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?
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?")
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.)
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 harder. 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.
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.
Charisma is indeed a complex trait. That's why, in the article, I say:
"...it is not a single trait but a broad spectrum of traits that share things in common."
What I'm trying to convey here is that if you try to define charisma, no matter what definition you come up with, you will always leave many things outside its definition. Instead of trying to define it, I think it's better to explore the different traits that make a person charismatic. In the article, I decided to explore three of them: making meaningful connections, empathy, and warmth.
I agree there are many more traits that could describe a charismatic person. I also agree that "presence" might be one of the most important ones that were left out of the article.
Which brings us to an interesting question: What does it mean to be present?
Just as with Charisma, Presence is just another skill that is better not to define but to explore through the behaviors it displays.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao..."
I thought recently of 'indiscriminate kindness'. Basically, I consciously tried to be kind to anyone I interacted with (provided they were not openly hostile to me), without discrimination. And I was amazed how many people I dismissed before, because there was nothing they could offer me, or they were threatening to me for some vague reasons. It was very tricky and more difficult to do than I thought. I tried to make it show in my voice and in my mannerisms.
And while I'm not very far into it yet, I did feel like I began seeing others more for their full humanity, if that makes sense. One of the more profound feelings is when you see another person, and you realize, he's just like you. And that can kinda pull your heartstrings in a weird way.
> 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
The top reference in the article is the book The Charisma Myth (really highly recommend it)
In that book, Olivia Fox-Cabane (the author), explains that we are subconsciously attuned to the cues of charisma. It's essentially an instinctive trait that we are wired with. Hence, it is very easy for people to detect charisma, and it is pretty much impossible to fake charisma
So then, a good way to develop charisma, is to change the way you feel internally. Essentially develop the ability to "feel charismatic", and then your body will reflect it outwardly, which will make people notice it, which will make them treat you like a charismatic person, which will make you feel charismatic, thus creating a virtuous cycle
The book has many exercises to bootstrap the process and develop the skills to be more charismatic. They really do work, but also require plenty of practice
> 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.
This is an enormously important point. The secret is that charisma is mostly a "pull" (react) process. Does it feel like I'm happy to see you? Am I surfing your energy? Am I empathetic? How do I handle your feedback? Am I really listening, or just waiting until you stop talking to say my piece?
If you mistake it for primarily a "push" (act) process, people will just think you're a wanker. As the author puts it, "Charisma is all about how you make others feel". Charisma is a full-duplex process.
That might be good advice for arrogant actors, but it's not a good definition.
Charisma is not just about relationship, or how they interact with people.
Charisma means having hidden information that lets you operate in the world more efficiently. It lets you maintain your self where others cave to external pressure. It's excellence demonstrated through poise and resilience. It means being worth watching.
As a player in the 80s and as someone who was just a kid, we all assumed it meant attractiveness despite the explanation in either PHB or DMG that someone like Hitler would have had a high charisma. And then they went and added the comeliness stat that was explicitly stated to be attractiveness. It was hard for us to understand.
My guess is that it's the same thing in personal interactions - the depth of emotional genuineness.
Humans universally desire connection to other humans; it's survival, it's desire, it's necessary for emotional processing. Empathy understanding others' emotions; it's a universal skill. We need to be expert readers of emotion. We can sense when it's false or partly covered up, and long for that deeper connection that unlocks our own emotions.
An actor has the challenge of finding genuine emotions to play a fictional person.
I think charisma is just having a genuine interest in those around you. I don’t know how teachable that is but do think one can make a mental shift to hold that viewpoint
Would you describe (as a historical example) Adolf Hitler or the current US president as charismatic? If so, does that still support your hypothesis that charisma is genuine interest in the people around you?
> 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?
> Physical attractiveness can play into it [etc...]
