Okay, so I failed to find a good rhyme for the title, but it got your attention nonetheless. My apologies to Marvin Gaye. In this blog we’ve talked a lot about interpersonal skills and Versatility, especially as it pertains to the workplace and personal effectiveness. As with many things in life, awareness is half the battle. If people tell me that I need to do a better job of listening, and I had never realized that about myself (because I’m not a good listener), then that is an eye-opener. The burden is now on me to hunker down and act on this newly discovered insight (taking action is the second half of the battle). But sometimes we do something that we know isn’t right, without having to be told it isn’t right, but we just can’t seem to help ourselves. Take gossip, for instance. The urge to chatter about other people is older than Stonehenge. Yet even though tattlers are generally frowned upon, there have been some theoreticians who believe gossip serves important social functions, much like the social bonding that occurs among primates during mutual grooming. However, new research indicates that gossipers are not only disliked, but are also seen as socially weak and lacking influence on others.

In a study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, researcher Sarah Farley asked participants (mostly female students) to think of someone they knew who “spent a lot of time (or little time) talking about other people when they were not around.” Among several clever manipulations, the word “gossip” was never used as part of the instructions or in explaining the purpose of the study. Farley also had participants think of someone who either said negative things or positive things about people in their absence. They were then asked to rate that person for likeability and social influence (there were also many distractor items, once again to disguise the purpose of the study).

Not surprisingly, people who gossiped frequently were less well-liked than non-gossipers, and negative gossipers were the least liked. More notably, gossipers, and especially negative gossipers, were seen as lacking social influence. These individuals liked to talk about others, but they had no influence on others.

Being disliked and not having any influence is a bad combination. It makes me wonder if we should measure the propensity to gossip as part of our Versatility profile. I’d better wait until I hear something through the grapevine before taking action on this one.

Click here to see the research article abstract.

Farley, S. (2011). Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (5), 574-579. 

We know that SOCIAL STYLE is largely independent of Versatility. I say “largely” independent because, as we’ve shared in this blog before, there is a positive relationship between Responsiveness and Feedback; on average, Emote Responsive people have higher Feedback scores on our Profile. Feedback is the component of Versatility that indicates how effectively a person communicates in one-on-one situations. You lucky Amiable and Expressive folks. But even though they are statistically independent, it still stands to reason that people display certain aspects of Versatility in Style-related ways, at least partly. Does an Analytical person show her Versatility in exactly the same way as an Amiable person?

Here are some thoughts on how Style might affect how people show Versatility, specifically Competence. These are excerpts from TRACOM’s guide “Achieving Higher Versatility.” We would be interested to hear your own observations or insights on this topic.

Style and Competence

Competence is an evaluation of how well you help others achieve their work-related goals. It includes such factors as your dependability, flexibility, optimism, ability to help solve problems, and perseverance in challenging circumstances.

Because Driving Style people achieve their need for results through taking action, some of the behaviors that lead to Competence might seem like a natural for them. For example, they might often be perceived as dependable since they like to get things done quickly, and as persistent since they drive toward goals. These individuals usually don’t show optimism through exciting speeches or a cheerful presence. Rather, their optimism comes across as confidence that things will turn out all right and that positive outcomes will happen through taking a course of action. In terms of flexibility, some Driving Style people tend to see changes as challenges that should be met head on. They may actually be faster to respond to changes than is comfortable for people of other Styles. As natural risk-takers, these people generally are not afraid of new ideas. They may generate their own ideas and solutions or, if practicing their listening skills, will take the time to solicit others’ ideas and work with them.

Expressive Style people have a natural orientation toward spontaneity, so they might display flexibility to new circumstances and adaptability to change more readily than some others. Their creativity will sometimes show itself through generating ideas, especially since they are generally big-picture thinkers. When feeling optimistic, these individuals will show it through their enthusiasm and outward energy. Expressive Style people are not as influenced by time constraints as some of the other Styles, so they may display dependability somewhat differently. This is not to say that they are incapable of taking responsibility for their work or for meeting deadlines; people of all Styles do these things. They may have different understandings of time frames and what others’ expectations are.

Amiable Style individuals are focused on relationships, and this can often come across in how they display Competence behaviors. For example, they might persevere through problems by involving others and focusing on working as a team, rather than trying to tackle every problem on their own. When feeling hopeful about things, they will generally be cheerful toward co-workers and display energy around work activities. Their personal creativity is also often most apparent when it involves some form of group activity. For example, an Amiable Style person might develop a new process that eases the workloads of fellow team members, as well as herself. The desire to please others is strong for these people, and to the extent that they agree with decisions and processes, they will display their reliability by meeting their responsibilities and deadlines.

