BMA eBook - Manual / Resource - Page 20
SPOTLIGHT ON INFLUENCE
Is it better to be loved or feared?
Niccolò Machiavelli pondered that timeless conundrum 500 years ago and hedged his bets. “It may
be answered that one should wish to be both,” he
acknowledged, “but because it is difficult to unite
them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than
loved.”
Now behavioral science is weighing in with research showing that Machiavelli had it partly right:
When we judge others—especially our leaders—we
look first at two characteristics: how lovable they are
(their warmth, communion, or trustworthiness) and
how fearsome they are (their strength, agency, or
competence). Although there is some disagreement
about the proper labels for the traits, researchers
agree that they are the two primary dimensions of
social judgment.
Why are these traits so important? Because they
answer two critical questions: “What are this person’s intentions toward me?” and “Is he or she capable of acting on those intentions?” Together, these
assessments underlie our emotional and behavioral
reactions to other people, groups, and even brands
and companies. Research by one of us, Amy Cuddy,
and colleagues Susan Fiske, of Princeton, and Peter
Glick, of Lawrence University, shows that people
judged to be competent but lacking in warmth often elicit envy in others, an emotion involving both
respect and resentment that cuts both ways. When
we respect someone, we want to cooperate or affiliate ourselves with him or her, but resentment can
make that person vulnerable to harsh reprisal (think
of disgraced Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, whose
extravagance made him an unsympathetic public
figure). On the other hand, people judged as warm
but incompetent tend to elicit pity, which also involves a mix of emotions: Compassion moves us to
help those we pity, but our lack of respect leads us
ultimately to neglect them (think of workers who become marginalized as they near retirement or of an
employee with outmoded skills in a rapidly evolving
industry).
To be sure, we notice plenty of other traits in
people, but they’re nowhere near as influential as
warmth and strength. Indeed, insights from the field
of psychology show that these two dimensions account for more than 90% of the variance in our positive or negative impressions we form of the people
around us.
So which is better, being lovable or being strong?
Most leaders today tend to emphasize their strength,
competence, and credentials in the workplace, but
that is exactly the wrong approach. Leaders who
project strength before establishing trust run the
risk of eliciting fear, and along with it a host of dysfunctional behaviors. Fear can undermine cognitive
potential, creativity, and problem solving, and cause
employees to get stuck and even disengage. It’s
a “hot” emotion, with long-lasting effects. It burns
into our memory in a way that cooler emotions
don’t. Research by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman
drives this point home: In a study of 51,836 leaders,
only 27 of them were rated in the bottom quartile in
terms of likability and in the top quartile in terms
of overall leadership effectiveness—in other words,
the chances that a manager who is strongly disliked
will be considered a good leader are only about one
in 2,000.
A growing body of research suggests that the way
to influence—and to lead—is to begin with warmth.
Warmth is the conduit of influence: It facilitates
trust and the communication and absorption of
ideas. Even a few small nonverbal signals—a nod, a
smile, an open gesture—can show people that you’re
pleased to be in their company and attentive to their
concerns. Prioritizing warmth helps you connect
immediately with those around you, demonstrating
that you hear them, understand them, and can be
trusted by them.
