Manager\'s Likeability on Leadership Success

¶ … Manager's Likeability

on Leadership Success

Assessing the Impact of a Manager's Likeability on Leadership Success

The likeability of a manager will determine how effective they are on transactionally-oriented tasks while also being a very accurate predicator of hwo effective they will be in more transformational roles in an organization. The intent of this analysis is to define likeability from a leadership standpoint, illustrating how this aspect of a leader's personality must be authentic, transparent in approach and genuine in how a leader earns and keeps the trust of subordinates, peers and superiors. A likeable person is by definition one that is known for their friendliness or the ability to create an ongoing dialogue that includes a significant level of self-disclosure and ability to communicate with accuracy, clarity and honesty (George, 1995). A likeable leader is one that has the ability to combine friendliness, relevance of communication to others, empathy or the capacity to feel what others are also feeling ands enunciate those emotions, all unified by a very strong level of authenticity, integrity and realness (Gabriel, Griffiths, 2002). All of these factors together define a likeable person, and add in the willingness of a leader to self-sacrifice, create and stay consistent with roles in an organization that capitalize on the unique strengths of an associate, and a strong foundation of transformational leadership begins to emerge. One of the key findings of this study is that to the extent a manager has the ability to create and sustain a high level of trust with subordinates is the extent to which they are able to also sustain transformational leadership in a team. While leaders have varying levels and depths of skills that contribute to their ability to be transformational in the scope of their work, those with demonstrated high levels of emotional intelligence (EI) combined with the four foundational aspects of transformational leadership skills consistently have a higher level of likeability than their more transaction-oriented counterparts (Gabriel, Griffiths, 2002). In evaluating if likeability leads to greater leadership performance, a model of proposed Likeability and Organizational Transformation has been created and is presented in this analysis.

The existing body of research indicates that likeability is one of the foundational elements of effective transformational leadership, yet it does not exist in isolation. The accumulated research completed for this study indicates that likeability of a leader is highly correlated to their level of EI. The dimensions of EI have a direct, predictive effect on how likeable and effective a leader will be. Another finding from this analysis is that likeability by itself does not guarantee a leader will be effective; it is only their ability to translate EI-based skills in conjunction with a very strong foundation of transformational skills that they are able to accomplish challenging goals and propel an organization to fulfill its shared vision. This study also concludes that likeability is also not essential for success either, as the many examples from leaders and CEOs renowned for being very difficult to work with who have propelled their organizations to leadership positions in their industries. Larry Ellison of Oracle, known for being exceptionally demanding and for creating a culture of mistrust and intense internal competition is not likeable according to the dimensions of the research completed for this study. He is however exceptionally effective in driving his organization to attain its vision and mission. What this study has found is that when the triad factors of Emotional Intelligence (EI), trust and transformational leadership are combined, leaders increase the propensity of being liked. These three factors combined provide leaders with a solid foundation of being effective in their roles as well. Likeability does not assure results however. Figure 1, Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability, shows how these three factors must be balanced and in proportion to each other in a leader's management style to be effective. Deficiencies in EI for example could lead to a very collegial work environment yet the leader would not know how and when to define tasks and key strategies to accomplish objectives over time. All three must be balanced in order for a catalyst of continued progress to be formed and stabilized within an organization.

Figure 1: Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability in Leaders

Based on analysis of the following sources: (Gardner, 1983) (Izard, 1991) (Sanders, 2006)

