. This list included Hoover's (2003) How to Work for an Idiot, which contrasted a transactional form of leadership with a transformational form of leadership, emphasizing the importance of likeability in management. A study by Radostina and Joyce (2009) showed how transformational leadership helps to foster trust and transparency, thus helping to preserve a managerial authenticity that builds relationships in the workplace environment.

Pink's (2011) Drive also discussed the value of Emotional Intelligence as a factor in likeability. These works and studies were collected by simple key word combination searches across several databases open to Google Scholar and/or within JSTOR, etc. Specific journals such as The Journal of Organizational Behavior and The Academy of Management Review were then targeted as possible troves of relevant literature. Alion's (2008) critique of the Hofstede Model was located in this manner as was Bolino and Turnley's (2003) study on likeability and intimidation in the workplace environment.

History of Research The study by Graziano and Tobin (2009) focuses on the history of agreeableness from ancient civilizations to modern times. It defines agreeableness as a quality perceived by others as "kind…considerate…warm" over an extended period of time (p. 46). Agreeableness is based upon stability and cooperation and has always been valued highly, even in ancient cultures.

In modern times, however, agreeableness has received less empirical analysis than other personality "traits" -- the reason for this being that modern science has a history of "deductive top-down theorizing" with regards to the link between agreeableness and biology as well as to "conspicuous social behaviors" (Graziano, Tobin, 2009, p. 46). Graziano and Tobin discuss the different ways in which agreeableness may be measured, which is a consideration relevant to this study, for it too attempts to observe the phenomenon of likeability.

It is most often measured by way of association, meaning that it is often associated with another idea -- such as (positively) cooperation, assistance, or (negatively) conflict and prejudice (Graziano, Tobin, 2009). Most pertinent to this study is the argument of Graziano and Tobin that agreeableness is a regulatory concept -- as in agreeableness can "regulate negative emotions" (Graziano, Tobin, 2009, p. 53). This argument supports the idea that likeability is fundamental to establishing a successful management system.

Agreeableness, their study suggests, is a good motivator -- which is exactly what Sanders (2006) and Pink (2011) assert. This study attempts to fill the gap left by Graziano and Tobin by applying their findings to the international workplace and discovering a correlation. It is expected that their findings fit quite well. Indeed, likeability studies have since focused on everything from advertising (Fam, Waller, 2006) to Internet addiction (Iacovelli, Valenti, 2009), politics (Teven, 2008), neurology (Evans, Evans, 2010) and business management (Vonk, 1999). For instance, Bhargava (2012) cites the case of the Shangri-La Hotel.

After emphasizing likeability as a core value, Bhargava shows that sales improved immediately and the hotel's rate of occupancy exceeded the industry average by 400% (p. 92). Revenue increased by 24% -- four times the industry average. A study by the Ethisphere Institute in 2011 saw companies noted for being ethical "outperforming those listed on the S&P 500 by over 30%" (Bhargava, 2012, p. 92). In the U.S., research has shown that likeability can increase presentation project recall by 26% (Holmes, 2007), which means that likeability is a clear factor in forming positive impressions on an audience.

Bhargava's study is significant because it utilizes quantitative analysis in order to illustrate the role that likeability plays. Such analysis should be utilized by management professionals when establishing a system of management -- however, Bhargava's study does not take into account the phenomenon of likeability as it actually appears in the international workplace.

Bhargava's quantitative analysis is useful in helping the researcher to better establish a more confident approach to the subject -- but it leaves a gap between likeability as a positive factor in business success and likeability as an observable, discoverable phenomenon that can be studied, understood, and practiced. A study by Brown and Abrams (2006) analyzed the way that workplace team members monitor likeability among themselves and how deviant group members are dealt with. It showed definitive evidence of likeability being a major factor in workplace relationships.

Their study was quantitative, whereas this current study is phenomenological -- the difference being that their study could support with numerical data the idea of likeability being a major factor in managerial success. However, this study is more qualitative in the sense that it looks at the way in which likeability is acted out and discerned by both employees and employers and attempts to discover the "essence" of likeability as it occurs across cultures.

Brown and Adams gave us the numbers, this research attempts to give a representation of the abstract notion of likeability in the discernible real world. Brown and Adams study is useful in the sense that it introduces key elements that have contributed to this research's questionnaire, such as questions 4, 7, and 8 -- all of which deal with likeability as it affects others. Rahim's (2011) study is also helpful in formulating the questionnaire.

Rahim tested the hypothesis that likeability played a fundamental role in establishing a successful relationship between managers and employees by conducting interviews and asking relevant questions regarding the ways in which employees felt about managerial likeability. Rahim's data suggests that likeability is a factor, but not a universal or even a primary factor in business success.

His study, however, may be slanted in the fact that his own questionnaire gave participants the option of understanding likeability in a much broader and even vaguer context than this current study intends to allow. Rahim (2011) illustrates what can happen in a study when it is too broad -- upon closer inspection, results tend to be less impressive because they are less objective and more contrived.

