This isn’t really that surprising, but it bears mentioning:
 Ten years after graduation, high-school students who had been rated as conscientious and cooperative by their teachers were earning more than classmates who had similar test scores but fewer social skills, said a new University of Illinois study.
I’ve known quite a few brilliant people who never made it in the real world because no one could stand to work with them, some in my own family.Â
This is a very underrated skill that really isn’t taught much, even in business school. Your success in most white-collar jobs depends to a great extent on how others perceive you (fairly or not), so if you want to be successful you should learn to fake an interest in what all those idiots you have to work with are saying without rolling your eyes or otherwise revealing your level of contempt, at least when they can see you.
Seriously though, an attitude of attentive, cheerful, and polite interest, even when you don’t feel it, can go a long way towards being forgiven for your own workplace sins.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments }
My experience has been that the more "corporate" the environment is, the more this tends to be true. In the entrepreneurial endeavors I’ve been part of, this has been less of an issue than the large corporate environments. In the large corporate environments I’ve seen some examples of success based almost entirely on the person’s ability to schmooze and suck up to people.
Of course I pretty much suck at schmoozing and sucking up, so I’m pretty sure I’ve hit my granite ceiling… lol.
But I’m fine with that, I’ve seen what senior executives have to do to be successful and I can tell you, it’s a lot harder than it looks.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Obama’s ?Global Test??
My social skills suck, and I would love to improve them, but people with good social skills underestimate how hard it is to learn. Most of us who aren’t good at social stuff aren’t doing it deliberately; hard as it is to believe, we may not even have a firm grasp on what we’re doing wrong.Â
If there was a school around here that taught this sort of thing, I would enroll in a second, although I may be too old to learn new tricks at this point.Â
Elizabeth:
As the parent of a child with autism, I have done some significant investigation of social skills and how to train, and based on what I’ve read or seen the real issue isn’t usually a willingness or unwillingness to "learn" social skills, many people simply don’t have the awareness of social cues that would alert them to the need to exercise such skills.
Autism is, by nature, an extreme example, but I think that autistic behavior is an exaggerated form of behavior that "normal" people exhibit.
For example, we all know people who never seem to know when to stop talking. It’s not that they don’t know HOW to stop talking, it is usually because they don’t sense the social cues that let us know when people are becoming uncomfortable.
Then there are curmudgeons like me who find it difficult to play certain games on principle. For example, I read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" when I was in High School. This is one of the most revered self-help books in the history of literature.
When I read it, my main reaction was "geez, is it really ethical to manipulate people so blatantly?"
And as such, even though I have the skills (I’m certified, I took a course!) I mostly refuse to use them because I don’t like to think that someone agrees with me because I touched their hand at a key moment, or remembered their name, or the names of their family members, or that I remember their favorite color, etc…
I CAN do that. I just find it appallingly manipulative to do it. So I don’t.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day?
One particular area in which many people are lacking is the ability to appreciate the value of people whose skills and interests are different from their own. See my post respecting other talents: the dangers of functional chauvanism.
This is spot on, and surprisingly, little appreciated by most folks, I’m afraid. The conventional wisdom is “hire for skills or experience, fire for personality or attitude.†  Based on my experience, I’d say that’s about right.Â
In the 12 or so years I’ve been managing engineers, I’ve hired about 30, and fired 2.  Both of those lost their jobs because they were total jerks. Â
One was actually a star performer technically, and worth probably 3X what we were paying him.  Until you stepped back and looked at the damage he did to the attitudes and output of those around him.  He just could not get it through his head (or more likely WOULD not) that it didn’t matter how good he was as an individual.  If you drag down the productivity of an entire team, you’ve got to go.  Â
And it’s not just about schmoozing and interaction and “closing†techniques. Yes, those are valuable for sales guys. But it’s about not being intimidating, or obnoxious, or a boring jerk. No matter how good you are in other areas, you just can’t be an asshole and expect to have much long term success.Â
And Elizabeth (and CC), you CAN learn these skills. It’s uncomfortable, but with the right attitude, it’s doable.  As I said, it’s not all about the schmoozing. I do actually recommend the Dale Carnegie courses. Â
I read the book many years ago, and thought it was OK in theory, but I too thought it was kind of creepy.  Then I was required to attend the course a few years ago, and it was an entirely different experience.  I was actually forced to interact with other real, live people, and it was very enlightening.  No, it wasn’t a major life changing event. But it was helpful, and worth the time, effort, and discomfort, IMO.Â
Also, some of the “advanced†courses offered by Dale Carnegie are MUCH better than the intro class.  There is one on technical communication with non-technical people that I thought was awesome.  Unfortunately, in most areas, the local franchisee will require you to go through the intro course first, before they’ll allow you to attend the more specialized courses.Â
Some folks do great with the course, and it is truly life changing.  I’ve seen it happen.  Others just don’t seem to get it at all. We sent one of the above mentioned guys I fired to the course.  He went through the motions, did all the exercises, and claimed to be a “changed manâ€.  But it was obvious it was all an act. He was still an asshole.  Now he’s working in a warehouse. Â
But based on what I have read here from both of you guys, I don’t think you have much to worry about.  Neither of you seem to be hot headed flamers. And you are at least thinking about it.  That puts you miles ahead of the kind of people who are true problems.
