Nobody Cares if Nobody Likes You

A study on likeability, especially in politics but with ramifications for the workplace and in general.
According to a study published in The Economic Journal, likability matters among women and among mixed-gender groups but not among men alone. In other words, women want both sexes to be likable, and men want women to be likable, but they don’t care so much about other men.... In short, women always need to be likable, and men only have to worry about it half the time....

For men, it can even pay to be unlikable. The fact that Trump is a pompous blowhard has somehow become a point in his favor. Sanders actually benefits from having the unlikable Clinton say, as she did last week, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him.” (Cleverly, Sanders shot back, “My wife likes me.”)
What he said was actually much better than that: he said, "On a good day, my wife likes me."

I don't know if this is true or not, but maybe it is. It's hard for me to decide if my own experience is telling. Certainly I like Tulsi Gabbard, in many respects; I'm still not going to vote for her, because her opinions frequently suggest to me that she's dangerously disqualified for the position. Certainly I did not like Hillary Clinton, but I also didn't think she was qualified -- chiefly disqualified on ethics!

Perhaps it doesn't matter as much as the report suggests, since we often find ways to like people who are useful to us. Kamala Harris is well-liked by those who would vote for her, in spite of some very unlikable ethical lapses as a prosecutor and a Senator. If you were opposed to her anyway, it's easy to find something not to like; if you were inclined to support her anyway, maybe that means you'll find a way to like her.

I think perhaps the experience of Sarah Palin points that up. When she stood on the stage and winked, the shockwave of her likability ran through the nation. But by the end of the campaign, she was one of the most disliked people in the nation. People decided to dislike her, I infer, because they were afraid she would otherwise win. And so, even as she palled around with the Saturday Night Live crew that was mocking her, even as she offered them free babysitting (even as she said "there is much to admire about our opponent," a sentiment that it is hard to imagine hearing expressed today), they decided to despise her and worked hard at it.

It still may be unfair that women depend so much more on being liked, but if the results are right it is also women who are bringing the biggest weight on liking you (or not). Men at least give each other a break; women could do the same. Maybe men could learn to give women a break, but would women learn to give one to men? Equality is parity, is it not? (No; sometimes, but not always.)

30 comments:

Texan99 said...

One way I've heard the dilemma put is that women who want to lead are in a double-bind: they're not viewed as leadership material if they're likeable (too soft), but if they're unlikeable they can't attract votes for leadership positions--and voters will explain that the problem isn't their gender or their competence, it's their unpleasantness.

I've taken to viewing this differently. Women, or most women, anyway, are raised to think that being liked is more important than competency or duty or success. A man who pursues competency etc. has to learn early on how to balance the need for those qualities with the mere need to win friendly (perhaps shallow) approval. If he doesn't pull it off, he may be a guy you like sharing a beer with, but he won't rise in the ranks of leaders. Women are more or less promised they can escape these difficult choices, or assured that in any choice the right decision is to jettison ambition and go for warmth. That may be a wonderful life strategy, but it won't result in a successful leader.

I'm always on the lookout for women in leadership roles who shake off the lose-lose training. Margaret Thatcher? Nikki Haley? They have to find a better strategy than Ms. Nice Girl, without becoming too repellent to attract allies and loyal subordinates. I'd like to think there's a path to leadership there that draws on the advantages of deep personal bonds. If a certain brand of feminist is correct in thinking that the feminine preference for bonds is more important than the masculine preference for competition and victory, some day we'll see proof in the results: a feminine model of social cooperation will thrive, proving not only that it can create a prosperous, contented society but that it can protect itself against outside aggression. I'm not convinced yet.

Cassandra said...

I've taken to viewing this differently. Women, or most women, anyway, are raised to think that being liked is more important than competency or duty or success.

I think there's this, but another thing I've encountered (I manage an all-female team, some of whom care about being liked and some of whom don't give a rat's patootie) is that women seem more concerned about not 'upsetting' their co-workers than men do.

I think men expect to be irritated/upset/even angry some of the time at work. That's why they call it work (not play). I get pretty annoyed when I see people who don't care about being liked - but who aren't always the smartest or most thorough, which is big in technical jobs - bulldoze their way over their more considerate/sensitive peers.

But the thing is, I'm not ever going to be able to change human nature. Most people only deal with the surface - if you act competent/confident, they have more confidence in you than if you're tentative or cautious. IMO this is a lazy/dumb way to judge others, but its a heuristic. And I can't change it, so whining about it seems likewise dumb :p

Good leaders, male or female, assess those around them and are good at providing what's needed. Maybe it's harder to lead if you're female - I don't know. I work at a small company with a large team of folks who mostly work for someone else. But I've had very little trouble getting their cooperation.

