This is one of the most depressing articles I've read in a while

[Paracelsus]

Via 'Science' magazone: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2007_07_20/caredit_a0700103

The subject of charisma makes most people think of sales reps and politicians. But in many successful companies, you'd be hard pressed to find a person in any influential position who doesn't have some measure of charisma. Those on the scientific track are not exempt!

Wiskup asks, "What is it that makes some people stand out in a crowd, able to start a conversation and immediately draw people in, while others--lacking this elusive quality--get pushed to the side, even when they have something valuable to say?" His book goes on to answer that question by describing how certain people have no fear of presenting their ideas to anyone who may be able to help them; these savvy few combine this "no fear" approach with excellent persuasion and negotiation skills.

I agree that all scientists should develop good communication skills. I also agree that scientists should develop good interpersonal skills such that he or she is able to work well in a collaborative setting.

However, I do have a problem with the requirement that I must develop 'charisma' to be an effective scientist. To me, 'charisma' is a very different beast than 'interpersonal skills'. Interpersonal skills are what enable a person to work smoothly with others--no more, no less. Charisma is a quality that actively draws people to you and seduces them into doing what you want them to do.

One of the reasons I got into science in the first place (not one of the main reasons but a reason) is that I loved the idea that what I had to say mattered more than how impressive and magnetic I seemed while saying it. This ideal appears to have fallen victim to our image-conscious, VH1-driven, consumerist culture.

Bleah, how shallow we've become!

[01101001]

We're all in sales.

We're all in marketing.

[Ronald Brak]

I became very depressed when they started teaching us debating at school. They told us that it wouldn't matter what our facts were if we didn't have good debating skills. I wanted to know why on earth then they had wasted our time teaching us maths and science if facts weren't important and debating skill paramount. I didn't receive a satisfactory answer.

[Noclevername]

We're all in sales.

We're all in marketing.

And older professions.

[Paul Beardsley]

I can understand the sentiments expressed, but I don't entirely agree.

There's little point in being right if you can't be persuasive.

I'm thinking about this one. I might well change my mind a few times while following the thread.

[Paracelsus]

Well, I have always thought that scientific facts should speak for themselves, without need for verbal seduction by the presenter.

Charisma has always held a negative connotation for me; there is something very oily and deceptive about it.

[Paul Beardsley]

Sure. But there's thousands and photographs and 400kg worth of sterling evidence that we went to the moon... And inconsistent, idiotic scraps of non-evidence that it was all faked.

I think what I'm saying here is: the facts do not speak for themselves. Even intrinsic truthfulness is not enough; it needs an advocate.

It shouldn't be this way, but it probably is.

[Noclevername]

One thing I was told repeatedly when I was still looking for work was that you had to "Sell yourself!" Notwithstanding that selling human beings is illegal, the simple fact is that if I had the ability to "sell" anything, I'd be working in sales. It's an ability I just don't have, and one of the major reasons that I was so consistently unable to get work was that I can't "sell" or "network" or "shmooze" (Ugh! What a slimy word!) or do any of the social things that are apperently now more important to finding a job than, say, job skills or education.

[Paracelsus]

One thing I was told repeatedly when I was still looking for work was that you had to "Sell yourself!" Notwithstanding that selling human beings is illegal, the simple fact is that if I had the ability to "sell" anything, I'd be working in sales. It's an ability I just don't have, and one of the major reasons that I was so consistently unable to get work was that I can't "sell" or "network" or "shmooze" (Ugh! What a slimy word!) or do any of the social things that are apperently now more important to finding a job than, say, job skills or education.

Well, I can take working with a person who is competent but has a personality like a cinderblock. I refuse to work with a charismatic 'nice guy' who either can't or won't do a good job.

Competence should count more than personality, but I have seen a lot of incompetent, dishonest people skate along on their ability to shmooze. My lovely ex-friend was a perfect example of this.

[Tucson_Tim]

One thing I was told repeatedly when I was still looking for work was that you had to "Sell yourself!" Notwithstanding that selling human beings is illegal, the simple fact is that if I had the ability to "sell" anything, I'd be working in sales. It's an ability I just don't have, and one of the major reasons that I was so consistently unable to get work was that I can't "sell" or "network" or "shmooze" (Ugh! What a slimy word!) or do any of the social things that are apperently now more important to finding a job than, say, job skills or education.