This study hopes to learn from Rahim and provide participants with a concise and focused questionnaire that deals solely with the aspect of likeability and how it is defined across cultures in the international workplace. However, the idea of likeability being more than an abstract principle but rather one that has very practical real effects in every day life is demonstrated in Brown and Adam's study -- and for that reason their study has facilitated this one. Their research is supported by non-Western studies, as well.

Fam and Waller (2006) studied the way that likeability could be affected by the advertisement business community, giving positive proof that likeability is a powerful tool of persuasion. Their quantitative study suggested that likeability has universal appeal, as Laura (2011) also suggests. Again, Fam and Waller approached the issue of likeability from a quantitative standpoint, like Rahim (2011), which is helpful in establishing the case for the need for managerial likeability. However, research into how likeability is manifested is also helpful in establishing the case for how likeability can be effected.

Thus, this researcher turned to qualitative studies for some indication of how likeability had been approached in the past. Weaver's (1984) qualitative study illustrates the problem of discussing likeability as a universal when he details the loss of universals in the Western world. Weaver's approach is more socio-literary based and, thus, takes a humanistic look at the problem of universals in general.

His research argues that the problem of identifying any such universal as likeability is difficult in the modern era because definition itself is problematic, as words are utilized, manipulated, used as pretexts, and devalued as much as modern currency is.

As such, he asserts that the phrase "going with the flow" is adopted as the one philosophical tenet by which to stand: it causes no disruptions, keeps one from becoming an obstacle to whatever prevailing conditions are being promoted at the time in one's environment, and general keeps one from harming the status quo.

This being the case, Weaver suggests that because a sense of universals has been lost (at least since the time of the Enlightenment era of science), a reliance upon empiricism for knowledge has supplanted the more ancient custom of common sense acknowledgment of truth. Thus, Weaver makes an argument for quantitative analysis. However, as status-quo shifts and cross-cultural ideals come and go, likeability becomes a mutating concept, which may appear as a shallow "go along to get along" approach to business practices.

Understanding likeability from a phenomenological approach helps to understand the reality of likeability -- that is, the real notions that underlie the terminological concepts. Still, the problem with such an interpretation of likeability, Weaver suggests, is that it does not take into consideration the truth that likeability is a universal. As the existence of universals is denied by one wing of empirical science, its existence is made manifest in another.

This is problematic for a number of reasons: it makes observing likeability in both subjective and objective manners a balancing act in which the observer must neither affirm nor deny any real "proof" of likeability. Weaver's assessment of the position of universals today may be viewed as particularly pessimistic. Yet, it is helpful in understanding how to approach the idea of likeability in a phenomenological sense.

This study does not assume that a universal understanding of likeability is held by all, but rather attempts to identify what likeability means to individuals from all corners of the international workplace. If the idea of likeability is prone to misinterpretation, as Weaver suggests, a phenomenological approach can be of help in re-establishing what likeability means cross-culturally and how it is implemented or not implemented in the international workplace environment.

The Hofstede Model The Hofstede Model of Cultural Dimensions was developed in the latter half of the 20th century, from the 1960s onward. It is an older model with certain weaknesses (for instance, there is no way to quantify its claims) that has nonetheless served as a simple basis for more complex and in-depth investigations of the way culture impacts business, management and international management (Wardrope, 2005). Today's world of international management is a world of cultural dynamism.

Scholars speak of globalization and its effects, of a new global culture, and of a new world order which has long been in gestation (Rupert, 2000). Not only have cultures changed in dynamic ways over the past 100 years, but so too have the fundamental values of major corporations, as perceived by employees and the public. For instance, 34% of the American public supported "labor in industrial disputes" in 1984, whereas 45% supported management. By 1996 those numbers had changed considerably: 44% supported laborers and just 24% supported management (Rupert, 2000, p. 40-41).

Corporatism had come to replace "the American Dream" and thus put the American working man at odds with management (Rupert, 2000, p. 41). In the 21st century, globalization and corporatism are accepted as a way of life (Perkins, 2004). New working class values have developed just as new markets have appeared and new ways of making money in financial sectors, marketing sectors, and manufacturing sectors have come into existence (Perkins, 2004).

Thus, the Hofstede Model, which originally concentrated on 4 very distinct points -- power orientation, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity (later including long-term orientation and indulgence vs. self-restraint) -- as factors in the culture-business relationship, may be viewed as simplistic in today's world of hyper-activity, cross-cultural businesses, globalization, Westernization, and economic destabilization. Wardrope (2005) uses a Hofstede-Hall hybrid model, which incorporates context and time orientation, to show the differences in the way the culture of the U.S.

And Latin America approach the workplace: generally -- and only generally -- speaking, in the U.S., people tend to value punctuality whereas in Latin America, flexibility is valued; in the U.S., people tend to take words literally whereas in Latin America, context plays a crucial role; in the U.S., people tend to value freedom over authority whereas in Latin America, authority meets little resistance; in the U.S., men and women tend to be viewed equally -- that is, as possessing the same authority -- whereas in Latin America, men typically occupy a role of higher authority -- and so on (Wardrope, 2005).