Also, this is spot on:

If a certain brand of feminist is correct in thinking that the feminine preference for bonds is more important than the masculine preference for competition and victory, some day we'll see proof in the results: a feminine model of social cooperation will thrive, proving not only that it can create a prosperous, contented society but that it can protect itself against outside aggression. I'm not convinced yet.

Me neither!

Cassandra said...

Side note: one of the women who works for me is arguably the most blunt/aggressive/assertive person in the company. Verbally, she comes across as certain she's right, she makes snap judgments, and she challenges me from time to time.

But we get along great, because she also understands hierarchy. She speaks her mind if she doesn't like something or thinks I'm wrong, but there's nothing personal in it. I explain my thinking, and she almost always says, "OK - makes sense!", or "Didn't think of that" or whatever. Or "Got it, but I still think you're wrong." Just her style, and I value her straightforwardness.

It saves a ton of time and drama.

I do want people to like me (and I want them to be happy, and worry if I sense their frustrated or upset). Within reason, I try to keep things on an even keel. But I also respect my co-workers enough to assume they will act like professionals and not get all needlessly butt hurt if a decision doesn't go their way, and they do.

Texan99 said...

I seem more comfortable than many women I know (and even many men) with a work environment that's pretty gruff and straightforward. I do dislike an unnecessarily nasty atmosphere. it's great when people are clear about what they expect from each other, live up to their word, maintain basic civility, set high standards, and at the same time show more interest in helping each other than tearing each other down--as long as "helping each other" doesn't mean coddling failure, stealing credit, and painting fake happy faces over problems.

Cassandra said...

D'oh! "their" in the last para should be they're. English isn't supposed to be my 2nd language.

Cassandra said...

...-as long as "helping each other" doesn't mean coddling failure, stealing credit, and painting fake happy faces over problems

There is one area where I think I respond in a more stereotypically female way - when people don't perform to standard, I tend to want to teach them or help them when what is sometimes needed is a firm boot up their derriere.

Don't like this about myself. I have no problem confronting people above me in the hierarchy when it's important, and can't stand my own squeamishness about confronting people I view as less powerful/competent. I can do it, but I tend to be less direct than I ought to be.

Cassandra said...

Have sometimes wondered if my reluctance to confront people below me is actually arrogance on my part. It's not that I don't want them to like me - more like it seems to me like punching down.

But there's an implied, "Not sure you can do better" that seems wrongheaded to me.

Great topic and post, Grim! Very thought provoking.

Grim said...

“I think men expect to be irritated/upset/even angry some of the time at work.”

That’s true. Sometimes being angry is the just and proper response (as Aristotle said). It’s nice to get along, but it’s not wrong to get angry when anger is merited. In fact, it’s wrong not to do so.

How you express your anger is another question. Still, maintaining comity is not always the best way of addressing a problem. Sometimes you have to chew somebody out. It’s especially true when we move beyond disagreements to genuine injustice being done.

A mild example: a female friend of mine works in finance for a biotech firm. She’s angry all the time about their practices. Just swallowing that and going along makes you part of the problem. She’s often involved in forcing her company to treat an employee more fairly, and ensuring they get paid what they are due. She’s helped a lot of people, in part by insisting on the point that not paying people as agreed isn’t fair. I bet she’s not well liked by her bosses, and it may explain why she gets passed over for raises and promotions.

Grim said...

“Great topic and post, Grim! Very thought provoking.”

Thank you, Cass! I’m glad you found it engaging.

David Foster said...

A lot of the advice directed at women in business...books, articles, blog posts, etc...advises women to follow some model of executive behavior which seems to be taken from JR Ewing on old 'Dallas' reruns, and similar portrayals. One book, for example, is titled: "Nice girls don't get the corner office." This is an extremely simplistic view of how leadership actually works.

I have a lot of experience with women in management positions; some of them, I put into their jobs. It's not necessary to give up being nice; just don't be wimpy. Be good, rather than safe, to use CS Lewis's formulation.

I also know some very successful male executives who--if their interactions could somehow be portrayed on video in such a manner that the viewer would think that they were female--would be accused of being excessively nice and headed for failure.

raven said...

Like? I will take competence over "likeable" any day of the week. Lot's of likeable people out there I don't want anywhere close to my brakes or plumbing or medical care.

Here is the thing, though- most of the really competent people I have come across, are pretty low key- they have had no reason at all to be jerks, they did not need to cover up anything, and had no esteem problems. They were relaxed in their proficiency.

What I hate are the brown-nosing incompetent suckups who always deflect their problems onto others and refuse responsibility.

Cassandra said...

...maintaining comity is not always the best way of addressing a problem. Sometimes you have to chew somebody out. It’s especially true when we move beyond disagreements to genuine injustice being done.