You might be interested to know (at least, I was) that the original concept was developed out of the study of rhetoric, and referred to the phenomenon that two different people giving identical speeches (that is, identically worded speeches) might receive very different reactions from an audience. This is, as you note, a very broad phenomenon, with many different causes. But all of them would be called "charisma" because the concern was with the effect on the audience.
Because of this, I find "Underrated soft skills: Charisma" to be something of a weird title - in my understanding "charisma" refers to all soft skills.
-----
My favorite demonstration of the idea comes from a comedy sketch I found on youtube titled "MDE: Trex helps out Robby". Trex seems to be a pickup artist who has been called in to help someone who has trouble getting dates:
> [Trex:] (whispering to Robby) I just spent an enormous amount of time and money training you to be my protegé. I want you to go in there, I want you to talk to that fly-ass bitch on the right side, I want you to say some wild shit to her. Say "I'm dat gorilla dick nigga. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] (whispering to Trex) I'm not saying the N-word. Sorry.
> [Trex:] "I'm the gorilla dick pussy god. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] All right. Sorry. (Robby rolls his wheelchair over to the fly-ass bitch on the right side.)
> [Robby:] (out loud, kind of) I'm like gr -- ah -- gerilla -- GOrilla. I'm like gorilla dick baby. (pauses, thinks, readjusts his glasses) I'm that gorilla dick (pause) god. I make di- dyke pussy...ies wet. Okay. (exhales loudly, readjusts his glasses) I'm like gr - god damn it I can't - (scene cuts to Trex whispering in Robby's ear)
This has always struck me as a great example of being able to provide advice to someone else that would work for you, but won't work for them.
Charism, according to catholicism, is something like a divine gift that radiates like sun, and although the people around can't see it, they feel it in some unexplaiable way.
Everyone is charismatic in their hearts, but the clouds of selfish thoughts and emotions block its light.
The evil twin of charism is hypnotism - the power to make people do what you want.
Amusingly, I'm getting a chance to put that into practice right now. I'm playing an extremely tiny supporting role in my current play. I was actually up for the lead, but didn't get it. (I think they made the right choice.)
Before I had played a lead, this would be very frustrating. Having played leads, I now know what it is the lead needs from me, and I can be very important in my place. It's a useful demonstration of what a good actor can do without the script giving them a lot.
(I know that was a joke, but I thought it was worth noting.)
I don't know about this. Everyday charisma, sure. But powerful leaders shouldn't smile too freely. It's concerning. Which is why I thought Kamala lost, she just smiled too much. At least I think that tanked her charisma. I know it sounds weird. Also Elon became very unlikeable because he smiled way too much for how powerful he was. Amongst other things, of course.
I think the author confuses simple likability for charisma. Charismatic people generally have a lot of likability, but not all likable people are charismatic.
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.
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 your goals.
Charisma, which is a quite rare trait, has a special balance of likeability and dis-agreeability, where people will get on board with your plan and feel good doing it. It's the ability to increase their agreeability.
I had lots of this when I was starting my career. As far as I could tell, it was some combination of being seen as very sharp, energetic, quirky, and most of all enthusiastic in a vision and enjoying every minute working toward it. After getting back from some OS/2 developer course at Redmond, I accidentally got a mainframe COBOL ERP software company to turning a pet side project into effectively a Visual Basic for OS/2. It did have a COBOL generator back-end though so they could sell to existing customers. The company's profits declined as it alienated existing customers that were paying large support contracts.
And I really don't think charisma is teachable, but it is extremely useful, and weirdly real (in that one can be persuaded of things one doesn't actually believe and not really understand how you are agreeing even as you agree) (source: married to a very charismatic but also fairly selfish person for ~20 years, also worked with fairly charismatic bosses).
> and weirdly real (in that one can be persuaded of things one doesn't actually believe and not really understand how you are agreeing even as you agree)
Yeah, it's fascinating if you've never been in the presence of someone with a lot of charisma. It really does feel like they're hacking your primitive primate brain or something.
