As a theater director and actor I spend a lot of time thinking about "charisma". What is it that makes some people interesting to look at, even when they're not doing anything?<p>Physical attractiveness can play into it, but there are some very charismatic actors who aren't attractive. Acting skill plays into it, but often charismatic actors are only mediocre at "acting". It's commonly associated with confidence, but some charismatic actors have a habit of playing un-confident roles. (Which is not the same as a lack of personal confidence, but what is it they're doing that conveys both "confident" and "insecure" simultaneously?")<p>It's often said to be about commitment, a sense that they're really "present" and really focused on you. That's certainly something we want actors to do: the more they care about their scene-partners, the more the audience will be drawn to both. (That's true even when the focus is based on a negative emotion, like hatred, but it has to be a really targeted kind of hate and not just a general anger.)<p>I can teach a lot about the theory of acting, but I have only a vague idea of why it works. When it does, it can be really potent, though it can be be incredibly hard to get. People will often do the same wrong thing <i>harder</i>. A lot of the silly acting games they teach are about getting you to at least do a different thing than what you were doing, hoping that somehow you'll accidentally discover the right track.<p>I'm not sure any of this is really "charisma" in the sense that this writer means it. I certainly support his overall gist: soft skills are massively underrated.
I think the author confuses simple likability for charisma. Charismatic people generally have a lot of likability, but not all likable people are charismatic.<p>Charismatic people aren't just able to get people to like them, they are able to persuade people to adopt their viewpoint. When someone charismatic wants X to happen, you find yourself also wanting X to happen.<p>This distinction matters, because the easy path to likability is agreeability: simply do what the people around you want you to do. They'll all like you, which is definitely valuable. But it won't necessarily get you closer to <i>your</i> goals.<p>Charisma, which is a quite rare trait, has a special balance of likeability and <i>dis</i>-agreeability, where people will get on board with <i>your</i> plan <i>and feel good doing it.</i> It's the ability to increase <i>their</i> agreeability.
This is well meaning advice but it makes the mistake of believing the block to engineers attaining charisma is a lack of knowing how to do it. In reality, what you see is primarily an emotional reaction, where they find emotional justifications for why this advice is not right for them.<p>I find what's often unacknowledged is just how much interest in technical matters is driven by a trauma response. A lot of us were unpopular as children or were ostracized for being weird and attaining mastery over an "objective" arena allowed us to feel better about our place in the world.<p>Asking people like that to "just be charismatic" is asking them to depart from a safe space and enter into an arena they've previously associated with a lot of unpleasant emotions. People will act out in ways that feel are perfectly "rational" for them but are coming from places they're unable to explain because they're driven by more primal urges.<p>For the advice to stick, you have to address the root cause which is the emotional, not the informational need. Otherwise, you're going to see the same well meaning advice go around in circles with only a minority of the field being motivated to act on it.
There's a reason things like "How to Win Friends and Influence People" remain so popular. (Side note: the explanation is to become a more enjoyable person to have around. It's not a collection of life hacks for exploiting others.)<p>We've all worked with people who believe their code should speak for itself. Thing is, it doesn't. It never has. It never will. All collaboration work is a social process, and no matter how beautiful someone's output is, if they're an asshole no one wants to be in the room with, their magnum opus will rot in a neglected PR.<p>Charisma is not sufficient by itself. You've still gotta have chops, or at least a willingness to work to get them. But charisma+chops will take you much farther than skill alone.
Equally good as career advice or dating advice.<p>People are always surprised when I say that I’m an engineer (they usually guess I’m a professor, sometimes an actor or comedian), and am often discretely asked, “why are you normal and easy to talk to, when every tech/computer guy at my business is an utter freak”<p>More nerds should apply an engineering approach to “having a nice personality”. It’s a totally solvable problem — or, if you prefer, an attainable skill.
Overall the article is pretty good and makes a great point about the value of technical people developing soft skills<p>> Charisma sets enjoyable coworkers apart from difficult ones<p>This statement is not really true though. There are plenty of very charismatic people who are not enjoyable to work with, and there are plenty of uncharismatic people who are very enjoyable to work with<p>An example of the former, Steve Jobs was a famously charismatic person, who used his charisma very effectively to lead Apple and create amazing products. However he is also known for being a pretty difficult person to work with and being a bully and a-hole to many<p>As the article notes (as well as the top reference book, The Charisma Myth), there are many different styles of charisma. But charisma doesn't magically make someone be a great co-worker or empathetic leader<p>PS: I highly recommend getting a copy of The Charisma Myth and doing the exercises. They are amazing at calming social anxiety. Even if you don't really want to be charismatic, if you feel like you often get uncomfortable in social situations, the exercises in this book can help you immensely
I don't remember whether it's from "How to make friends...", but I still remember the phrase "Don't be interesting, be interested".<p>This is easier said than done of course when you have ADHD and your mind starts wandering the moment you start talking to another person, but at least there's a plan to improve :)
Pretty funny calling "the most important skill in corporate amaerica" an underrated skill. That reality is a part of why many in the tech world reject traditional workplaces full of politics, inefficiencies, and corruption. Charismatic people sadly drive all of that, at the cost of the workers below often.<p>Now on a micro level, sure. It's still pretty obvious. Be likeable, don't rock the boat unless the boat is tumbling down a waterfall. Make people feel better in your presence. The skills to acquire are a bit ephemeral, but you'll always have an easier time navigating a workplace if people simply feel happier than not when communicating. Not fairly underrated unless you haven't been around a mass social outing like school.