Likeability, Leadership and the Pursuit of Results

In completing the literature review and background analysis of likeability and its implications on managerial and leadership effectiveness, a recurring trend emerged. Likeability in and of itself, even when an organization has an exceptionally compelling vision, does not deliver results. Just by being likeable and having a strong level of authenticity, transparency and trust a transformational leader will have the ability to motivate their teams to significant levels of accomplishment (Sanders, 2006). Yet the paradox emerged from the analysis indicating that without a strong foundation and sense of just how to correctly interpret the specific cultural, psychological and sociological cues of subordinates, peers and superiors, even the most transformative leader would not achieve challenging goals much less the overarching vision of the enterpirse. This paradox of leadership, as is shown in the literature review and subsequent analysis, requires a strong foundation of EI to correctly interpret and respond to situations occurring in real time throughout an enterprise. The ability of any leader to correctly interpret and respond to a given situation, whether it be a risk or an opportunity, must be consistent and transparency in order for trust to be continually kept and strengthened over time. EI acts as the gyroscope in Figure 1, keeping the entire learning ecosystem functioning correctly over time. EI is also how leaders earn and keep trust over time as well, with the focus on hwo best to create transparency of direction and motives. All three components are balanced in leaders who have high levels of reliability and performance. It takes an insightful and self-aware leader to also seek to balance these factors using EI skills they continually improve on (Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, 2000). This study also shows that EI levels are not necessarily innate. Managers have the ability to become transformational by shifting their approach to managing across the four dimensions of this area of their managerial style. These four dimensions include individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence. Studies have shown that managers who continually invest in training and seek out opportunities to strengthen these four areas of their leadership approach can over time have more transformationally-based success than the short-term transformational approaches to leadership allow. Having a more transformationally-oriented approach to leadership also helps to create higher levels of trust, thereby increasing likeability. As Figure 1 shows, these factors combine to create an ecosystem that fuels likeability and the ability to get challenging tasks completed. Likeability, while an aspiration of many managers and leaders alike, is the most useful when relied on for creating a highly focused, galvanized team that seeks to attain higher levels of performance over time. As the ecosystem of factors shown in Figure 1 are so critical to the success of supporting team-based productivity and performance with likeability, these factors are analyzed to determine how and leaders can accomplish more while attaining higher levels of likeability in the process (Goleman, 1995). The greatest leaders have an innate sense of how and when to bring the four elements of transformational leadership into a given situation and ensure the attainment of goals over the short-term and vision of the company over the long-term (Goleman, 1995). This ability to sense what and how to do a given task with their teams while also keeping their teams balanced and motivated through individualized attention and motivation, forms the foundation of likeability as an attribute of effective, productive leaders.

The Foundations of Likeability Are Found in Emotional Intelligence

Many of the theorists and researchers in the three academic disciplines that form the foundation of this analysis have stated that the study of EI had a negative connotation and was seen by early researchers as potentially manipulative and Machiavellian in scope. Early researchers were from an era when corporations could dictate much greater control over the lives of their workers than they do today, so it was a natural extension to believe that EI would become a tactic to emotionally controlling subordinates (Young, 1936; Schaffer, Gilmer & Schoen, 1940). As of the 21st century the greatest challenge is unleashing the intelligence and expertise of workers and creating a highly collaborative, nurturing environment they can excel in. This shift, a nearly 180-degree turn from the early researchers who were more focused on the pure efficiency of EI and its implications on transitionally-oriented workflows throughout an organization. This shift in seeing EI as a necessary catalyst of productivity is also aligned with the transition of time-and-motion oriented approaches to management including Taylorism and a higher prioritization on the commitment of employees and the transformational potential of unleashing their intelligence and insight into solving complex problems. Subsequent research into the areas of EI has shown that while many leaders have an innate ability to interpret events and contextualize them for their teams, others need a continual level of coaching and leadership development for this to occur. The most successful training programs are concentrating on the cognitive side of emotions, specifically evaluating how leaders can provide individualized attention and support to help subordinates prioritize tasks, focus their efforts, organize their time and resources and attain a higher level of performance. The transition of managers into leaders is also determined by the level of trust the latter is able to create and sustain through greater authenticity and genuineness of interaction with subordinates. No longer directing activities in the short-term, a leader with a sufficiently high level of EI interprets acts on and promotes the vision the organization is attempting to accomplish by taking a much focused path to their fulfillment. This can only happen when a leader has a strong focus on the needs of the team while also underscoring the urgency to focus on and achieve goals. Transactionally-oriented leaders struggle with this trade-off of task orientation to emotional intelligence, while transformational leaders clearly understand the need for balance. Figure 2 illustrates the balance required to ensure likeability and goal attainment stay balanced on a foundation of trust.

