Author: Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

Many people assume that it’s possible for a person to be an effective leader without being likable. That is technically true, but you may not like the odds. In a study of 51,836 leaders, we found just 27 who were rated at the bottom quartile in terms of likability but in the top quartile in terms of overall leadership effectiveness — that’s approximately one out of 2,000.

Our likability index, based on data collected from 360 assessments, measures a broad set of behaviors that go far beyond smiling and having a pleasant personality. To see the complete list, and take a self-assessment of your personal likability, click here.

Likability sounds like an immutable trait — something people either have or don’t. But our experience in working with thousands of leaders suggests otherwise. Our 360 data from these 50,000+ leaders highlighted seven key steps executives can take to substantially increase their likability.

• Increase positive emotional connections with others. Just like the flu or a cold, emotions are contagious. If a leader is angry or frustrated, those feelings will spread to others. Conversely, if a leader is positive and optimistic, those emotions also spread. Be aware of your emotional state and work to spread the positive emotions.
• Display rock solid integrity. Do others trust you to keep your commitments and promises? Are others confident that you will be fair and do the right thing? We like leaders we trust; we dislike those we distrust.
• Cooperate with others. Some leaders believe that they are in competition with others in the organization but the purpose of an organization is to unite employees to work together in a common purpose.
• Be a coach, mentor, and teacher. Think about someone who has helped you develop or learn a new skill. How do you feel about that person? Most people have fond and positive memories of coaches and mentors. Helping others develop is a gift that is never forgotten.
• Be an inspiration. Most leaders know very well how to drive for results. They demand excellence. They insist that employees achieve stretch targets. In other words they push. And the best bosses do this as well. But that’s not all they do. The most successful leaders are also effective at pulling. They roll up their sleeves when necessary and pitch in with the team. They communicate powerfully. Inspiring leaders, as you might expect, are more likeable.
• Be visionary and future focused. When employees do not clearly understand where they’re headed and how they’ll get there, they become frustrated and dissatisfied, feeling like passengers with no control and few options except complaining. Sharing a vision of the future and helping team members understand how to get there inspires confidence: It’s hard to like a leader who’s lost in the wilderness.
• Ask for feedback and make an effort to change. Our 360 data show clearly that most people rate themselves more likable than their bosses, peers, and direct reports do. How can you bridge that gap? As the graph below demonstrates, there’s a strong correlation between a leader’s likability and the extent to which they ask for and respond to feedback from others. Feedback from others helps leaders to understand the impact (positive or negative) that they have on others.

You can be more likeable. Identify two of the actions from the list above that would most help you in your current situation. A great way to start would be to ask for feedback and ask team members to identify which activities would have the most value to them. Make a plan, identifying some specific steps you will take to improve, and then stick to it. Ask others for feedback on your progress.

And, oh by the way, if you are a man, this is even more important for you to consider, because in all probability, you are less liked than your female counterparts, and that’s hindering your effectiveness as a leader.

A businesswoman has a conversation with her five-year-old daughter. “What if I told you that as Mommy does better at work, fewer people like me. But when Daddy does better at work, more people like him. What would you say?” She expected her child to say, “Well that’s really unfair, Mom.” But what she said instead was, “Well then, Mommy, I would be less successful at work so more people will like me.”

In a recent interview, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg recounted this story to underscore the importance of a body of research that she cites in her book Lean In indicating “that success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women.”

We share Sandberg’s disappointment in this young girl’s response. We too would like to see women lean in further. And we share her view that barriers, both external and self-imposed, stand in the way. But our work with leadership development and 360-degree assessments does not confirm that a likability penalty as women rise to the top is one of those barriers. While, certainly, some individual women may find themselves disliked as they move up the organization, our aggregate data show the opposite is more common — that male leaders are perceived more negatively as they rise, whereas women generally maintain their popularity throughout their entire careers.