Check Olivia Fox Cabane’s book The Charisma Myth. I’ve read this and found about 30-40% of it to be implementable and a percent of that have positive outcomes.
At some point in my life I unconsciously decided that charisma (in this sense) was something I did not want to exercise, and was perhaps even wrong to exercise.
In so many facets of our lives already, our wants are being manipulated for the benefit of others. And who am I to decide what is important? For things that involve other people, I’d rather make that decision collectively. I want the thoughts, opinions, and feelings of people who don’t possess or exercise charisma to have space and weight.
I was struck by another comment calling the feedback loop a "virtuous cycle". Early-elementary-school me found it disturbingly weird and an unwanted responsibility for others' choices. Consciously resolved by "I'm so not doing this thing anymore".
Perhaps styles of leadership might be taught early, so there's greater awareness of possibilities/alternatives?
There's that subtle art of "make sure that him/her believes it was his/her idea to do it."
If you go up to someone and directly ask for something, or ask something of an audience in a group, and they feel "solicited" and put on-the-spot, it's one thing; if you can plant ideas and lead people to know what they should do, they'll simply take action when they realize that the time is right, rather than receiving that "Call To Action".
Gaslighting usually has you believing falsehoods. But yes, a charismatic person can empower you to be a better person on one extreme, or convince you you are worthless that on the other extreme.
> would you say you satisfy the author's intent of demonstrating this skill?
I think I'm pretty likable in large part because I have a lot of social anxiety which leads to high agreeability.
I don't think I'm particularly charismatic.
> i would actually argue that your definition of charismatic tends towards manipulative. i don't think that's what you really meant.
It is, in fact. Charisma operates at a level separate from morality. Charisma is a gun. It's what you do with it that determines the ethical stance.
Certainly, there are many charismatic people that use that tool simply to manipulate others for their own personal benefit. At the extreme you get populist demagogues.
But there are also charismatic people who use that gift to bring others together to accomplish goals that benefit everyone. Good charismatic people can make you into a better version of yourself.
> i would actually argue that your definition of charismatic tends towards manipulative
All team endeavors require some kind of consensus-forming. In my experience, strong, charismatic leadership is significantly preferable to a bunch of nerds engaging in dialectics.
Manipulation and charisma are different concepts. There are plenty of highly charismatic manipulative people, just as there are many highly manipulative people with absolutely no charisma.
Charisma may make it easier to manipulate people or it may create an environment where you don’t need to manipulate people to form a consensus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you. This is the real ultimate truth:
> "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."
The emotional trauma is the real thing you need to address. Still, many people in the tech industry are not yet ready to go deeper on the emotional part, so you need to help them go there using skillful means, which means meeting people where they are.
A piece of informative advice is not completely helpful, but it can trigger the curiosity that people need to go deeper into the emotional realm.
> interest in technical matters is driven by a trauma response
Wow, I’ve never considered this but it makes sense, to a degree. Children who are “properly” socialized, or socially motivated, would have much less time available to pursue technical skill acquisition. I could imagine things snowball from there as they choose paths of least resistance in life, e.g. opting for engineering rather than sales as a career.
I don't think that's what the GP says. They mean that people undergoing trauma from personal interactions look for a way to relieve it, of course. Trauma is about survival (whether or not the person is aware or really in danger); there is a strong drive to resolve it and mastery is a very common way. In this case, by mastering something non-social they get strength and stability.
> interest in technical matters is driven by a trauma response... attaining mastery over an "objective" arena allowed us to feel better about our place in the world.
Interesting insight. I do think there's some truth to this - seeking an "objective" truth is emotionally comforting because it eliminates all the messy ambiguity of human culture.
But it's not that technical folks lack these social skills, it's that we've been conditioned not to use them for fear of appearing subjective and not rigorous enough.