Figure 2: Balancing Emotional Intelligence and Trust

Based on analysis of the following sources: (Boyatzis, 1982; George, 2000; Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002)

Theorists and researchers have since determined that the holistic nature of EI is more of a foundation for motivation than any transactionally-based management technique. Long-term belief in and clear identity with a given vision and goal is far more powerful fo a motivator than a small cash payment at the end of a task, or a short-term reward. Long-term aspirations and the potential to fulfill them are significantly more powerful, and rewarding, for employees to participate in and sacrifice to achieve than any small, temporary reward. This is precisely why EI is such a critical component to the foundation of transformational leadership (Saarni, 1990). Without it, long-term goals and a vision of any business that takes years to accomplish, requiring the full commitment of a team, would not be possible. Yet with transformational leadership, even the most remotely possible objectives become attainable. The often-cited statement of President Kennedy in the early 1960s of America winning the Space Race is a case in point. He galvanized a nation to that goal and America did succeed. Yet imagine if President Kennedy had been transactional, offering short-term rewards for incremental gains in space flight and innovation. The moon landing in 1968 and other remarkable achievements all built on those advances a generation ago wouldn't have happened, including the landing of Curiosity on Mars, an SUV-size robot capable of sending digital photos from beyond the sun to earth. Remarkable achievements are possible for succeeding generations of an enterprise when a transformational leader sets a firm foundation through the use of EI.

Likeability is also foundational to the development of an effective transformational leadership skill set, yet must be kept in context. It should not be a goal in and of itself, but a part of any leader's progression into being a transformational leader. As Izard (1991) states, 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 (Yukl, 1989). 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 (Boyatzis, 1982). 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 adn if they need help (Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis, 1982). 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 situational and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). 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.

The concept of likeability also does not exist in a vacuum. The larger and more diverse a team, department or organization, the greater the complexity of likeability and its effectiveness as part of a transformational leadership approach. Likeability is defined by different companies in different ways, with the norms, values and vision of the company defining the most critical aspect of this dimension (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). Theorists have argued that likeability is directly related to competence and the peer reviews of a leader by their own peers in addition to subordinates from other departments (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). Far from a popularity context, likeability is actually deeply rooted in hwo competent and kind a leader is, two potentially conflicting directions yet a leader with strong EI skills can balance these two areas. Competence and kindness emerge as two critical success factors for a transformational leader to be respected, effective and liked, all of which leads to their ability to motivate employees to attain the highest levels of performance possible (Rafaeli & Worline, 2001).

How EI Theories Support Likeability

With the point established that likeability is not in and of itself the goal but a by-product of the three core aspects of leadership shown in Figure 1 and the ability to manage competency and kindness as a leader, the role of EI needs to be included as foundational to this leadership attribute. The four core components of EI as defined by Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi (2000) include the perceptual acuity to recognize other's emotion, ability to manage one's own emotions and responses, intuitive insight into how best to manage situations so others' emotional needs are met, and an insightful approach of how to apply these insights into specific situations rapidly to ensure cohesion and consistency of focus for an organization. All of these factors are also combined as a core part of the emotional and interpersonal competencies that govern behavior, coaching sessions with subordinates, thinking, and management of others (Macaleer & Shannon, 2002)

When likeability is included as part of the EI framework of transformational leadership, the potential also exists for its measurable and validation. While many aspects of transformational leadership defy measurement and are evident from a team's continual progress, Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) which they used to validate their hypothesis regarding EI. They collaborated with researchers Goleman and Boyatzis to create the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). The ECI takes into account the cognitive, motivational and experiential aspects of leadership in a group or team context. The ECI research instrument led to the researchers defining emotional intelligence as a subset of social intelligence that enables the monitoring of both one's own and others' feelings, emotions and social context from a share set of common expectations and perceptions of reality. EI emerges from this analysis as a series of psychological factors that enable the interpretation and contextual referencing of verbal and nonverbal a Appraisals of individuals and teams while also creating a foundation of trust and transparency (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002).