Here’s how we came to this conclusion. Taking items from our 360-degree feedback instrument such as “Do you stay in touch with issues and concerns of individuals in the work group?” and “How well do you balance getting results with a concern for others’ needs?” we created a likability index. (For a detailed explanation of how it was created and to take the quiz yourself, go to our website.) We then analyzed a group of 9,500 male and 5,000 female leaders who participated in our programs in the past three years. Using our scale, we compared their level in the organization with how well liked they were by their bosses, peers, and direct reports. On average, 10 people assessed each leader. Here’s what we found:

Both men and women took a hit in likability when they moved from first-level supervisor to middle manager. But this drop was more precipitous for men. After that, the women made up some ground, while men’s standing continued to erode, significantly widening the gap between them.

What’s more, if you plot overall perceived leadership effectiveness against likability, you discover that the greater the perceived effectiveness of leaders — male or female — the higher their score on the likability index. Coupling this with our past studies, which show a high correlation between perceived leadership effectiveness and such critical measures of business outcomes as profitability, customer satisfaction, employee engagement, and productivity, convinces us that people like effective leaders who produce superior results, no matter what their gender.

Just as we found likable leaders at every level, we also see some who are prickly, capricious, and arrogant. As you would suppose, they included leaders of both genders. There happen to be a higher percentage of likable women leaders than men leaders, but the difference in our data is not huge (among the least likable there are 3% more men than women; among the most liked 3% more women than men).

Our conclusion? Likability and success actually go together remarkably well for women. Parents can accurately and unhesitatingly tell their daughters, “Aspire for positions of power and influence, and when you get promoted, it is totally your choice whether you act in a way that will have people continue to like you or not.”

Which is more effective in improving team performance: using positive feedback to let people know when they’re doing well, or offering constructive comments to help them when they’re off track?

New research suggests that this is a trick question. The answer, as one might intuitively expect, is that both are important. But the real question is — in what proportion?

The research, conducted by academic Emily Heaphy and consultant Marcial Losada, examined the effectiveness of 60 strategic-business-unit leadership teams at a large information-processing company. “Effectiveness” was measured according to financial performance, customer satisfaction ratings, and 360-degree feedback ratings of the team members. The factor that made the greatest difference between the most and least successful teams, Heaphy and Losada found, was the ratio of positive comments (“I agree with that,” for instance, or “That’s a terrific idea”) to negative comments (“I don’t agree with you” “We shouldn’t even consider doing that”) that the participants made to one another. (Negative comments, we should point out, could go as far as sarcastic or disparaging remarks.) The average ratio for the highest-performing teams was 5.6 (that is, nearly six positive comments for every negative one). The medium-performance teams averaged 1.9 (almost twice as many positive comments than negative ones.) But the average for the low-performing teams, at 0.36 to 1, was almost three negative comments for every positive one.

So, while a little negative feedback apparently goes a long way, it is an essential part of the mix. Why is that? First, because of its ability to grab someone’s attention. Think of it as a whack on the side of the head. Second, certainly, negative feedback guards against complacency and groupthink.

And third, our own research shows, it helps leaders overcome serious weaknesses. The key word here is serious. Our firm provides 360-degree feedback to leaders. We have observed among the 50,000 or so leaders we have in our database that those who’ve received the most negative comments were the ones who, in absolute terms, improved the most. Specifically, our aggregate data show that three-fourths of those receiving the lowest leadership effectiveness scores who made an effort to improve, rose on average 33 percentile points in their rankings after a year. That is, they were able to move from the 23rd percentile (the middle of the worst) to the 56th percentile (or square in the middle of the pack).

A few colleagues have raised their eyebrows when we’ve noted this because we’re strongly in the camp that proposes that leaders work on their strengths. How do we reconcile these seemingly contrary perspectives? Simple: the people who get the most negative feedback have the most room to grow. It’s far harder for someone at the 90th percentile already to improve so much.

But clearly those benefits come with serious costs or the amount of negative feedback that leads to high performance would be higher. Negative feedback is important when we’re heading over a cliff to warn us that we’d really better stop doing something horrible or start doing something we’re not doing right away. But even the most well-intentioned criticism can rupture relationships and undermine self-confidence and initiative. It can change behavior, certainly, but it doesn’t cause people to put forth their best efforts.