Agreed! I am just not sure why I have no problem confronting people who have more power than I do, but cringe when I have to do the reverse :p

I agree that tone and manner are important. It's hard enough to be told you're wrong about something w/out that person rubbing your nose in it or humiliating you in front of others.

I'm so used to being the one who brings up uncomfortable or contentious issues at work that I don't even worry about that anymore. I don't like conflict, but I try to go in with a rock solid argument and well prepared set of facts so it doesn't look personal - it's more a disagreement about the right course. It may be that that's why I hate the performance issues - it's harder to make that impersonal because you're judging a single person and finding them wanting.

I've had to do it, but I don't think I will ever be comfortable with it. Haven't ever actually chewed anyone out at work. Ever. And is probably a failing on my part. I tend to do the behind-closed-doors "I need you to step up" thing. That isn't always enough, though.

The Brits use a term I love: "bollocking" :p I need to improve my ballocking skillz.

raven said...

Oh yes-
Palin- the smear job that woman endured was absolutely disgraceful. If any weasel had spoken thus of a woman in the towns I grew up in he would have had to pick his teeth out of his asshole.

Cassandra said...

Here is the thing, though- most of the really competent people I have come across, are pretty low key- they have had no reason at all to be jerks, they did not need to cover up anything, and had no esteem problems. They were relaxed in their proficiency.

This has been very much my experience, raven.

Cassandra said...

On Palin:

I could see her charm (and it was considerable) but I didn't find her likable at all. Never thought as highly of her as most other right-leaning folks. This isn't a popular position on the right, but I found her mildly irritating.

OTOH, she projected a kind of joy and confidence that was engaging. I could see it, even if it didn't affect me much.

But to raven's point, Palin was treated in such a monstrously unfair way that I kept finding myself forced to defend her (as she deserved).

Cassandra said...

I also know some very successful male executives who--if their interactions could somehow be portrayed on video in such a manner that the viewer would think that they were female--would be accused of being excessively nice and headed for failure.

Yep. And I see men running roughshod over less aggressive men all the time! I often think feminists have never been in a room full of Marines, or they wouldn't spend so much time wringing their hands about why "only women" are treated badly. Men can be pretty brutal to each other at times.

It's a system, with rules.

MikeD said...

People only tend to complain about what they experience. Even if they see it happening someone else, they don't feel it nearly as intensely (unless they're very strongly empathetic, exceptions as always apply). Plus there's also the tendency to act differently when an observer is present. You place a civilian woman in a "room full of Marines," and I can guaren-da... uh, darn-tee you (see?) that the Marines will be on better behavior than if she were not present. So she may never even get to see men treat each other harshly.

And it's also important to note that not all "chewing outs" (out chewings? What the heck is the plural of getting chewed out?) are created equal. One of the previous General Managers I worked for was a retired Air Force Lt. General. We got on like gangbusters. Knowing I was a former NCO, he was able to quickly settle into a well worn relationship with me even though I was new to him. One time after I returned from vacation, he had been sorely dissatisfied with the temporary IT support coverage he'd experienced while I (the primary IT support) was away. So he called me in the office and proceeded to lay out how inexcusable it was that he (and his company) had been treated by mine in my absence, and how he wanted something done about it, and I (literally standing at parade rest the whole time) kept responding with "yes, sir", "understood, sir", "I'll make sure that's communicated back to management, sir". And he settled down and I left, not really thinking too much about it, since he both had a legitimate point and wasn't actually yelling (raising his voice, really) at me. He was upset, and I was the representative before him. I did take his concerns up with management and they duly apologized and came up with plans to prevent it in the future.

I tell you all this, because the man who was to become General Manager after the AF LT. General retired happened to have been standing outside the door that day, and after he was in charge, he made it a point to tell me how inappropriately he felt I had been treated on that occasion. And I was seriously nonplussed. I tried to explain that both the General and I knew that he was not upset with me, that this was a very normal and understood kind of communication between an unhappy officer and an NCO, and that at no point did I feel anything inappropriate had happened. But the new GM was legitimately upset on how I "had been treated".

And I don't know how to better explain it to someone who hasn't been in our shoes. He wasn't upset with or upbraiding me he was upset with my "command". And as the "liaison" at hand, he was delivering the message that I was to take back with me. And like any good NCO, I knew better than to shout on his behalf. But I also made sure his message was delivered loud and clear.

All this to say, leadership styles clearly vary, even among men, and not all of them are appropriate for every employee. I'm sure the new GM (who was a subordinate to the General at the time) would never have tolerated being "treated" like I was, but then again, I really doubt the General would have spoken like that to him either. It is my honest assessment that the General felt comfortable "chewing me out" (even though, as I say, it was no such thing) like he did, because he knew I wouldn't take it as being chewed out. But I could be wrong. Maybe he did treat others like that (though I never saw it). Had he done so, I'd probably agree that it wouldn't have been appropriate.