The continual research into the dynamics of EI underscore how critical the needs is for linking transformational leadership and transparency together to create a foundation of trust (House, Shamir, 1993). As Figure 1 shows, these three factors must be continually kept in close coordination to each other for a leader to be effective. The likeability of a leader is in direction proportion to how well these three factors can be kept in close integration, despite disruptions and increasing levels of uncertainty and the quickening pace of change in many industries. The core components of likeability often become a stabilizing force in organizations that are going through rapid and severe change. The many studies of leadership, which is a core element of likeability, bear this out. A great leader who innately practices authenticity, transparency and earns trust can keep an organization together and stronger in the face of formidable challenge and problems; they are the catalysts that keep organizations unified in the face of daunting and often uncertain, disruptive change (Watkin, 2000). As has been said earlier in this analysis, likeability is the glue that keeps the model in Figure 1 unified. The model in figure 1 is useful for determining the components of likeability and why it is so mercurial in some organizations and industries while stable in others. The acid test of likeability is its contributory effects to the staying power of an enterprise however; how effective likeability is as a contributing agent of transformational change must be evaluated to determine just how effective this attribute of a leader is in ensuring long-term growth of an enterprise.

How Leadership Skills and Expertise Affect Likeability

The traditional path managers take into leadership involve the ability to lead a diverse cross-functional team to a challenging, often short-term and very urgent goal. Often managers who have an innate ability to selectively use transactional skills can create enough momentum in a team to attain short-term results. It takes long-term transformational leadership skills to keep the momentum going in a team towards the attainment of complex, and often longer-term goals. Yet in the short-term intense bursts of activity needed to overcome a very complex problem, transactional leaders often find they have the potential to be transformational (Kawasaki, 2012).

The crucible that transactional managers must pass through to excel and be transformational requires them to paradoxically not care about likeability and focus more on providing their subordinates with the support and direction they need to do their jobs. Paradoxically this focus on their needs, range from the cultural and those of acceptance to those of emotions including acceptance and recognition, set the foundation for EI, and likeability. At the center of this study is the question of whether likeability is a prerequisite for a leader to get excellent results. it's not; but the support the leader offers and the leading by example incouding self-sacrifice is. Likeability is not an attribute one person has or doesn't; it is not static. Neither is the influence a given manager or leader has in a given organization at any point in time. Instead to measure of likeability as defined by the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) and relative influence are more indicative of transformational leadership. Critics contend that leadership is inherently unquantifiable and "they know it when they see it" yet the emerging field of leadership training and development is showing significant gains in this area.

The point is that the maturity of a manager to a leader requires them to first serve their teams rather than demand to be served. The focus has to shift away from being demanding and authoritarian and look to serve more and strengthen their teams over time (Leeper, 1948)

