Manager Likeability and Its Impact 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.