In Wardrope's study, it may be seen how the Hofstede Model can still function as a basic model for formulating comparisons. But it is by no means a model that contains a comprehensive framework for analysis. It is merely a foot in the door. Indeed, the Hofstede model is still utilized as just such a foot by ITAP International, an American consulting firm, whose "Culture in the Workplace Questionnaire" is inspired by the Hofstede Model.

Because this study takes a phenomenological approach, the Hofstede Model's quantitative formula is less desired than the Model's intuitive design. Rather than "culture" in the workplace, this study focuses on "likeability" in the workplace and uses a "likeability in the workplace questionnaire" designed to provoke open-ended discussion responses rather than numerical ratings which can then be accumulated for quantitative analysis. This study's goal is observe the total experience of cross-cultural perceptions of likeability in the international workplace and how that experience challenges or supports the study's hypothesis.

In this sense, the Hofstede Model does present itself to the researcher as a useful apparatus in terms of assisting the researcher in analyzing the factors that affect likeability in the international workplace. By formulating a questionnaire for the interview portion of this study that utilizes the spirit of the Hofstede structure, the researcher hopes to be able to spark a discussion about perception vs. reality regarding likeability in terms of EI, authenticity/transparency/trust, and transformational leadership skills.

Do these theories help to explain likeability in the international environment? If so, how? And is "likeability" as important a factor in international business success as has been hypothesized? Likeability alone does not assure results; however, Figure 1, Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability, shows how these three factors (EI, authenticity/transparency/trust, and transformational leadership) must be balanced and in proportion to each other in a leader's management style to be effective.

The three components displayed with balance can create the motivation that over 80% of workers around the world are lacking (Bhargava, 2012), and each can contribute to an overall impression of likeability. Figure 1 - Key Factors of Likeability in Leaders Based on analysis of the following sources: (Sanders, 2006; Den, Deanne, Belschak, 2012). Importance of the Issue of Likeability Researchers examine the way that likeability affects the workplace in various dimensions.

Tourish and Hargie (2004) argue that communication is an important aspect of the workplace environment and one that has likeability qualities which should be understood in order to bring workplace communications to their fullest. They assert that communication in many workplace environments is a process that leaves subordinates cold and distant in relation to their superiors.

Their assessment of workplace communication practices is worth quoting in whole: Communication practices, they state, is "still regarded as something that managers do to their subordinates; they drop information like depth charges on to those employees submerged in the organizational ocean but make it very clear that they do not expect to receive any feedback torpedoes in return" (p. 132). This assessment is particularly relevant to the study because it reminds the researcher of the problem of face-to-face communication and the subjective experience of likeability.

A manager may think he is being agreeable by "dropping" the necessary information on the employee, but the employee may regard the "dropping" of information as a disagreeable experience because it lacks certain characteristics of likeability, such as empathy, sympathy, etc. How likeability is discerned is something that this study hopes to look for as it observes the responses of participants to questions regarding the tangible and intangible effects of likeability.

The EI of managers and their ability to embrace transformational leadership skills as well as transparency and trust will be elements that are watched for by the researcher during the interview process -- and these elements are critical according to Tourish and Hargie; therefore, this study should build on their findings. Tourish and Hargie (2004) indicate that one of the difficulties of discovering the phenomenon of likeability is the subjective experience of likeability.

Because it is so subjective, it can be extremely difficult to quantify and even to qualify in certain ways. Certainly likeability can be defined, even if definitions differ from person to person, based on subjective preferences. But an objective definition may be admitted by the majority of persons. Still, how likeability plays a part in the workplace can depend on unforeseen factors such as employee preference, employee agreeability, employee personality, employee orientation, plus managerial gender, appearance, guise, etc.

Observing the phenomenon of likeability in the international workplace is, Tourish and Hargie (2004) show, an exercise that can lead to more questions than answers. However, their study does conclude with the assertion that likeability is a fundamental in establishing human relations within the workforce, even if what constitutes likeability differs for each individual.

(For example, one member of a team may appreciate and like a manager who is more demanding and to-the-point, while another member of a team appreciate a manager who is more expansive, roundabout, friendly and easy to talk to; every case is likely to be different). One thing is clear from their report: likeability matters. This study hopes to discover just what likeability means across cultures and thereby fill the gap.

Likeability as a Fundamental The report by Tourish and Hargie goes on to show that likeability plays a fundamental role in the way managers communicate with subordinates. A one-way flow is undesirable on several levels, they state: first, it means that information is only coming in one direction -- typically from top-down -- which in turn suggests that the subordinate cannot readily send information back to his or her superior.

This leads to the potential of having an uninformed management team, which fails to know or understand how subordinates are handling the information which has come down to them from above. Tourish and Hargie assert that a more likeable approach to communication is a two-way communication channel, by which subordinates can communicate with superiors and relay necessary information when said information needs relaying. The overall communication climate in any workplace should be satisfactory (Tourish, Hargie, 2004, p. 132).