Only positive feedback can motivate people to continue doing what they’re doing well, and do it with more vigor, determination, and creativity. Perhaps that’s why we have found with the vast majority of the leaders in our database, who have no outstanding weaknesses, that positive feedback is what motivates them to continue improvement. In fact, for those in our database who started above average already (but are still below the 80th percentile), positive feedback works like negative feedback did for the bottom group. Focusing on their strengths enabled 62% of this group to improve a full 24 percentage points (to move from the 55th to the 79th percentile). The absolute gains are not as great as they are for the most-at-risk leaders, since they started so much further ahead. But the benefits to the organization of making average leaders into good ones is far greater, because it puts them on the road to becoming the exceptional leaders that every organization desperately needs.

As an interesting aside, we find it noteworthy that Heaply and Losada’s research is echoed in an uncanny way by John Gottman’s analysis of wedded couples’ likelihood of getting divorced or remaining married Once again, the single biggest determinant is the ratio of positive to negative comments the partners make to one another. And the optimal ratio is amazingly similar — five positive comments for every negative one. (For those who ended up divorced, the ratio was 0.77 to 1 — or something like three positive comments for every four negative ones.)

Clearly in work and life, both negative and positive feedback have their place and their time. If some inappropriate behavior needs to be stopped, or if someone is failing to do something they should be doing, that’s a good time for negative feedback. And certainly contrarian positions are useful in leadership team discussions, especially when it seems only one side of the argument has been heard. But the key even here is to keep the opposing viewpoint rational, objective, and calm — and above all not to engage in any personal attack (under the disingenuous guise of being “constructive”).

We submit that all leaders should be aware of the ratio of positive and negative comments made by their colleagues in leadership team meetings, and endeavor to move the proportion closer to the ideal of 5.6 to 1 — by their own example.

In our previous blog, Bad Leaders Can Change Their Spots, we described a group of 71 leaders who were able to elevate their leadership effectiveness from the 23rd percentile to the 56th percentile — that is, from being poor leaders to good ones. While many readers were impressed that it could happen, many more were curious (and even doubtful) about how it could happen. Admittedly, not every leader can do this. But all 71 of these individuals (who represented three-quarters of the entire group of poor leaders in this study) did accomplish this seemingly Herculean shift. How?

Using 360-degree feedback data over a 12- to 18-month period, we were able to track what, exactly, the leaders who’d made the most significant progress were doing. We found that practically all of them (more than 80%) significantly improved their ability to executive nine particular leadership skills.

1. They improved their communication effectiveness. This was the most common skill that these people improved. Communication skills are highly malleable. For many of these leaders, improvement here was less about learning new skills than about using the skills they already had more often and with more people. (When we talk to groups of leaders and ask, “Who here communicates too much?” we see very few hands rise.) We have also found that when struggling leaders spend time improving presentation skills, the effort can produce an immediately payoff.
2. They made an effort to share their knowledge and expertise more widely. Poor leaders tend to be stingy with information and know-how. By sharing their knowledge more frequently and teaching people what they know how to do they can simultaneously impress and develop their direct reports.
3. They began to encourage others to do more and to be better. Some leaders believe that if they minimize challenges to their team and expect less of their people, subordinates will see them as better leaders. This is wrong! Fewer challenges is the opposite of what a work group or organization needs. When leaders challenge their direct reports to do more and be better they thought they could be, the leaders are actually perceived to be better themselves.
4. They developed a broader perspective. It’s easy for leaders to become preoccupied with work demands and internal politics and become oblivious to what’s happening in the outside world. Getting leaders to stop and look at the bigger picture can help them see potential problems sooner and focus more on strategic and less on tactical issues. This leads to constructive change and innovation.
5. They recognized that they were role models and needed to set a good example. It frequently happens that leaders unintentionally (or unknowingly) ask others to do things they don’t do themselves. This never works. Many of our 71 leaders were surprised to discover that they were perceived as hypocritical. They learned to walk their talk (or at least to “stumble the mumble”).
6. They began to champion their team’s new ideas. Many of our 71 leaders were also surprised to learn that their teams considered them to be the “Abominable NO man (or woman).” When they shifted from discouraging new proposals to encouraging and supporting innovative ideas and thinking, positive changes occurred.
7. They learned to recognize when change was needed. More generally, our successful leaders were those who learned to willingly support and embrace change, and encourage others to do so, as well. How? Essentially, by becoming more proactive — that is, by doing a better job of spotting new trends, opportunities, and potential problems early.
8. They improved their ability to inspire and motivate others. Practically all of the actions we’ve already mentioned create a more inspirational environment. In addition, there were two notable things these leaders did to inspire others. First, they did a better job keeping people focused on the highest priority goals and objectives. Second, they made a special effort to stay in touch with the concerns and problems of their teams. When a leader is the last to know that an employee is having difficulties, others interpret that as a lack of concern. Providing support and assistance to an employee in difficult circumstances not only helps that employee, but also reassures others they can expect to receive the same treatment.
9. They began to encourage cooperation rather than competition. Many leaders come out of school believing that work is a zero-sum game that creates winners and losers, and so they compete, in an effort to get ahead. Battles are costly and consume a great deal of resources. In the long run, internal competition causes every participant to lose. When leaders look for ways to encourage cooperation and generate common goals, they become more successful.