I hope this all makes some kind of sense what I'm trying to get across.

MikeD said...

I would also like to say, I get the feeling this article was written to bolster the unlikable Democratic candidates still in the race and say "oh, them being unlikable doesn't really mean anything!"

But really it does. I make no bones about two facts, President Trump is one of the most personally unlikable candidates the Republican Party has run in a Presidential election, and he was absolutely more fit for office than Hillary Clinton, who also happened to be the most unlikable candidates ever put up by the Democrat Party in a Presidential election. Oh sure, Al Gore has the charisma of a 2x4, and John Kerry was... Well, I'll not voice my true opinion of him in polite company, but he at least was partially charismatic. But neither of them seemed like someone you'd actively avoid talking to at a party.

This isn't to say that likability is everything. Just that I think had the Democrats run someone less personally repellant than Sec. Clinton (and tales of her horrible behavior to underlings are legion), the election would have been theirs. Now, with a solid economy behind the President (and the normal incumbent boost), I think they've got a tougher row to hoe.

Cassandra said...

I hope this all makes some kind of sense what I'm trying to get across.

It really does.

It is my honest assessment that the General felt comfortable "chewing me out" (even though, as I say, it was no such thing) like he did, because he knew I wouldn't take it as being chewed out.

That's kind of what I meant about good leaders assessing the people around them and providing the right support or feedback. Because you shared the military background (and he had formed an opinion of you), he likely counted on your reacting just the way you did.

But that would not have been a good assumption in a different situation.

Also agree that men generally behave differently w/a woman in the room. They also (IMO) are often far more polite/deferential to women than they would be to a man in an equivalent position. And I think that's b/c of (a) upbringing, (b) sometimes hormones, and also (c) lack of shared experience - they are smart enough to realize they don't need to come on as strong w/a woman to get their point across, and being blunt will probably backfire.

raven said...

OT- it must be noted-
Grim has written the title to a great Country song!


"Nobody cares if nobody likes you" This is genius.

Grim said...

If only I were a better songwriter, I'd try to follow up on that.

Anonymous said...

MikeD nailed it, and Grim, I think you should give it a shot anyway.

Larry

douglas said...

Ha! Genius indeed Raven. Both in the writing of it, and in the recognition of it's further potential.

E Hines said...

If only I were a better songwriter....

You're a poet of some skill. What else is song writing, including country song writing?

So: I double dog dare you to write one under that title.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Well, there’s music to write too, about which I don’t know the first thing. But I suppose I could write the words.

Gringo said...

Grim
Well, there’s music to write too, about which I don’t know the first thing. But I suppose I could write the words.

Do what Woody Guthrie did: use an already existing tune.

Grim said...

I suppose that’s the tradition in folk songs. Ok, I’ll think on it.

Gringo said...

If only for irony, here is a possibility. You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You: Frank Sinatra cover. Michael Bublé's is also good.

ymarsakar said...

How you express your anger is another question. Still, maintaining comity is not always the best way of addressing a problem. Sometimes you have to chew somebody out. It’s especially true when we move beyond disagreements to genuine injustice being done.

You got angry one time on Blackfive comments because I responded to a woman there with a few references to Babylon 5's Shadows and Light/Vorlon stuff.

You didn't realize it at the time, but I already picked up your emotions and surface thoughts from your one line of comment reply. It was short perhaps because you were holding back, in your thoughts, but everything you reacted and emoted with, even if you restrained it from writing it out, was transmitted in full HD to me.

This was particularly infuriating because your emotional level was very different when you were writing articles and comments to other people. I perceived it as singling me out personally. That is a particular consequence to those brought up in honor cultures of open conflict and not hidden agendas. I perceived also your attempt to hide things, because you were trying to mask your reaction with words. That did not work against me. I did not know what was going on at the time, but I knew it was abnormal. To people born or raised in honor cultures, if a person openly throws down a challenge or complaint, then an open fight can be had. This is beneficial. But if people attempt to have hidden agendas and bear me negative feelings, but attempt to hide behind a social mask, that is an even greater insult. One they believe, perhaps, that they have hidden so well that I would miss it or neglect to perceive it. In other words, this is the natural restraint people show when writing emails and other things. They funnel their initial emotional reactions and resentments through a process that takes time, and convert it to rationalizations or reasons. This then comes out as "civilized debate". But I am watching this process in real time as it is transparent to me.

Human rules of behavior work fine so far because it assumes everybody has the same level of ability in communication. But there are exceptions.

Grim said...

Are you asking me to apologize for a conversation I don’t remember, based on your mind-reading interpretation of what I meant, from me as if I still were whomever I was back then? I don’t even know what I meant ten years ago.