Tourish and Hargie note that there are, however, the various ethical problems that can arise in any workplace regarding communication likeability and communication flows. One such ethical problem is the "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, which enables certain persons within the workplace to shield themselves from potentially dangerous information -- such as failure in the ranks, fictitious results, fudged data reports, etc. "Looking the other way" can be hailed by some as both a likeable trait, whereas by others it can be hailed as an unlikable trait.

This finding presents further proof that Weaver's argument concerning the loss of a universal identity regarding likeability makes the workplace a dubious environment at best -- one in which players may show "likeability" while maintaining an ulterior position which, were it made manifest, may reveal them to be unlikable. Furthermore, such a play results in a two-way show of "going along, to get along" for the sake of propping up a false conception.

Such a consequence has been positively identified by Lewis (2011) in his review of the current workplace situation in several Wall Street firms. Lewis cites a mentality of "false conviction" which led to worldwide system failure (p. 114).

He indicates the possibility of a perception failing to identify the reality -- which suggests that Weaver's lamentation for the loss of universals is indeed a tragic occurrence, for it weakens the opportunity that researchers may have to distinguish perception from reality and draw from that distinction conclusions which may bear fruit for managers in the international workplace environment. Tourish and Hargie (2004) concur with Lewis (2011) when they argue that stability is also a factor to consider in the discussion of the effect of ethics in the workplace.

To safeguard against "false convictions," Tourish and Hargie recommend a communication audit (p. 133). Such an audit, they advise, could be helpful in establishing a picture of how communication flow stands in a workplace environment and show whether perception is matching reality or whether perception is being manipulated in order to facilitate what Festinger (1956) calls the relief of cognitive dissonance.

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance allows for the possibility that persons will engage in "dissonance reduction" when perception and reality fail to meet, giving the individual a feeling of a loss of equilibrium. When equilibrium is lost in the workplace environment, subordinates and superiors both may attempt to restore consonance by changing their action, changing their belief, or changing their perception of their action. Festinger's theory is, however, difficult to quantify and has been challenged by a number of researchers who argue that it is not even qualitatively sound research.

The argument does not necessarily pertain to this study, but Festinger's theory does pose several problematic questions for this researcher, such as: how is one to tell if an employee is simply providing answers because he/she believes they are what the interviewer wants to hear and hopes that a good word will get back to the manager? Or, how is one to tell if an interviewee is being honest or simply "going with the flow" as Weaver (1984) puts it? Festinger provides an interesting concept that may be used for further analysis, barring any irrefutable evidence that proves Festinger's theory to be insupportable.

Therefore, a closer examination of this theory may be helpful in eradicating some of these problematic questions from the researcher's mind. Likeability as a Deceptive Factor The relationship between belief and action is pivotal in Festinger's theory. Consistency between the two forms the framework of "spirit of mission" (Samaan, Verneuil, 2009, p. 421), which may be understood as the ability to maintain consistent adherence to an organization/agency's mission statement. Yet, maintenance of that mission depends on more than the organizational system that supports it.

Just as belief and action affect and are affected by a "spirit of mission," organizations and agencies affect and are affected by a larger political, economical and social setting. "The prevailing view that public interest disclosure is somehow a culture-free, or at least a culture-muted phenomenon" is very misleading (De Maria, 2005, p. 217). No organization or environment exists in a vacuum.

The study by Samaan and Verneuil (2009) is helpful in raising the idea of an organization having an actual "spirit of mission" -- that is, an intangible but felt, rationalized, and adhered to principle of guidance, to which all members of a business team can and are expected to embrace. That "spirit" is part of a "culture" and that culture depends on human beings to keep it going.

Thus, Samaan and Verneuil raise an important question in their research: What binds human beings together? What keeps them going for the goal? The glory of the crown is as old as antiquity and even the Paul in his epistles speaks of winning the race: "Run in such a way as to win the prize" (1 Cor. 9:24).

Unity of purpose can be one motivator -- but unity without truth (one of theoretical elements of likeability) can produce an organism that runs on a counterfeit spirit -- one that is ultimately self-directed rather than other-directed. If likeability is other-directed (as in making connections with others, serving others), an organization that is self-directed can hardly expect to achieve the success needed in a capitalistic environment on the verge of self-destruction (Pink, 2011).

A good example of a counterfeit spirit is seen in the case of Enron, where likeable "deviants" produced a spirit of mission that was unified but lacked truth and transparency. Eventually the company self-destructed and its managers ran afoul of the law. Their mission was focused on winning a crown, and their exterior behavior appeared likeable -- but their goals were self-directed. For Samaan and Verneuil (2009), such direction is ultimately problematic for developing a successful spirit of mission.

Their argument is taken into account in this study and kept in mind by the researcher as he attempts to discern between a real and counterfeit spirit among the participants of the study. One way in which that discernment may be assisted is to encourage the participant to discuss the trust, truth, and transparency element of likeability in relation to his experience with management.

However, because individuals may change the way they perceive things in order to lessen dissonance, the researcher must also test the participants' willingness to change perception (which could result in the embracing of a counterfeit spirit/likeability). Festinger again provides some assistance in developing a test for this point. Festinger (1957) states that cognition refers to "any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior" (p. 3).