Well, the firm I work for allows me (and many others) to just "do our jobs" without the need for "selling oneself" and we can make a nice living doing the thing that we like to do (programming). But, there is a limit as to how far someone like me can "climb the corporate ladder". Now, I never cared much but by not "schmoozing" it does limit me.

[Ilya]

Well, the firm I work for allows me (and many others) to just "do our jobs" without the need for "selling oneself" and we can make a nice living doing the thing that we like to do (programming). But, there is a limit as to how far someone like me can "climb the corporate ladder".

One thing you can not do without ability to schmooze, is run your own business. No matter how good are your ideas or how good you are at implementing them, you must at least have some ability to sell ideas (not necessarily sell product. That's nice to have too, but that's what salesmen are for). You need it just to get a bank loan to get you started.

Well, you could hire someone who is good at it to do your schmoozing for you, but the end result will be that they will control the company, not you.

Now, I never cared much but by not "schmoozing" it does limit me.

So you are effectively limited to a non-executive salaried position.

[mr obvious]

It makes sense from a certain point of view. Soft skills like sales, promotion, networking and other people skills are not [easily] transferable. You can teach many more people how to use Excel, how to grow food, how to use bandsaws, etc. than you can teach the softer skills. It should not be surprising then that the softer skills are more valued. If I recall correctly, there are occasionally lists of anticipated highest-demand jobs for the future, and sales/promotion are usually ranked highly on such lists, whatever those lists are worth.

[Ilya]

one of the major reasons that I was so consistently unable to get work was that I can't "sell" or "network" or "shmooze" (Ugh! What a slimy word!) or do any of the social things that are apperently now more important to finding a job than, say, job skills or education.

If it is any consolation, these "social things" were ALWAYS more important. The only difference between 21st Century and all the preceding ones is that one's birth and social standing are now less important. Which is an improvement. Few generations ago ability to sell yourself was not as vital if you were born to a priviledged family... but 95+% of people were not.

[Noclevername]

It makes sense from a certain point of view. Soft skills like sales, promotion, networking and other people skills are not [easily] transferable. The OP article doesn't seem to be about "skills" at all, but an innate quality. I know that, much as I've tried, I've been absolutely unable to "learn" social cues. There are just too many unspoken and unwritten factors that go into making someone "smooth" or "charismatic", and these things cannot be learned, only imitated with various limited degrees of success.

Either you have it or you don't. :sad:

[Tucson_Tim]

So you are effectively limited to a non-executive salaried position.

Yes. But I make more than almost all of the first-line managers and many of the second-line managers. Granted, I've been there a long time, but I'm not complaining - too much. :)

EDIT: Besides, I'm a good programmer and I enjoy it. It makes sense for the company to pay me well and let me do what I do best.

[mr obvious]

The OP article doesn't seem to be about "skills" at all, but an innate quality. I know that, much as I've tried, I've been absolutely unable to "learn" social cues. There are just too many unspoken and unwritten factors that go into making someone "smooth" or "charismatic", and these things cannot be learned, only imitated with various limited degrees of success.

Either you have it or you don't. :sad:

I can't speak for you, but while I'd agree there's an innate component for social skills, there's also an innate component for technical skills [my opinion]. That doesn't preclude people who lack innate technical skill from learning technical materials. Similar to technical learning, you need to practice. Unlike social situations, however, struggles with technical manuals do not cause people to snicker behind your back, so understandably there is a higher bar for practice.

Mildly off-topic, there was a NY Times Magazine article regarding 'Williams syndrome' [may require registration]:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/magazine/08sociability-t.html

It's interesting the cluster of characteristics used to describe these people. Apparently, they are very engaging (some described as charming) and can learn stuff (e.g., the person who learned about baseball statistics to talk to sports fans) but do not have a developed sense of social dynamics.

So I'd say one shouldn't simply assume social skills exist in total or absence as a binary switch.

[Tucson_Tim]

The firm I work for has changed over the years and now they do not subscribe (as much) to the Peter Principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Peter Principle: In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.

In the past the firm would "force" you to climb the corporate ladder, thus assuring that you would reach a level of incompetence.

