This is something it took me a long time to learn. Now I’m good at it.
I am reminded of the difference between charisma and charm. Charisma is persuading people to follow you to the ends of the earth. Charm is persuading people that you would follow them to the ends of the earth.
Knowing the most, or having the best idea, or seeing the clearest way forward…doesn’t mean you’ll get as far, as just being easy to work with.
I just wonder if there’s a "norm" for what being easy (for others) means. And if there are cultural differences in these norms.
Is “easy to work with” more about being able to flex your style depending on the audience and/or group dynamics.
Some clients and colleagues value the time thinking expansively. Others need fast, decisive action. Others a space for reflection.
Is the problem for the “difficult to work with person” that they have one style/approach; that’s only useful in certain situations or with certain people?
I notice that, typically, people dislike rigidity in thinking and behaviours.
If you believe there's only one way to do things, and one way to communicate to people, and one way to interact with others, etc then you might have a big part of the population that ends up disliking you.
Lovely article!
Enjoyed the sharing on your personal experience. Story was energized by the Steve Jobs & Tim Cook example/story.
This is something it took me a long time to learn. Now I’m good at it.
I am reminded of the difference between charisma and charm. Charisma is persuading people to follow you to the ends of the earth. Charm is persuading people that you would follow them to the ends of the earth.
Can you be "easy to work with" without charisma and/or charm?
Charisma is optional. Some level of charm is required. It’s collaboration lube. But it’s not like you need to be David Niven or something.
Great article.
Knowing the most, or having the best idea, or seeing the clearest way forward…doesn’t mean you’ll get as far, as just being easy to work with.
I just wonder if there’s a "norm" for what being easy (for others) means. And if there are cultural differences in these norms.
Is “easy to work with” more about being able to flex your style depending on the audience and/or group dynamics.
Some clients and colleagues value the time thinking expansively. Others need fast, decisive action. Others a space for reflection.
Is the problem for the “difficult to work with person” that they have one style/approach; that’s only useful in certain situations or with certain people?
I notice that, typically, people dislike rigidity in thinking and behaviours.
If you believe there's only one way to do things, and one way to communicate to people, and one way to interact with others, etc then you might have a big part of the population that ends up disliking you.