Its an important skill for corporate engineers that want to ladder climb. I think this over focus lately on communication in engineering is making work suck more. This is how politic players dominate and technical work doesn't matter as much as how you sell impact, real or not. We're all stuck playing their game. Engineers get stuck with poorly made decisions made by peoples who feelings cant get hurt, the things we build start to suck. Like a code review you have to hold back on because you can't leave to many comments tearing it apart without coming off like a dick.<p>Only sub par engineers need to constantly be politely told they suck and have to sugar coat everything for them. Good engineers come up with good ideas, at least good at a foundational level, where you can discuss the pros and cons. If an idea has some legitimate merit but a drawback you don't think is worth it, then the criticisms are real and honest, no ones feelings are getting hurt.
Soft skills aren't underrated. On the contrary, people talk about them all the damn time to the point that it dominates hiring practices and the interview process
Good article overall. Quite often we are caught in our own dilemma and risk being toxic. My only criticism of the article will be not mentioning the risks of being "too empathic" and absorbing other people's problems into yourself. You should not only be able to get into their shoes, but also get out of there too and do it relatively quickly. Otherwise, you cannot survive as a leader of many and will be quickly crushed emotionally.
One of the biggest traits of charisma is almost never stepping on your own tongue and knowing how to flawlessly roll out of it if you do. I don't know any way to learn this then spending massive amounts of time BS'ing with large varieties of people.
This might be relevant: The Charisma Myth by Cabane [0]. I haven't read the book, but I listened to a talk. IIRC, it was this: <a href="https://youtu.be/LMu_md_5PQ4" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/LMu_md_5PQ4</a>. I am not sure.<p>She proposes that charisma is something that can be learned to a very high degree, and she teaches those methods.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Charisma-Myth-Science-Personal-Magnetism/dp/1591845947" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Charisma-Myth-Science-Personal-Magnet...</a>
reframing 'soft' skills as 'durable' skills creates a more powerful way of relating to them. Olivia Fox-Cabane's book is a great primer.<p>unfortunately, I've inherited an immoderate amount of charisma and that makes not being overbearing a full time job. maintaining any skills that even approach what strangers guess I can do is a consuming pursuit. setting expectations so people don't feel betrayed when it lands that I'm actually average or less in most meaningful ways is a constant battle. we demonize the 'halo-effect,' thinking people get unjust advantages, yet don't also reflect that projecting envy and putting people on pedastals and then knocking them off is pathological.<p>show me a charismatic person and I will show you someone who is used to being manipulated and embattled. if you have ever seen an intact male in a dog park, he's not the one starting the fights but somehow he's always in the middle of them. after a while the diplomacy reads as manipulative. I could be describing the experience of an attractive woman, as the dynamic is similar. there is a great deal of peril in being the object of envy.<p>reality is, I'm a mid technologist who writes and speaks persuasively and pursues difficult hobbies to justify it. is it bullshit? I work very hard for it not to be. if you happen to acquire charisma later in life, be warey of its pitfalls as well.<p>If you are already charismatic, don't hide your light under a bush. I often say, I'll be humble when I'm that great too.
In practice, this sort of thing amounts to proclaiming lower primate tribal dynamics “human skills” and enabling them rather than supplanting or engineering around them.<p>Sure, you’re more effective in the context of the game if you play the game and play it competently, but that is advocating for the best way to do the dumb/wrong thing instead of advocating for the smart/right thing.
As a kid, I didn't understand charisma. So I got a natural 18 for my D&D fighter, big deal. I'ma gonna run the goblins through with my long sword now...<p>As an adult, I assess every person I meet through the charisma lens first, if not almost first, because I think it's the foundation of your reputation with others. Seems it's almost magic.
My tip is that if you're not the type that can easily read body language, or adjust your own body language, you're better off just acting genuine and yourself - rather than trying to fake charisma. Charisma minus all the non-verbal elements tends to equal fake/creepy/robotic.