In it's toxic form, this leads technical folks outright rejecting messages from anyone who tries to be charismatic. The effort is viewed negatively and with suspicion. Surely the correct answer would be dull and obvious and not require showmanship to convey. Charisma is an attempt to manipulate the room using levers other than objective facts. The horror! /s
Reality is you can't ignore the human factors. Your ability to sell the idea is just as important as your ability to code 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.)
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.
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.
You’re reinforcing his point without realizing it.
There are a few uncharismatic people across the planet who are so unreasonably unrivaled in their combination of intelligence, drive, and luck that they are accepted despite their social shortcomings.
Though as I understand it, Woz is quite kind, and while Torvalds is blunt, he often is charismatic, as he easily convinces others that his path is correct (if he actually believes it is).
It's not for nothing that Free Open Source Software projects enjoy the tongue-in-cheek term "Benevolent Dictator For Life". And Theo de Raadt is an earlier example of how to sow discord in an OS project, fork it, and remake the codebase [OpenBSD] for a distinctive market sector, while retaining that distasteful arrogance that drew the attention of the community.
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”
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.
I know you have good intentions with your advice, and maybe it has come easy for you
But for a lot of people, developing social skills and "a nice personality" has been a life-long struggle
There is a big overlap in STEM with the autism spectrum, with ADHD, with anxiety and trauma, all of which make it very hard for people to "fit in" and develop social skills that come easily to neurotypical people
So while I share your sentiment that soft skills are valuable and are worth developing. Please don't judge others for not doing so, and keep in mind that they might not even have the capacity to do it, even if they want to. They might also have had a really hard time their whole lives being judged and rejected by "normal people". Please have some extra empathy with them
Here is a "goofus and gallant" anecdote drawn from real experience.
Goofus and Gallant are both on the autism spectrum, and tend to be blunt in ways that come off as rude. They are both very stubborn about what they consider high quality code, and guard their status as domain experts in particular technologies.
Goofus gets incredibly defensive when they don't understand something. Goofus talks over people in meetings. Goofus is generally rude and hard to work with.
Gallant wants people to understand what they understand. While blunt, Gallant is also patient in walking more junior engineers through their thinking. Gallant isn't quick to give praise, but gives it when earned. Gallant doesn't want to be the only person who understands how something works.
These are based on several real people I've worked with, and the Gallants are some of my favorite coworkers. Bluntness might put some people off, but it doesn't bother me as long as the purpose of that bluntness is to connect with people.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and everybody has a different brain, and maybe it's much harder for the Goofus for reasons I can't see. But I have encountered enough Gallants that I know it is possible for neurodiverse people to still be themselves AND kind and empathetic. I certainly hope it's true of myself, not that I always succeed.
> “why are you normal and easy to talk to, when every tech/computer guy at my business is an utter freak”
Well, some people certainly have a judgment problem of their own (not referring to parent commenter here).
> It’s a totally solvable problem — or, if you prefer, an attainable skill.
The resistance to developing this trait is also telling and belies a lack of objectivity: if it's a weak point for you, then even a modest amount of effort and attention can help a significant amount. If you're not interested in doing the work, that's totally fine, just work/pay/ask to figure out what the relevant 20% is that gets you 80% there. I suspect it will be somewhat different for everyone.
I feel like my charisma (feels like too strong a term for myself, but whatever) took a big leap once I became more comfortable with myself and learning to be okay with people not liking me. Still working on the last one but small increments help a lot. Once people perceive you don't need something from them without being stand-offish, they're often more open to you.
In my experience the unlikeable nerds are mostly negative people that talk a lot about what they don't like. Nobody likes anyone like that. The key is to frame everything as positive. Talk about what you do like. Don't talk about getting rid of things, talk about what you want to replace it with etc. I'm convinced this simple reframing from negative to positive would get these people 80% of the way there, and that's often enough.
Yes! Exactly this. Many years ago I got this epiphany that “it’s just another kind of interface”. Specifically to me as a system.