Analytical Style individuals tend to be somewhat reserved, and this can come across in their Competence behaviors. Rather than being very vocal and obvious in their actions, they will sometimes show their perseverance by quietly moving forward and working through problems, often by themselves. When change occurs, they will generally want to find some assurance that the change is positive before committing themselves. Rapid transitions from one situation to another can be challenging for them. When coming up with new ideas or solutions to problems, they will often want time alone to think before offering their input to the larger group. Because they tend to be emotionally controlled, their displays of optimism might not be as forthright as they are for people of other Styles. In fact, their enthusiasm might be so subdued that others don’t realize that they are actually excited.

In a previous blog we talked about Versatility as a choice; people can consciously decide to behave with Versatility towards others, or not. Most people would say that our behavior is within our control. But is this true all of the time? How much of an impact does the larger context in which we live and work impact our behavior and our Versatility? Does the specific culture of an organization affect the Versatility of the people who work there?

One way to answer this question is to look at differences in Versatility across industries. Although all companies are unique, there are some common aspects to companies within a given industry. For example, many companies in the retail industry have similar environments, structures, and challenges, and this could influence how people behave.

TRACOM examined Versatility across industries and we found some interesting results. Certain industries do, in fact, have higher Versatility than others. Healthcare and medical services, entertainment and leisure, and consulting services lead the pack with the highest average Versatility among employees in our database. These are followed closely by people who work in the pharmaceuticals industry. The average for all of these industries is “Y” Versatility, which is higher than over half of the general population.

On the other end of the spectrum, we found the lowest average Versatility in the energy, manufacturing, and computer services industries. The average for these industries was an “X” level of Versatility, well below half the general population.

 Average Versatility within Selected Industries

 Above Average

1. Healthcare/Medical Services

2. Entertainment/Leisure

3. Consulting Services

4. Pharmaceuticals

 Below Average

1. Manufacturing

2. Computers/Computer Services

3. Energy

We hasten to point out that these findings are based on averages, so any individual within these industries can have low or high Versatility.

Still, is it possible that the unique demands of these industries influence people’s behavior? And do different industries have different sets of expectations about how people should behave? A medical facility might have a different expectation about how to treat co-workers and customers than a manufacturing facility.

People in leadership roles naturally influence their organizations’ cultures through their formal expectations and efforts to shape culture, and also through their personal behavior. It seems only natural that individuals’ interpersonal behaviors could be influenced by these expectations and practices.

What do you think? 

Dr. Casey Mulqueen, TRACOM Director of Research

A number of months ago we reported research that examined the ability to identify people’s SOCIAL STYLE from the contents of their emails. But what about Versatility? Although Versatility fluctuates, is it possible to accurately determine Versatility when working with a person in a virtual environment? Could Versatility be even more apparent than Style? Over a long period of time, could Versatility become the most apparent set of behaviors when working virtually, in essence replacing Style as the most obvious and predictable pattern of behaviors? These aren’t just questions that I ponder while mowing the lawn. In fact, these were actual questions presented to me from a client who had recently completed a learning program with a group of people who were meeting for the first time in person, but had worked together for a number of years through phone and email. The client noted that several people saw each other as having a balance of Styles (in the middle four sub-quadrants) because they had high Versatility and were basically experiencing the Versatility of others. (They had rated one another before ever meeting face-to-face).

This observation led the client to another intriguing question: If people only experience each other in virtual work settings, is one’s Versatility seen more as a person’s Social Style? Thus began a discussion of the impact that Versatility has for people working in virtual environments.

While there are some clues to determine Style virtually, these are only helpful after someone has learned Style concepts and how to diagnose behavior patterns. A person who has not learned about SOCIAL STYLE would have no basis for utilizing those strategies. In contrast, people can accurately complete the SOCIAL STYLE Profile before learning about Style concepts because the Style-related survey questions are obvious physical behaviors that are seen every day. For example, body posture, amount of eye contact, and facial expressions are apparent in person but cannot be determined through phone or email. Because the people in this group have only interacted virtually, they may have had a hard time accurately answering some of the Style-related questions on the survey, which was designed for people that have regular face-to-face interactions.

In virtual settings, Versatility behaviors might be more obvious and therefore easier to evaluate. For example, Competence skills can be identified as easily virtually as they are in person: Is the person reliable, persevering, flexible, and so on? Even Feedback skills can become apparent after a lengthy virtual relationship: Does the person listen effectively and communicate an understanding of your messages? Do you feel comfortable talking with the person because she is adapting to your communication style?