[Larry Jacks]

My company has a long standing "Let geeks be geeks" policy. Being a geek, I like it. I don't have to go into the management track in order to get promoted or raises. I can do what I do best. My customers love our work but then, it took some good explainations to "sell" them on our approach to enterprise architecture.

Being able to communicate effectively is different from smoozing, IMO. Poor communications skills will hamper anyone's career, geek or not. Charisma, to me, is for people who can't sell the truth (like politicians).

[Paracelsus]

Being able to communicate effectively is different from smoozing, IMO. Poor communications skills will hamper anyone's career, geek or not. Charisma, to me, is for people who can't sell the truth (like politicians).

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Eta C]

However, I do have a problem with the requirement that I must develop 'charisma' to be an effective scientist. To me, 'charisma' is a very different beast than 'interpersonal skills'. Interpersonal skills are what enable a person to work smoothly with others--no more, no less. Charisma is a quality that actively draws people to you and seduces them into doing what you want them to do.

One of the reasons I got into science in the first place (not one of the main reasons but a reason) is that I loved the idea that what I had to say mattered more than how impressive and magnetic I seemed while saying it. This ideal appears to have fallen victim to our image-conscious, VH1-driven, consumerist culture.

Bleah, how shallow we've become!

There's no connection between "charisma" and effective science in the long run. Feynman had charisma to excess. You might even argue he had a "cult of personality." But most of this was based on the simple fact that he was a good scientist. He was rarely wrong and could express himself in a way that non-scientists could comprehend.

As to earlier comments on debating. I debated in high school and college. Nothing prepared me better for my career. Public speaking, persuasion, and the ability to frame one's arguments to one's audience are essential skills. Maybe this goes along with my comments in the "arrogance" thread, but one needs to have a certain amount of it to succeed. Modest, introverted, people tend to be drowned out in their lifetimes even if they are posthumusly found out to be correct.

[Jens]

One of the reasons I got into science in the first place (not one of the main reasons but a reason) is that I loved the idea that what I had to say mattered more than how impressive and magnetic I seemed while saying it. This ideal appears to have fallen victim to our image-conscious, VH1-driven, consumerist culture.

Bleah, how shallow we've become!

I guess I would also disagree slightly with your interpretation. I don't want to sound really Darwinistically conservative, because it's a complex problem, but I think that this issue of charisma is not something that came out recently. Just look at monkeys. They also have charismatic individuals. I think it is something that is probably inevitable to some extent in a social species.

Plus I don't think it really implies that you need to be charismatic to be a scientist. But if you are planning on getting a chance to have dinner with the king of Sweden, it probably helps. And if you want to be a head of department or whatever.

[Ronald Brak]

One thing you can not do without ability to schmooze, is run your own business. No matter how good are your ideas or how good you are at implementing them, you must at least have some ability to sell ideas (not necessarily sell product. That's nice to have too, but that's what salesmen are for). You need it just to get a bank loan to get you started.

Well, you could hire someone who is good at it to do your schmoozing for you, but the end result will be that they will control the company, not you.

I disagree with that. There are quite a few socially introverted people running their own businesses, many of them from home. They are not charismatic, but they can manage to communicate and they make money because they do a good job. Obviously they are usually not CEOs of big companies or world class salespeople, but some of them are sales people, and comprise a disproportionate amount of the salespeople who make sure the customer gets what they need rather than what the salesperson happens to be pushing this week.

[Paracelsus]

As to earlier comments on debating. I debated in high school and college. Nothing prepared me better for my career. Public speaking, persuasion, and the ability to frame one's arguments to one's audience are essential skills. Maybe this goes along with my comments in the "arrogance" thread, but one needs to have a certain amount of it to succeed. Modest, introverted, people tend to be drowned out in their lifetimes even if they are posthumusly found out to be correct.

See my post #'s 159 and 123 on the 'Arrogance' thread for my final thoughts on that subject. :)

Eta C, I absolutely agree with you that debating skills (and good oral communication skills in general) are crucial for one's success as a scientist, as are people skills. It's the 'charisma' part I'm having a problem with. Charisma does not always come from being brilliant or being right. Adolf Hitler had charisma too, as did Jerry Falwell. If the article meant 'people skills and good communication skills' instead of 'charisma' and 'personal magnetism', I wish it had said so.

Feh, maybe the problem I'm having with this article comes from my own personal thoughts on what charisma means. :think:

More thoughts, anyone?