In this day and age I’m not even convinced anymore that I’m not actually just some kind of an elaborate fine-tuning layer running in a cluster somewhere, but that’s a whole another discussion!
Overall the article is pretty good and makes a great point about the value of technical people developing soft skills
> Charisma sets enjoyable coworkers apart from difficult ones
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
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
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
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
> 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
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I would generally correlate being charismatic with being an asshole, particularly in any company or professional environment. There's surely overlap between charismatic and manipulative.
IMO the best influential people are those who are genuinely likeable and respectful and have solid ideas, who don't need to "sell" their opinions based on some social hacking bullshit.
I don't remember whether it's from "How to make friends...", but I still remember the phrase "Don't be interesting, be interested".
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.
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.
Readit News
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?")
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.)
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 harder. 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.
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.
Charisma is indeed a complex trait. That's why, in the article, I say:
"...it is not a single trait but a broad spectrum of traits that share things in common."
What I'm trying to convey here is that if you try to define charisma, no matter what definition you come up with, you will always leave many things outside its definition. Instead of trying to define it, I think it's better to explore the different traits that make a person charismatic. In the article, I decided to explore three of them: making meaningful connections, empathy, and warmth.
I agree there are many more traits that could describe a charismatic person. I also agree that "presence" might be one of the most important ones that were left out of the article.
Which brings us to an interesting question: What does it mean to be present?
Just as with Charisma, Presence is just another skill that is better not to define but to explore through the behaviors it displays.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao..."
And while I'm not very far into it yet, I did feel like I began seeing others more for their full humanity, if that makes sense. One of the more profound feelings is when you see another person, and you realize, he's just like you. And that can kinda pull your heartstrings in a weird way.
There's something to it.
The top reference in the article is the book The Charisma Myth (really highly recommend it)
In that book, Olivia Fox-Cabane (the author), explains that we are subconsciously attuned to the cues of charisma. It's essentially an instinctive trait that we are wired with. Hence, it is very easy for people to detect charisma, and it is pretty much impossible to fake charisma
So then, a good way to develop charisma, is to change the way you feel internally. Essentially develop the ability to "feel charismatic", and then your body will reflect it outwardly, which will make people notice it, which will make them treat you like a charismatic person, which will make you feel charismatic, thus creating a virtuous cycle
The book has many exercises to bootstrap the process and develop the skills to be more charismatic. They really do work, but also require plenty of practice
I seem to have a fair amount of "stage presence". People have liked to watch me act, even when I was brand new at the craft.
With a little luck, the book will affirm some of the things I'm already doing, but make me aware of it. And hopefully teach me a few new ones.
This is an enormously important point. The secret is that charisma is mostly a "pull" (react) process. Does it feel like I'm happy to see you? Am I surfing your energy? Am I empathetic? How do I handle your feedback? Am I really listening, or just waiting until you stop talking to say my piece?
If you mistake it for primarily a "push" (act) process, people will just think you're a wanker. As the author puts it, "Charisma is all about how you make others feel". Charisma is a full-duplex process.
Charisma is not just about relationship, or how they interact with people.
Charisma means having hidden information that lets you operate in the world more efficiently. It lets you maintain your self where others cave to external pressure. It's excellence demonstrated through poise and resilience. It means being worth watching.
Humans universally desire connection to other humans; it's survival, it's desire, it's necessary for emotional processing. Empathy understanding others' emotions; it's a universal skill. We need to be expert readers of emotion. We can sense when it's false or partly covered up, and long for that deeper connection that unlocks our own emotions.
An actor has the challenge of finding genuine emotions to play a fictional person.
> Physical attractiveness can play into it [etc...]
You might be interested to know (at least, I was) that the original concept was developed out of the study of rhetoric, and referred to the phenomenon that two different people giving identical speeches (that is, identically worded speeches) might receive very different reactions from an audience. This is, as you note, a very broad phenomenon, with many different causes. But all of them would be called "charisma" because the concern was with the effect on the audience.