As the client noted, people seem to adapt their behaviors more in the virtual environment, so Versatility is likely to become the most apparent set of behaviors. This could easily result in Style being perceived in the middle categories because Style behaviors are toned-down and Versatility becomes paramount.

What have been your experiences with Style and Versatility when working in virtual situations? Do you agree that Versatility is more important or noticeable than Style?

By John Myers, TRACOM CEO and Dr. Casey Mulqueen, TRACOM Director of Research

Language plays a critical role when working with people from cultures throughout the world, and sometimes we take it for granted that everyone will interpret concepts in the same ways that we do. While different interpretations can cause communication problems, they can also be an opportunity to revisit and clarify thinking around important ideas.   A few weeks ago we were meeting with a leadership group from one of our international clients and discussion turned to the concept of Versatility. One of the participants questioned one of the ways in which TRACOM explains Versatility. He wondered whether people with high Versatility are always focused on reducing the tension of others, or whether this behavior can sometimes be meant to reduce one’s own tension as well. He speculated whether there can be a self-serving aspect to practicing high Versatility.

Historically, TRACOM has discussed Versatility as a continuum ranging from lower Versatility, which focuses on reducing one’s own tension, to higher Versatility, where the focus is on reducing the tension of others. Our client’s statement got us to wondering about this explanation. Since TRACOM revised the Versatility model in the early 2000s, we are now able to provide individuals with detailed feedback about specific aspects of Versatility, where this was not possible with the earlier measurement system. People now receive information about skills such as perseverance, creativity, conscientiousness, empathy, and the ability to communicate effectively, among others.

So is it still reasonable to view Versatility as entirely focused on making others comfortable? After all, our research has shown that high Versatility is related to individual’s personal success, so it has tangible personal benefits. Behaving reliably, showing creativity, and persevering to achieve goals certainly helps our co-workers, but these abilities can also serve to further one’s own causes and career. Therefore, while there’s no doubt that high Versatility makes other people’s lives easier, it also helps the person who is showing high Versatility. As the saying goes, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Perhaps the dichotomy between focusing on others’ versus one’s own tension isn’t a dichotomy after all. A person who is behaving with high Versatility is helping his co-workers, but he is also helping himself. This is perfectly reasonable, and research has shown that emotionally intelligent people have greater engagement in their work and are more committed to their organizations.

We believe that when people display high Versatility they are truly thinking about others, but of course it’s possible to consider your impact on others while also meeting your own needs. Therefore, it is not either/or behavior. Instead, high Versatility is truly a win-win.

If you would like to weigh in on this issue, please leave a comment.

Newest Whitepaper Looks at Five Dysfunctions of a Team

Much of the work performed in organizations today is done by teams. It’s hard to imagine not contributing to at least one team on any given day. Teams are critical to every organization’s success; they determine and set strategies, generate ideas for new products, and solve problems. Given their importance, why do so many people complain about their teams? If you ask Patrick Lencioni, it is because most teams are dysfunctional.  In his book, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” Lencioni outlines five common pitfalls that prevent teams from achieving their full capabilities. Underlying each of these five dysfunctions is the failure to have an in-depth understanding of one another’s Style. According to Lencioni, “some of the most effective and lasting tools for building trust on a team are profiles of team members’ behavioral preferences and personality styles. These help break down barriers by allowing people to better understand and empathize with one another."

The SOCIAL STYLE Model provides an ideal platform that serves as a starting point for solving the Five Dysfunctions. SOCIAL STYLE and the application of behavioral Versatility offers a highly usable model of people’s behavioral preferences, strengths and weaknesses. It provides individuals feedback on interpersonal skills and realistic advice on how to contribute to teams. It leads to greater interpersonal awareness, understanding and more productive teams.

"SOCIAL STYLE and The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" is the newest whitepaper in TRACOM's SOCIAL STYLE Connections Whitepaper Series.  These whitepapers look at how SOCIAL STYLE complements and supports other workplace performance programs.  They can be downloaded below.