As you review this list of what our bad leaders did to improve, we believe you’ll agree that what we are describing are common virtues that had not been practiced commonly enough. Our data show that taking these steps are especially effective in increasing the success of leaders who’ve been formerly regarded as poor, but they can improve all leaders. To us, that means that everyone — bad leaders, average leaders, and even good leaders — can change their spots. So, what’s holding you back?

We have many ways to describe the common belief that a person’s behavior is relatively fixed: “A leopard can’t change his spots.” “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” You could probably add a few more old saws yourself. This view, we’ve found, seems especially prevalent in relation to senior leaders with noticeable weakness, like an uncontrollable temper or a marked tendency to be rude or unreasonably demanding.

John H. Sununu, former governor or New Hampshire and later White House chief of staff to George H. W. Bush, had a reputation for being extremely unpleasant to work with. This finally prompted him to ask an aide, “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?” After a brief hesitation, the aide replied, “Oh, I’m not sure sir, but I guess it just saves them a lot of time.”

Intuitively, this notion makes so much sense. Surely the combination of age, power, success, inadvertent and deliberate moves to avoid feedback, and years of practicing their vices with impunity leaves little incentive for senior leaders to change.

And yet we contend that they can — and they do. Here’s why:

We looked at data from 545 relatively senior executives who participated in recent leadership development programs in three different organizations — a large bank, a large high-tech communications company, and an Ivy League university (not affiliated with this organization). Through 360 assessments, they were judged on how skilled they were in the 16 attributes we’ve found through our research to be most essential to leadership effectiveness (fundamental leadership abilities like inspiring others, communicating effectively, driving for success, and the like).

Sadly, in that group we identified 96 unfortunates (18%) who were judged worse than 90% of their peers in their ability to perform one or more of these critical leadership skills. A score that low on even a single attribute can derail a career.

And so we counsel these individuals to fix their fatal flaws before they focus, as the rest of the group would do, on identifying their particular strengths and learning how to make them (and themselves) even more remarkable.

Those who believe that leopards, particularly senior management leopards, can’t change their spots may be surprised to find that 71 of those 96 leaders were able to improve those flaws enough show a statistically significant improvement in their overall leadership effectiveness on their subsequent 360 evaluations. That is, roughly 75% of these leaders were able to change their behavior enough that their colleagues, subordinates, direct reports, and bosses (who had judged them so harshly before) could readily see improvement.

Furthermore, the changes weren’t small. In 18 months to two years, these people hadn’t just managed to drag themselves up from the bottom 10% to the bottom 20%. They move up 33 points. That propelled them from the bottom to being above average. If they choose to continue their development efforts, there’s every reason to believe that many will continue to improve even more.

As with Governor Sununu, the flaws most commonly tripping up our at-risk leaders were related to failures in establishing interpersonal relationships. Far less frequent were fatal flaws involved in leading change initiatives, driving for results, and — we’re happy to report — character. That might explain how they’d managed to get as far as they had. But past a certain point, individual ambition and results aren’t enough. As they climb higher in an organization and the ability to motivate others becomes far more important, poor interpersonal skills, indifference to other people’s development, and a belief that they no longer need to improve themselves come to haunt these less effective leaders the most.

The exceptionally good news, our data show, is that far more often than not, those who take these issues seriously can succeed in shedding bad habits to become markedly better leaders. New spots, anyone?