CC,
My older child has displayed a lot of ASD traits through his life so far (he’s six) but he’s clearly not autistic, so we’ve never been sure what to do with him exactly. He’s got a lot of sensory hypersensitivities, tends to speak in a monotone, and is socially pretty clueless but it has never risen to the level where it seemed necessary to get him treatment and he’s doing fine in school. I’m pretty similar, but as an adult I cover for it better.
It’s true, the problem isn’t my willingness to change, it’s just that if you’re clueless, you’re clueless. I know there’s something about the way I interact that puts people off, but if I knew how to be any different I would. I just don’t. Luckily I’m not so off-putting that I can’t make my way in the world.
Hi Elizabeth,
You might want to have your child checked for Asperger’s Syndrome. AS is, more or less, like a high-functioning form of Autism. Sensory hypersensitivity and missing social cues or two of the symptoms.Â
And it doesn’t surprise me that he’s doing well in school as people with Asperger’s Syndrome are generally very intelligent and tend to excel in certain areas.
I know four adults with AS who were not diagnosed when they were younger. As a result, they are stunted socially and have few friends. One of them is extremely isolated due to it; it’s very tragic.
Another friend of mine is the parent of a child with AS. His son was diagnosed when he was 5 or 6 and has received treatment. He’s now doing very well in school and has lots of friends.
Just something you might want to check into. If your son has AS, getting treatment as early as possible is the best thing you could do.
Jack:
That’s excellent advice. Elizabeth’s description does fit some of the Asperger’s Syndrome markers. If not Aspergers it might be something else "on the spectrum."
Elizabeth: It’s probably nothing, but it’s worth getting checked out. My son is "high functioning" which is similar to Asperger’s in some ways, but different in others. The sensory stuff in particular is a thing to look into. We discovered our son’s autism when we finally realized that he was hypersensitive to sounds and hypersensitive to textures. We discovered after his diagnosis that those are both classic autism symptoms.
And it is probably fair to say that I personally exhibit some traits that could be described as mildly autistic. As a child I had to learn how to interpret people’s emotions because I didn’t naturally empathize with them. This was a long time ago, but I sort of taught myself how to recognize different emotional reactions. At the time I called it "intellectualizing intuition" because what other people intuitively "knew" I had to figure out on the fly.
jay:
I have taken Dale Carnegie courses, two or three of them in fact. And I do pretty well socially, I think. Ask Dean, he used to work with me. I think I do well with engineers in particular because I have some of those traits myself and can almost act as an interpreter between the type of engineer you describe and "normal" people. And since I am in upper management at a large multi-national corporation, I must be fooling somebody, lol.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day?
I’m Aspie.
The Carnegie book is absolutely worth reading. I suck at the social stuff, but practicing bits and pieces from it has given me enough to survive in the workplace.
I had concerns about manipulation. From where I stand (waaayyy out there), all social interaction can be seen as manipulation. What makes it acceptable for me is to bound it by striving for mutual benefit.
I have never been able to make good advice work for me.
CC,
In order to really get something out of How to Win Friends and Influence People, you have to take seriously the part where he describes what he’s showing you how to do as changing your life and how you want to treat people. It’s only about manipulation if you don’t care. He’s saying that you should care.
You should take the trouble to learn and remember someone’s name not because it will help you get your way, but because it will make them feel better. etc.
One of my very favorite lines comes fro HTWFaIP: "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do."
ctl:
Whether Carnegie said "you should only use these techniques when you truly care about people" or not is completely beside the point. The point is that his book is a manual on the manipulation of people to achieve your personal goals. Appealing to the "better nature" of people in order to justify the techniques might well resonate with people of a certain political persuasion, but in REALITY we all know that those techniques are not used in that manner by some people who read the book. Is it a majority who exploit the techniques to further their own personal goals? I guess you’ll have to decide that for yourself. All I know is that when I see people obviously utilizing those techniques, my first reaction is not “oh, what a kind and caring person.” And that’s not JUST because it’s usually a sales or marketing person.
