Nuggets: Competent Jerks, Likable Fools

One of my interests is the formation of cultural norms, so I read this article looking for clues. Instead, it is a great overview of social psychological research on attraction and teamwork, with down-to-earth tips on promoting effective informal networks thus creating outstanding teams.

I initially found it surprising that people would choose to work with the likable fool rather than the competent jerk, but Casciaro and Lobo's development of both scenarios brought up some vivid memories and made the finding intuitive.

The weakest point of the article was the section on team building. They mention Sherif, but do not discuss his findings. In order to build a cohesive team,

1. participants must have equal status
2. they must engage in cooperative interaction; it helps if everybody has something of value to contribute
3. common goals must be set
4. the company or institution should support the project and the interaction
5. there must be frequent contacts (not just a one-time interaction)

I would also add that the examples typically used by researchers like Sherif, the goals were meaningful to the participants in groups that have successfully fostered bonding in the real world, e.g. jigsaw classrooms, integrated military units.

The product management team is a great example of using these criteria to help eliminate conflict or help promote liking. Unfortunately, they only mention the product management team idea in the section on "familiarity."

In the section on "fostering bonding," where the Sherif study is cited, they mention Outward Bound-type activities as an example, albeit a poor one. As we know, a positive participant reaction does not mean that learning will transfer from the class to the job, but a negative participant reaction will guarantee that participants won't use the learned skills on the job. An Outward Bound-type activity does fulfill many of the team-building criteria, but is not very meaningful to most of the participants and may be met with cynicism and scepticism because it does feel "trite or manufactured".

Also, in my experience, I don't typically dislike my least-favored coworkers as people, it's the way they work that I can't stand. A ropes course may strengthen my liking for the "jerks" and the "fools" that I work with, but I'd still breathe a sigh of relief if they left the job. On the other hand, working on a product team or other project would motivate me to learn how to minimize the impact of their failings while maximizing their strengths and expertise. If the project was successful, these skills might cause me to like the "jerks" and "fools" more, because I'd have learned to minimize their interpersonal or knowledge gaps. I'd also see how their insights contributed to a successful project, maybe proving that they were less abrasive or foolish then I'd thought.

Overall, I thought the article was marvelously written: clear, concise and in layman's terms. I just wish that they'd refered to the product team example or something similar in the "fostering bonding." They are correct in saying that "The challenge for managers, therefore, is to constantly find new ways to take advantage of this old concept." I'd say, specifically, that the main challeng would be to find a project that the company cares about, takes full advantage of each worker's strength and has a high chance of success.