SOCIAL STYLE and The Five Dysfunctions of a Team SOCIAL STYLE & Emotional Intelligence (EQ) SOCIAL STYLE & Crucial Conversations SOCIAL STYLE & Situational Leadership

In the new world of online social networking, it’s easy to feel liked. After all, with dozens or even hundreds of “friends” and followers, many people have finally achieved the popularity that was so elusive to them in high school. But online socializing is easy. What about the real thing – developing strong relationships with people that we interact with every day. Common sense, not to mention much research, shows that people with good friends and strong social ties are happier than people without these bonds. So what if we isolate this to the workplace? What are the benefits of having strong ties with co-workers? New research shows that if you’re a leader, there are important benefits to having good relationships with your bosses and peers.   In a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers found that leaders with higher quality ties with their bosses and peers were more likely to be sought out by their peers for organization-related advice, and were perceived by their direct reports as having higher status in the organization. In addition, these leaders had more trusting and respectful relationships with their direct reports.

On the other side of the coin, what about the leaders who had weaker connections with their bosses and peers? Not surprisingly, they were perceived as having less status in the organization, and their relationships with their direct reports were weaker.

The study authors suggest that it would benefit organizations to support informal networking between leaders, their peers and their bosses. This would strengthen perceptions of leader status among employees, and would help leaders to have outlets for discussing issues and solving problems.

So the next time you have an opportunity to have lunch or coffee with that manager down the hall whose name you know, but that’s about all, you might want to do it. There is little to lose and possibly much to gain.

Click here to learn more about this study.

There has recently been much news coverage of House Majority Leader John Boehner’s emotional displays during interviews on 60 Minutes and also during various speeches. Some have been critical of the congressman while others have supported him. New research might shed some light on how emotional regulation relates to personal well-being.   Mr. Boehner is far from the only politician to display emotions in public. Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Joe Biden have both come to tears during public speeches, and most people felt that it was appropriate for the circumstances (post-September 11 attacks for President Bush, while VP Biden became tearful during a 2008 debate when discussing his upbringing). What seems to distinguish Mr. Boehner is the frequency with which he tears up, particularly during his interview on 60 Minutes.

In a previous blog we discussed some of the pitfalls of either showing too much emotion or not showing enough emotion. We quoted research showing that people may benefit from a judicious balance, taking into account the circumstances and the audience. New empirical research finds evidence that the ability to regulate emotion is associated with greater well-being, income, and socioeconomic status.

In two studies, researchers found that individuals who can best modify their emotional expression (either less or more) have higher well-being, disposable income, and socioeconomic status than individuals who are less skilled at managing their emotional expressiveness. In one study participants were measured on how well they could suppress their reactions to a loud startling noise. Those who suppressed their reactions were shown to be happiest with their lives. In the second experiment, participants viewed films of medical procedures that were meant to elicit disgust. In this case, those who amplified or expressed their feelings about the films were found to be happier, have more disposable income, and higher socioeconomic status than those who suppressed their emotions.

We should point out that a weakness of this research is that it’s correlational, and therefore causality cannot be established. In other words, it’s not known if regulating emotions leads to well-being, or if well-being leads to better ability at regulating emotions. What does seem clear is that experiencing strong emotion is part of what makes us human, and showing, or not showing, these emotions helps communicate our feelings and personal styles.

Click here to download a PDF of the research. 

In previous blogs we’ve talked about some of the benefits of high Versatility. Some of these include research-proven career advantages such as more effective performance and an increased chance of promotion. While these are compelling reasons to work on improving Versatility, let’s face it, most of us are creatures of habit and it’s hard to change our ways of doing things.   For example, how many of us climbed out of bed early in the morning on January 2 and jumped on a treadmill with better health aspirations for 2011? Less than two weeks later we find ourselves back on the couch watching reruns of Seinfeld. This might be because we expect to lose 20 pounds in two weeks, but meaningful change takes time, discipline, and sustained effort.   So a question we all face is, is it worth it to practice Versatility? This is purely an individual choice, of course. It all comes down to our own motivations, values, and beliefs about our behavior and how we want to relate to others.

But I want to point out some specific benefits of high Versatility and relate these to each Style. The career advantages mentioned before are nice, but they can seem ambiguous or maybe even out-of-reach for some people. It is the smaller benefits that, when added up over time, help people achieve those larger goals. I also want to be realistic about the natural challenges that each Style faces when working on Versatility, so those are discussed as well.

So scroll to your Style below and, who knows, maybe you’ll find that taking small Versatility steps is something you will maintain longer than your new year’s resolutions.

Driving Style

In order for Driving Style people to act in ways that lead to high Versatility, they have to diminish many of their natural tendencies. They want to dominate discussions, but they have to make sure to involve others. They want to control things, but they have to give up some of that control. They want to move quickly, but they have to slow down. Inevitably, all of these behaviors help them achieve their need for results, so it can be difficult for them to restrain these tendencies.

