HPO considerations for mixed groups

is likership the answer?

I remember one of my first military science classes pretty vividly. We discussed the difference between leadership and likership. I made an argument that likability within a unit was required to get buy-in and optimal performance. This position was met with some derision, and I’ve often wondered about the relationship between likability and group performance. Personal experience provided instances where it seemed to matter a lot, but others where it didn’t appear to matter at all. A study I recently came across provided some interesting insight towards answering my own personal lingering questions regarding likability and performance. According to this study, likability isn’t necessary to get folks to contribute to the unit - in all male groups. Some German researchers looked at the role likability played in team performance and found that it is in fact very important in all female and mixed groups, but not for all male groups.

Performance Implications

I don’t know about your organization, but in the regular Army we are fully integrated now. Research in the Marine Corps found that mixed-units didn’t perform as well as all-male units with respect to combat tasks. While that study’s findings focused on physical differences, the dynamics of likability might have also played a role. In light of the findings of these studies and the reality of gender integration across the military, I think likability is an essential component of unit cohesion, even if it might not have been in the past. The social competence that it takes to be liked, and to ensure people within your group like each other, is difficult to develop, but not impossible. This is probably more of an art than a science, and I bet there are a variety of strategies that work better for some based on their own character strengths and weaknesses. I think Master Resiliency Training can provide a lot of skills that can enhance competencies towards facilitating mutual likability within groups/small units, but like all cognitive enhancement it isn’t easy. It will be made a lot harder than it has to be if people try to cling to the notion that likability doesn’t matter. For better or worse, it does matter, and while I wouldn’t recommend preoccupation with what people think about you outside of your group (there will always be people out there who don’t like you for whatever reason), it is crucial that everyone within a mixed or all-female group like each other (at least a little bit). According to Kosfeld et. Al, If they don’t, they won’t contribute as much to the group which I can only infer has disasterous consequences for team performance.

Important Caveat

Since we’re talking about maximizing likability of in-groups to facilitate performance, it is important to note there is a shadow side here. If you’re familiar with the concept derived from social psychology called Groupthink, you may have already noticed. From wikipedia we can get a good basic definition:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.

So there is a delicate balance that must be achieved. We need mutual likability, but we can’t shy away from disagreement in order to achieve said likability or we end up with Groupthink and the unbelievably idiotic outcomes this dynamic engenders. This is tough because it requires everyone to work together to maximize their own emotional intelligence and communication skills. When people disagree, they need to figure out how to do it assertively without being an asshole. Simultaneously, everyone needs to manage their reactions to being questioned so that they can be open to critical feedback and disagreement. I like to cue myself to do these two things by focusing on being courteous and being charitable.

Courtesy and Charity

For those engaging in good faith, I think a suitable path can be found to navigate these complex dynamics by focusing on two things.

1. Be Courteous. When you are communicating, remain courteous to the greatest extent possible. The more rapport you have with someone, the more you can get away with breaking this rule. When you are intially communicating however, it would be very foolish to ignore this recommendation. Once you establish a first impression as an asshole, it is very difficult to overcome. Trust me, I speak from experience.

2. Be Charitable. This has to do with how you receive/interpret communication from others. If you can assume the person you are communicating with is acting in good faith, do so. Mind you, sometimes things don’t add up and you can’t figure out any conceivable way someone could be acting in good faith. That is a difficult situation to find yourself in, and it does happen sometimes, but that can’t be a default assumption. Recognizing that giving everyone the benefit of the doubt doesn’t always work out, it pays to do it anyway. More often than not, it will work out and the benefits of establishing a group dynamic built on a foundation of trust that has to be violated to be lost outweigh the inherent risks.

Have Grace for the “Weak-Link”

Every chain will have a weakest link. In some group at some point, that weak link will probably be you. Harboring anti-social sentiments towards the weak-link in your team will make performance suffer. In a small unit, people might be tempted to focus on secondary characteristics of the weak-link. This is a mistake. At the small unit level, we’re all individuals. If the weak-link is an individual acting in good faith, it pays for leaders and peers to invest time and effort to develop said individual. If you’re the weak link, do whatever you can to close the gap. Look for other strengths that can compensate and lean into those. Even though you might not have as much innate ability in an area that everyone notices, this can usually be overcome with dedication and hard work. On the flip side, the rest of the team can try to recognize the difference between genuine needs for performance improvement and useless proxy measures. To give an Army example, an obese Soldier that struggles with distance running might be great at all other aspects of their job. Leaders and peers can work to differentiate between real and artificial requirements to better hone efforts directed at shoring up weaknesses (in this case, if they can pass the ACFT there probably isn’t a hard and fast need for Soldiers to be proficient distance runners).

Likability

Likability is a two-way street. We like people better who like us. Be charitable. Be courteous. Can mixed groups get by without mutual likability? Sure. But this study suggests people will withhold effort under these conditions. This will be impossible to prove, and frustrating for everyone involved. The only safeguard is to become more effective communicators and work to ensure that everyone on our team likes each other, at least a little bit. Without courtesy, charity is more than some can muster. Without charity, descent into Groupthink is inevitable as people self-censor to avoid upsetting the balance. It is a delicate dance, to be sure, but one that we must engage in if we want to optimize the performance of mixed groups.