In this study, each participant may be regarded as a reporter or even as a whistleblower if the information he or she has about likeability in the international workplace that goes contrary to the accepted "spirit" of that workplace, whether counterfeit or not. Every individual, it is assumed, has an outlook which constitutes belief. One's actions are normally oriented towards one's beliefs, so that if one accepts the "spirit" of an organization or agency, his or her actions should serve to represent that spirit.

When actions are not consistent with beliefs, dissonance occurs. When dissonance occurs, a modifying action is required. That modifying action can result in a change of perception, a change of action, or a change of perception of the action, according to Festinger. One way to test for this is to change, as this researcher does, the balance for the participant: by giving the participant an opportunity to escape any existent dissonance, the researcher may observe a more truthful response.

For example, when one locks an individual in a room and tells him he must wait a certain amount of time but points out that there is an escape ladder outside the window, in case he gets tired of waiting, it is reasonable to suspect that the individual's consequent actions will tell us something about him. What exactly? Festinger has shown that humans typically tend to strive for consistency between belief and action. Inconsistency is a way of describing dissonance.

Aronson (2004) has suggested that dissonance is also another term for "guilt." While an empirical analysis of "guilt" is difficult to perform (because of its subjective quality), Festinger argues that the magnitude of dissonance can be measured, as he demonstrates through various experiments. Festinger (1957) also asserts that "dissonance," or "hunger, frustration or disequilibrium…that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in its own right" (p. 3).

Dissonance creates psychological discomfort, which serves to "motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance" (Festinger, 1957, p. 3).

Dissonance is not only something that one tries to reduce but is also something one tries to avoid: "When dissonance is present," Festinger states, "the person will actively avoid the situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance." In relation to likeability, Festinger's theory suggests that likeability can be affected in order to reduce workplace dissonance -- an idea that can undermine the thesis of this study if one is not careful. Therefore, it is valuable to understand Festinger's theory and some of the problems that arise from it.

Festinger claims that cognitive dissonance is the precursor to actions directed towards dissonance reduction. Cognitive dissonance theory essentially proposes that action affects attitude and belief just as much as attitude and belief affect action. Because, as Festinger argues, (1) humans naturally tend towards harmony, balance and consonance; and that (2) inconsistency between belief and action is problematic because it produces dissonance, (3) humans will attempt to resolve the dissonance by altering action, belief or perception.

Resolution is achieved through these three courses of action: by altering the belief to match the action; by altering the action to match the belief; or by altering the perception of the action (i.e., 'rationalizing' or justifying it so as to make it 'seem' to match the belief). One problem with Festinger's theory is that it is difficult to quantify and therefore support with empirical evidence. Like the approach of this study, it is qualitative and subject to the problem of perception.

Because the perception of likeability is the focus of this study, approaching likeability from a qualitative standpoint provides a framework whereby the perception and the reality are described rather measured. Festinger's theory attempts to be a framework whereby analysis may be measured, but his framework does not support quantitative analysis. Thus, for this study the problems of Festinger's theory do not present a danger.

What they do present is an apparent need for observation in the workplace environment -- especially in the international workplace environment, where, as Hofstede illustrates, cross-cultural differences can have a major impact on the way perceptions are fostered and the way realities are altered. This is where a discovering of elements of EI, transformational leadership, and trust, transparency and truth come into play in the observation of participants in this study's question/answer interview session.

Discovering these elements can assist the researcher in drawing a clearer picture of overall likeability in the workplace environment, a picture that would be less clear without establishing an awareness of the precise elements that one should look for. Likeable Deviants The case of Enron is an example worth studying, as noted before. Research by Elkind and McLean (2013) is helpful in understanding the ways in which "likeability" can be used as a guise or a pretext for unethical business practices which ultimately cripple an organization.

Enron's management team, led by Skilling and Fastow, was a dynamic, "likeable" force, which lacked one important element of likeability -- transparency.

Elkind and McLean analyzed cash-flows and saw that Enron's "financials didn't make sense." Skilling saw the same thing; his apprentice, Andy Fastow, Enron's CFO, was given the job of covering up these financials as well as the fact that Enron was "$30 billion in debt." Here was a clear case of fabricating the financials in order to appear "likeable" -- and Skilling and Fastow excelled at appearing likeable; in fact, they were well-known for being "likeable" guys.

Yet, the problem of likeability at Enron was that the definition was not rooted in the ideals, qualities and attributes that are used to give the term meaning in this study. "Likeability" at Enron had to do with "getting ahead," being the "life of the party," making money hand over fist, and deceiving anyone and everyone who posed a possible threat to the financial scheme.

Skilling and Fastow prided themselves on being likeable deviants -- a paradox that this study may potentially shed light on if it is expanded at some future point and given the opportunity of quantifying its results. By hiding the reality, Enron ventured into full-blown, outright fraud. By "stashing its debt" in "structure finance" -- hundreds of shell companies used to hide losses -- Enron attempted to fool investors and keep its stock market price up.