. The orientation must be one of service first and support continually through the process of leading them to their goals. This concept of a leader being first the servant of their teams first emerged in the research completed by Dr. David McClelland, noted management and leadership theorists in 1975. Dr. McClelland found that there is a clear distinction in leadership traits between average and exceptional performers including the ability to create and sustain trust. This was followed by research showing that leaders who seek to be trusted are most successful when they open up and provide a complete view of their perception fo the workplace; they in effect become trustworthy by showing they trust others (Goleman, 1998). The one aspect of a manager that is on the path to becoming transformational is that they trust more than others, and while they at times are taken advantage of, this highly trusting nature of a leader is often rewarded with a very high level of loyalty and results., So the message is clear for leaders who want to excel: seek to be a trusting transformational leader first and expect the best from your teams, even if it means giving them much autonomy in the process. For the transactional manager this is incredibly difficult to do because their brains are wired to a cause-and-effect paradigm alone. They have a very hard time with trust and allowing their subordinates to have a high level of autonomy. And this is why a transitionally-oriented manager is inherently less liked than their transformational counterparts. It has nothing to do with who they are, but what they do. A transactional manager can't get past their own importance in many instances and can't seem to get past their carrot-and-stick management mentality. And as a result of this inward-centric view of transactional leaders, they are never as liked as their transformational counterparts. it's not because of their external factors including their title or role in the company; it is because they have failed to be the first to serve and excel in their service to their teams. That's what holds back a manager from progressing in their career. They must break that internal focus on their career being all about themselves and focus on their teams, serving them to ensure they excel and get to their goals. In being that trustworthy, a transactional leader can move from relying on a carrot-and-stock mentality to one that concentrates on the broader vision of the team. Likeability and its correlation to results achieved is significantly greater for the leader who has taken the time to first invest in being trusted by trusting their team. The likeability increases when a manager chooses to have faith in their teams and set then up to win. For the manager who is continually questioning their team and micromanaging their likeability will be next to none. In resolving the paradox of this aspect of likeability, the defining catalyst is the emotional intelligence (EI) of the leader. As Watkin (2000) has stated in more than 25 years of empirical research completed of successful leaders, the single defining attribute is the level of EI, not IQ or any other factor (P. 91). Goleman (ewt.al.) concurs and states that the emotional aspects of leadership are far superior to experience, longevity of seniority in a job, or the continual investment in training and development programs. A myriad of studies of transformational leadership further underscore this aspect of leadership, namely that the greater the level of EI and ability of a leader to engender trust, the higher the team performance and long-term growth of subordinates (; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Gardner & Stoug, 2002). These studies also quantify the fact that the greater the level of trust a transformational leader has earned through service to their teams the higher the overall performance as well (Rafaeli & Worline, 2001). A highly effective transformational leader also has the ability to create a level of emotional stability in their terms and see their role as one of stabilizing force of the highs and lows that inevitably occur in the pursuit of long-term objectives (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Shamir, 1992; Yukl, 1989). How all this revolves around likeability shows that when a leader can create a strong foundation of trust in a team and give subordinates the freedom they need to excel, the majority will seek to surpass their manager's expectations (Boyatzis, Stubbs & Taylor, 2002). A transformational leader who excels at likeability then creates a culture of continual achievement, where the team actually begins to look forward to attaining their challenging goals (Kimberly 1980; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).

Likeability then is a powerful catalyst of achievement when combined with a leader capable of seeing their role as enabler or coach. Far from the authoritarian role of the traditional leader as defined by transactional management mindsets, a truly effective leader has the ability to completely change the culture of a company so the employees can excel while also seeing their role in the company over time (Schein, 1985). Likeability is a complex concept that interlinks the self-awareness of a leader to their ability to interpret situations and react quickly to ensure a high level of trust and stability in a culture. For any leader to translate these aspects into effective leadership performance there needs to be a strong focus on how to enable their teams to have a very high level of autonomy, mastery and purpose as well.

Likeability of a leader and their ability to motivate their teams over the long-term is also predicated on how effectively the create a culture that supports strong autonomy, mastery and purpose throughout their teams as well. These are the fuel of likeability for those members of a team that are highly focused on their careers and continual personal growth as they are the long-term motivators of excellent performance. 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). As has been shown earlier in this analysis, when a leader chooses to trust they actually empower their teams to higher levels of performance than if they had chosen any other leadership approach. In choosing autonomy, leaders not only propel their subordinates to greater accomplishment, they also become more likeable in the process. it's a win/win situation fro any leader to embrace autonomy as a core part of their leadership style.

Second, mastery of a given task gives anyone a sense of accomplishment and control over their own job. That's essential if they are going to excel, and continually be motivated to learn more over time. When a leader chooses to deliberately create an opportunity for a subordinate to create a high level of mastery in their job, they are in essence giving the subordinate the option to excel with no limits. Leaders who look to create this level of mastery for their subordinates create a culture of continual achievement and focus on not only short-term tasks and their accomplishment but the development of a mindset of long-term growth. Subordinates can increasingly see their futures in a job that provides for autonomy and mastery; they are not capped in their growth as a result. This significantly increases the level of likeability for a leader and the commitment subordinates have to excelling in their jobs.