It’s nice to see you demonstrate the meaning of your favorite line so well, btw.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Horse painter goes international
CC,
Any book on how to be a better person can also be used as a manual for how to appear to be a better person without really being one. The same is true of any book. Programmers can use a programming book to sound more knowledgeable without getting any better at programming, someone could use a book on locksmithing to bluff their way through pretending that they’re a locksmith, or perhaps to learn how to be a thief. There’s no possible book with a use that can’t also be misused.
So what proof do you offer that Carnegie’s book was meant to be misused, other than you personally being an asshole? I’ll certainly take your word for it that you would only misuse the book, but what proof do you offer that the author intended the book that way? Suppose, at least for the sake of argument, that I won’t accept the premise that everyone is at least as bad a person as you are; for all I know you’re exceptionally immoral.
 I had the same teen age ansgst about not fitting in well and read Carnegie and a bunch of others like how to talk to people, etc.
I became an engineer, once a mid-level manager/group leader at a national lab & am not particularly social. It was reccomended to me that I particiapte in a team-work/personal interaction class based on Tabi Kahler’s "process communication model." http://www.taibikahlerassociates.com/ PCM is based (I think) on transactional analysis (I am not in anyway a psychologist) and remdined me a little of the Meyers-Briggs system for profiling personality types (which you can get/do online — MB is pretty "open source").  Kahler has kept tight control over the material as a business, and I think that is probably why the method is not as widely known/used as Meyers-Briggs.
The PCM material is very systematic and illuminating; it does not try to get to the "why" people act the way they do, but describes how people react and interact in a way that observably works.  I think the systems approach probably appeals to me as an analyst/synthesist. And it was very useful.Â
From where I stand (waaayyy out there), all social interaction can be seen as manipulation.
Bingo. I recently saw a very interesting presentation on brainwashing techniques from a recovering cult member, and she pointed out that most brainwashing techniques (the ones that actually work, anyway) are no more and no less than the same things most socially adept people do every day. The intensity, the intent, and the results of interactions over a period of time are what causes it to be called brainwashing. Many conversations have an intent to persuade; brainwashing is merely very very successful persuasion.
ctl:
Thanks again for proving the value of your favorite line from Carnegie’s book. You are a virtual FOUNTAIN of demonstration of how "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do." Carnegie would be proud to use you as a model to illustrate what he means.
As for the miniscule portion of your comment that actually merits a response, here’s my reply:
The original post that sparked this thread was specifically recommending that, among other things, people "fake an interest" in order to build a social relationship at work.
I didn’t start the "manipulation" suggestion ctl, the original poster did. All I said was that if you wanted to learn how to DO that manipulation, Dale Carnegie’s book was an excellent book to use. Then I pointed out how I PERSONALLY felt that such manipulation was unethical, and that when I needed people to agree to do something, I preferred to use rational arguments instead.
How you go from that to me being "exceptionally immoral" is downright laughable. Except, of course, that I tweaked your nose a bit with my comment about how you demonstrated (twice now in one thread) how your favorite Carnegie line was so true.
Notice how I haven’t felt a need to call you names or attack your morals or anything else. I tend to let people’s own comments do that for me. And in your case, thanks, you did an excellent job. If nothing else, your comments here provide an excellent example of what sort of social skills NOT to use. And it’s nice to see that you aren’t choosing to follow the Carnegie method in a manipulative manner (or any other manner I can see).
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Don’t flush Flipper down the loo?
Any tool that is useful can be misused or abused. That’s inherent to its utility.
If it will cut a 2×4, it will also cut your hand off.
There are some tool-like abstractions that can form intent or initiate action (like governments, markets and software) as emergent behaviors. Other tools, though, are only reflections of the tool’s user.
Dishman:
And that is exactly the logic the Left uses to argue for gun control. It can be misused so it must be controlled.
I’m all for letting people make their own choices, but I’ll also point out that tools can be used for selfish purposes when it is appropriate for the context.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
I think it’s the exact opposite of the arguement the left uses.
In a gun control context, my arguement is:Â Guns don’t kill, people do.
dishman:
You are asserting that "guns can be misused so they must be controlled" is the exact OPPOSITE of the argument the left uses?
If I parse that, its opposite is "guns can be misused so they must NOT be controlled." Is THAT what you think the Left argues?
Or “guns CAN’T be misused so they must be controlled.” I still don’t get it…
I’m confused…
Unless you are thinking I am saying YOUR argument is the gun control argument. I was not saying that, although I can see where you could be confused. I did not mean to imply that was what YOU were saying. I was just pointing out that it is the inherent “utility” of guns that leads the Left to call for controlling them.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day
Comments on this entry are closed.