Skilling, Lay and the board knew that they could throw Fastow under the bus should the need arise (Elkind, McLean, 2013). Whether anyone would believe in their innocence was another story. Again, it was a case of intolerance, of stubborn refusal to deal with the reality. This refusal, Weaver (1984) suggests is the danger of the loss of universals in the modern eera. The reality for Enron was that the company was on the verge of total collapse, because its leaders were operating without a "moral compass" (Elkind, McLean, 2013).

Elkind and McLean approached their study of Enron from a socio-economic perspective, using biographical and phenomenological evidence to indicate the failures of Enron as a business. Their study is helpful and relevant to this study because it sheds light on the possibilities of embracing the socio-economic aspect of research into likeability. Interviewees bring with them more than just a simple workplace mentality.

Like the individuals at Enron, and indeed in every business, they bring with them a worldview that serves as a fundamental "spirit," which either conforms to or works against the workplace "spirit" identified by Samaan and Verneuil (2009). They bring with themselves an entire life history, which is situated in a certain economic context. Just as the interviewer is evaluating their answers, they are likely to be evaluating the interviewer and assessing the degree to which this exercise could benefit or harm themselves.

Again, Festinger's theory can be seen as relevant, because if the interviewee assesses a degree of dissonance, he may attempt to resolve that dissonance by giving particular answers designed to alleviate conflict. However, those answers may not necessarily be the truest or most honest answers. In order to deal with this dilemma, the researcher has made it a point to insist that all interviews will be confidential, that all persons and the companies they represent will remain anonymous, so that no one will know which individual is saying what.

Thus, some degree of dissonance should be alleviated prior to the giving of the questionnaire. However, another difficulty is presented by the Enron case study -- and that is the very usage of the term "likeability." How can such a term be used when it can so easily be manipulated and turned inside-out, so to speak? This question is an old one and is debated by Kass (1986).

Kass (1986) suggests that likeability "is in itself a simplistic term because it assumes that all employees…view themselves by the same light" and states that some employees see "themselves as stewards of the public interest, while by contrast, their organizational compatriots [view] themselves as agents of the organization" (p. 36). This is important because the very idea that there might be dissonance between the interests of the public and the interests of the organization shows the narrowness of a notion like likeability, according to Kass.

Organizations may develop and promote their own culture, but that culture does not exist independently of its society or that society's culture. And in a global culture in which multinational corporations vie for traction, it is quite possible that multinational culture based on economic principles rather than social ones has more primacy.

A culture based primarily on economic principles may have its own definition of likeability -- and that is one reason this study proposes to question interviewees about their understanding of the term "likeability." A workplace environment is responsive to societal cues, to a system of ethics outside itself, to what philosophers have termed "natural law," to political/economic/social pressures, to individual internal codes, etc. In short, an organization is dynamic.

And if its spirit is different from that culture in which it exists (whether political or social), its employees may be informed by either, both, and even neither in cases where the employee has been formed elsewhere. Moreover, all are subject to continual change. Assessing likeability, therefore, is, as Kass (1986) asserts, a paradoxical endeavor. This study hopes to overcome that paradox by focusing on the theoretical elements of likeability and balancing participants' answers regarding likeability against these elements.

In other words, the theoretical elements of likeability should serve to illuminate or highlight the phenomenon of likeability in the international workplace, as it is depicted by this study's interviewees. Also, by allowing the participants to suggest "changes" to their workplace situation, in terms of agreeableness, the researcher provides an "open door" to dissonance-lessening. The purpose is to arrive at a true picture of likeability, not merely a "mouthed" one or one produced by a counterfeit "spirit." This study seeks to understand how likeability is seen worldwide.

The paradoxical insights of Kass leave open a gap that may be partially filled by this study's findings -- but that relies on the ability of the researcher to discern between true and counterfeit "spirits" and to construct an accurate and objective picture of the phenomenon of likeability out of subjective experiences.

To this end, the researcher uses the findings of Dekker (2009) to keep in mind that lines of acceptability must be drawn, but also that these lines must be drawn by individuals who may or may not be duplicitous themselves.

True Likeability If the ultimate goal of likeability, at least in terms of communication, as Tourish and Hargie (2004) argue, is to develop a two-way flow -- stability is necessary for that, and an objective reality in which likeability is clearly defined according to a universal standard can be good grounds for establishing that stability. Dekker (2009) asserts that a workplace environment needs clear lines that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable behavior.

Yet, he admits that this is not enough to guarantee that likeability is clearly and in every case defined -- because such delineations "falsely assume that culpability inheres in the act…The critical question is not where to draw the line, but who gets to draw it" (Dekker, 2009, p. 177). Which 'spirit' sets the parameters of acceptability in cross-cultural, multinational corporations? A spirit of deviance as was manifested at Enron? Or a spirit of good will, as Holmes (2007) manifests.

How will a diverse culture with various and often conflicting aims ever clearly evince an understanding of how likeability is a factor in successful management. This question must be considered if the proposition that began this paper is ever to be fully discussed. Dekker takes a qualitative approach to the discussion, but his focus in less on likeability in the workplace and more on culpability in the workplace.