Acting with high Versatility has two primary benefits for these individuals. First, relationships with co-workers will be much stronger, and this in turn will have ongoing benefits. People will trust the individual and will be more willing to actively collaborate with him or her. Second, the person’s decisions and work effectiveness will be improved. This happens by considering other viewpoints and information, resulting in more informed decisions and higher quality work.

 Expressive Style

Expressive Style people like to be outgoing, which can sometimes come across as verbose and off-putting to others. They create problems for themselves by failing to apply their Style “brakes.” Remember that their growth action is to check their behavior. They want to be outgoing and fun, but they need to understand that not everyone responds well to these behaviors, so they have to restrain these tendencies. They want to be spontaneous and funny, but they need to realize that humor is not always appropriate or appreciated. They want to be the center of attention, but they need to allow other people to have the spotlight sometimes.

As with all Styles, acting with high Versatility will benefit these people by improving their working relationships and personal effectiveness. Relationships will be improved because others will be able to interact with them without feeling overwhelmed. Instead of constantly walking on pins, wondering when the Expressive person is going to go on the attack, others can interact with the person without being overly cautious or fearful of retribution. Their personal effectiveness will improve because others will see substance behind the dramatic displays. Instead of relying solely on their ability to network with others, they will garner recognition through their skills and competence.

Amiable Style

Their focus on maintaining friendly relationships is often what keeps Amiable Style people from behaving in ways that lead to higher Versatility. They want to get along well with everyone, but they need to realize that professional disagreements are acceptable and are not taken personally by most people. They may prefer to maintain the status quo, but sometimes change is necessary, and it is better to have some influence on the matter than to go along unwillingly. They want to be helpful to others, but there are times when this is not possible. Taking these actions is difficult because they are contrary to these individuals’ fundamental behaviors.

High Versatility is beneficial for relationships and overall effectiveness. Relationships can be improved because people will actually have greater trust in the Amiable Style person. If Amiable Style people are forthright in their opinions, others will be clear about where they stand and will have a better understanding of how to approach and interact with them. Likewise, their personal effectiveness will increase for many of the same reasons. By appropriately asserting themselves, they will have greater influence within the team or organization. Inevitably this can increase not only their effectiveness, but also their own personal satisfaction.

Analytical Style

In order to act in ways that lead to high Versatility, Analytical Style people have to temper their need to be right. They want to act cautiously and slowly, but they need to take more risks and be quicker to act. They want to take a methodical approach to problems and tasks, but they sometimes need to be less systematic. They prefer to stay in the background, but they need to be more upfront in stating their opinions. These behaviors are outside of these individuals’ comfort zones, and this is why it can be difficult for them to act in ways that lead to high Versatility.

The benefits of behaving with high Versatility are improved relationships and greater effectiveness. These individuals can improve their relationships by allowing others to interact with them on a more personal level. By showing the more human side of themselves, others will feel closer to them and have a greater understanding of their needs. This can lead to the many benefits of trusting relationships, both personal and professional. These individuals can increase their personal effectiveness because using more directive behaviors provides others with information they need, and also opens up resources that can help Analytical Style people succeed in their jobs. For example, by providing their input directly and making quicker decisions, work can be accomplished more efficiently. This is particularly true if the person involves other people in the process, instead of trying to do things alone. 

Do you ever wonder why Donald Trump seems so heartless and severe when giving “feedback” to people on The Apprentice? Sure, some of it is contrived for the TV audience, but it could be that he truly doesn’t have the ability to empathize with his poor underlings.   New research just published in Psychological Science has found evidence that people from higher-class backgrounds have lower emotional intelligence than people from lower-class backgrounds. Through a series of experiments researchers discovered that people who are less well-off were better able to read the emotions that others are feeling and scored higher on a test of empathic accuracy.

A sample of more than 300 upper- and lower-class people was asked to interpret the emotions of people in photos and of strangers during mock job interviews. In both cases, those with more education, money and self-defined social status were significantly less able to determine if a person was angry, happy, anxious or upset as their lower-class colleagues.

It makes me wonder if richer people have lower Versatility than the rest of us. Unfortunately we don’t collect this type of data so I can’t answer the question. Besides, converting the euro, yen, pound, dollar, rupee, franc, rand, and peso into a common metric is more hassle than it’s worth!

Read an MSNBC story on this topic. 

Download the Psychological Science article.

Learn more about Emotional Intelligence.