Nonetheless, his findings can contribute to the support of this study as they highlight the need for the discernment of the spirit of organizations. Likeability may be an important factor in business success, but likeability itself is the sum of its parts, namely the interrelationship of EI, transformational leadership, and trust. Kass' paradox is ultimately self-fulfilling. A phenomenological approach reveals that businesses which fail to embrace all the parts of likeability, fail to wholly connect both within and without, and thus fail to succeed.

One opinion is that there appears to be no solution by which the problems may be adequately addressed without adversely affecting the outside pressures; therefore, they are ignored (Rose, 2005). This idea is supported by Festinger's theory, but not by Elkind and McLean's, which asserts that a house built on sand (false likeability) will inevitably collapse. Rose's (2005) report on the experience of Sibel Edmonds in the FBI reveals an example of an organization guided by Machiavellian dictates, threats, and underhanded "paybacks" rather than by the elements of likeability.

It serves as a good example of a managerial staff aware of dissonance in the workplace and which resolves that dissonance by changing perception. Edmonds had alerted managers to a problem in the workplace, but they, lacking transparency and completely untrustworthy, ended up blaming her for the problem, when she was merely the messenger. Meanwhile, the problem went unaddressed and the "messenger" was "shown to the door." Edmonds would later recall that the element of trust and transparency in the workplace environment was completely missing (Rose, 2005).

This researcher finds Rose's report to be particularly valuable because it provides a solid example of how disastrous a workplace environment can become when the theoretical elements of likeability are lacking. It gives evidence of signs to look for in an environment where likeability is lacking -- signs such as mistrust, skepticism, lack of transparency, lack of transformational leadership, and lack of EI.

These signs will be looked for by the researcher during the interviewing of participants in this study, so that, even if interviewees do assert that they "like" their managers, any hint of signs to the contrary will serve to guide the researcher to the true situation. Likeability Manifested Armstrong (1973) states that "if we think of beliefs as maps, then we can think of the totality of a man's beliefs at a particular time as a single great map of which the individual beliefs are sub-maps" (p. 3).

Armstrong argues that true likeability may in fact be discerned and manifested by the manager's belief system and/or the company's ethical mission statement. Armstrong's study is valuable because it encourages the researcher to look for the "reasons behind reasons," which is a tool utilized by Plato in his school of thought as well. Armstrong's epistemological analysis of the way in which meaning becomes evident relies on an understanding of the relationship between belief and justification.

In one sense, Armstrong's study is an answer to Festinger's critics' problem of measuring cognitive dissonance. Armstrong explains that the measurement need not be extensively quantitative because the subject lends itself naturally to qualitative analysis. Armstrong's argument is supported by Wollheim (1999) and both lend support to the thesis of this paper, which is that likeability can be discovered, though a phenomenological approach is perhaps the best way to discover it.

Wollheim (1999) speaks of the emotional intelligence as an element of likeability by way of the map analogy, asserting that "an emotion is a kind of mental phenomenon… [consisting of] mental states…[and] mental dispositions" (p. 1). Forming a map of employee beliefs can help encourage upward flows of communication by allowing managers to understand the keys to getting employees to talk and give them feedback.

Wollheim (1999) attempts to explain his dispositional theory of emotions by dividing them into two compounds: Mental states, he says, are like what William James called "the stream of consciousness" (p. 1). Mental dispositions, on the other hand, are like one's history: mental dispositions are more like the map of one's "beliefs and desires; knowledge; memories; abilities, powers, and skills; habits; inhibitions, obsessions, and phobias; and virtues and vices" (Wollheim, 1999, p. 2).

Mental states and mental dispositions, therefore, necessarily interact -- and it is the manager's responsibility to ensure that the interaction is positive and not rendered negative. Creating positive and encouraging atmospheres in which employee psychology can flourish is essential to nurturing a healthy communication flow. Wollheim's (1999) extensive study shows that emotions are a "mental phenomenon" -- and because likeability is made of a degree of emotional intelligence, a phenomenological approach is well-suited to understanding the way likeability is manifested in the international workplace.

Wollheim's study of the emotional life provides an insightful look on the interplay between superiors and inferiors and how emotional intelligence may be developed. It is helpful to this study because it provides the researcher with a basic awareness of the emotional life and how it operates, which is key to establishing a perspective from which to observe more deeply the phenomenon of likeability. The idea that likeability is an assistor in healthy communication flow concurs with the case study of Nike founder Phil Knight.

Phil Knight received the legendary name of Nike from his employee Jeff Johnson. It was Johnson who came up with the name of the Nike brand shoe -- now the most popular shoe in the world. And for a small fee, Knight bought the now iconic swoosh design from a graphic design student. Had Knight created an environment that did not encourage a good flow of communication, Nike as it is known today never would have come into existence (Rikert, Christensen, 1990, p. 9).

Knight's likeability factor was designed to promote open ideas and a positive exchange. It was a healthy manifestation of true likeability -- unlike the manifestation at Enron, where a likeable exterior charmed investors but hid the deviant reality, which was an unethical interior life in the management department run by Skilling and Fastow. Likewise, Google is another company that has refused to "go with the flow" of "go along to get along" likeability.

Google's business model platform is the antithesis of a status-quo model, in which all things are controlled from the top down. Google invented its own flow and trusted in its own likeability. Google's motto, "Do no Evil," states clearly what the company represents: nothing "conventional," but something innovative, authentic, and not interested in selling out (Mendelson, 2010, p. 9). Establishing a more open form of communication and maintaining a healthy flow of likeability in the workplace has helped Google become one of the most innovative companies in the world.

In other words, each company is unique and each depends upon managers who are able to recognize the uniqueness of the environment and the exclusive character and psychology of its employees so that communication is more than just a one-way street. Assessing how well employees and managers interact in two-way communication in the international workplace should also provide some insight into how well likeability is an established phenomenon across cultures. Even in the West, the phenomenon of managerial likeability is seen in degrees.

A study of Lee Iacocca's managerial likeability reveals a phenomenal amount of likeability. If the founders of Google and Nike displayed a significant degree of likeability in their two-way communications flows, Iacocca displayed a great deal of likeability in his transformational leadership style, in his ability to connect with employees through EI, and in his high degree of truth and transparency. A study of his career is worth looking at because it sheds light on a highly successful, indeed, phenomenally likeable managerial career.

Iacocca may serve in this study as a figure or shape of what managerial likeability looks like when it is wholly personified. During his time at Ford, Lee Iacocca showed his ability to lead according to transformational leadership theory and broaden-and-build theory. With the former, Iacocca could inspire "followers to perform beyond expectations while transcending self-interest for the good of the organization" (Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, 2009, p. 423).

The rise that followed the "56 for 56" campaign showed that Iacocca could put Ford first and in his final year with the company he overall saw a major profit taking for the year. With Iacocca at the helm of Ford, those under him certainly performed "beyond expectations." Iacocca's likeability factor soared among those who trusted him -- in part because he communicated on their level.

He spoke like a common man and disregarded a language that catered only to a specific group, which is what Henry Ford II would have preferred in a manager of Iacocca's standing. In this case, Iacocca was likeable to his subordinates but unlikable to his superior. Here is a paradoxical case of likeability which may offer various supports for later findings in this study. The paradox of likeability demonstrated here should be retained as a clear example of the problem of perception as well as the problem of conformity.

Or perhaps this case is best summarized by the maxim that "you cannot please them all." Iacocca's devotion to engineering showed that he could also "expand cognition…encourage novel, varied, and exploratory thoughts and actions," even though these were not received well by Henry Ford II, who loathed Iaccoca's idea to introduce the minivan through Ford (Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, 2009, p. 423). This was Iacocca's major conflict at Ford, having different ideas and creative impulses than those of Henry Ford II. It resulted in a separation.

But even when fired from Ford, Iacocca did not abandon his transformational style of leadership. He simply took it to the competitor Chrysler, who asked for his help. One of the problems with Chrysler was that it was extremely top-heavy, with 35 vice-presidents and no committee organization. The accounting department was unorganized, and the inventory was rotting.

Iacocca turned this around by practicing what could be called new-genre leadership, which is characterized by "emphasizing charismatic leader behavior, visionary, inspiring, ideological and moral values, as well as transformational leadership" (Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, 2009, p. 428). His charisma was observable in his rhetoric, his visionary style of leadership was discerned in his approach to engineering (the K-Car and the minivan were his own personal gifts to Chrysler), and his inspiring and morally-acceptable values prompted him to have a good many followers.

Iacocca's ability to develop transformational leadership skills was essential to his establishment of likeability. A study into his career has helped this researcher see how essential the element of transformational leadership is to creating likeability in the workplace. Likeability and Transformational Leadership Den, Deanne and Belschak (2012) assert that one of the most powerful aspects of transformational leadership is the ability to align the specific strengths and traits of a given employee to the needs of the broader, often virtual team.

This individualized attention and focus on giving the employee a chance to define their own identity through achievement and accomplishment is a very powerful aspect of transformational leader's ability to motivate over long periods of time (Den, Deanne, Belschak, 2012). Combining this with the EI skills to correctly interpret and respond to challenges in the team's progress gives transformational leaders respect and over time trust. It is then not what they know, but how they use their knowledge in the service and support of their teams that matter.

The Den, Deanne, Belschak (2012) study provides quantitative data that corroborates the qualitative studies already mentioned and is thus helpful to this researcher in the sense that it supports the overall direction of the thesis. The Den, Deanne, Belschak (2012) study was also helpful because it pointed the way to another study which highlighted another way in which likeability is manifested in the workplace environment (Holloway, 2011). A Columbia University study found that success in the workplace is guaranteed not by what or whom one knows but by one's popularity (Holloway, 2011).

The Holloway study found that, "popular workers were seen as trustworthy, motivated, serious, decisive and hardworking and were recommended for fast-track promotions and trusted.