Because of this, I find "Underrated soft skills: Charisma" to be something of a weird title - in my understanding "charisma" refers to all soft skills.
-----
My favorite demonstration of the idea comes from a comedy sketch I found on youtube titled "MDE: Trex helps out Robby". Trex seems to be a pickup artist who has been called in to help someone who has trouble getting dates:
> [Trex:] (whispering to Robby) I just spent an enormous amount of time and money training you to be my protegé. I want you to go in there, I want you to talk to that fly-ass bitch on the right side, I want you to say some wild shit to her. Say "I'm dat gorilla dick nigga. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] (whispering to Trex) I'm not saying the N-word. Sorry.
> [Trex:] "I'm the gorilla dick pussy god. I make dyke pussy wet."
> [Robby:] All right. Sorry. (Robby rolls his wheelchair over to the fly-ass bitch on the right side.)
> [Robby:] (out loud, kind of) I'm like gr -- ah -- gerilla -- GOrilla. I'm like gorilla dick baby. (pauses, thinks, readjusts his glasses) I'm that gorilla dick (pause) god. I make di- dyke pussy...ies wet. Okay. (exhales loudly, readjusts his glasses) I'm like gr - god damn it I can't - (scene cuts to Trex whispering in Robby's ear)
This has always struck me as a great example of being able to provide advice to someone else that would work for you, but won't work for them.
If you liked that here's another quite famous clip: https://youtu.be/fDq_8y_drE8?si=MI4Dxtj1EtCgt1C3
Everyone is charismatic in their hearts, but the clouds of selfish thoughts and emotions block its light.
The evil twin of charism is hypnotism - the power to make people do what you want.
Before I had played a lead, this would be very frustrating. Having played leads, I now know what it is the lead needs from me, and I can be very important in my place. It's a useful demonstration of what a good actor can do without the script giving them a lot.
(I know that was a joke, but I thought it was worth noting.)
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.
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 your goals.
Charisma, which is a quite rare trait, has a special balance of likeability and dis-agreeability, where people will get on board with your plan and feel good doing it. It's the ability to increase their agreeability.
Yeah, it's fascinating if you've never been in the presence of someone with a lot of charisma. It really does feel like they're hacking your primitive primate brain or something.
Check Olivia Fox Cabane’s book The Charisma Myth. I’ve read this and found about 30-40% of it to be implementable and a percent of that have positive outcomes.
In so many facets of our lives already, our wants are being manipulated for the benefit of others. And who am I to decide what is important? For things that involve other people, I’d rather make that decision collectively. I want the thoughts, opinions, and feelings of people who don’t possess or exercise charisma to have space and weight.
Perhaps styles of leadership might be taught early, so there's greater awareness of possibilities/alternatives?
If you go up to someone and directly ask for something, or ask something of an audience in a group, and they feel "solicited" and put on-the-spot, it's one thing; if you can plant ideas and lead people to know what they should do, they'll simply take action when they realize that the time is right, rather than receiving that "Call To Action".
i would actually argue that your definition of charismatic tends towards manipulative. i don't think that's what you really meant.
I think I'm pretty likable in large part because I have a lot of social anxiety which leads to high agreeability.
I don't think I'm particularly charismatic.
> i would actually argue that your definition of charismatic tends towards manipulative. i don't think that's what you really meant.
It is, in fact. Charisma operates at a level separate from morality. Charisma is a gun. It's what you do with it that determines the ethical stance.
Certainly, there are many charismatic people that use that tool simply to manipulate others for their own personal benefit. At the extreme you get populist demagogues.
But there are also charismatic people who use that gift to bring others together to accomplish goals that benefit everyone. Good charismatic people can make you into a better version of yourself.
All team endeavors require some kind of consensus-forming. In my experience, strong, charismatic leadership is significantly preferable to a bunch of nerds engaging in dialectics.
Charisma may make it easier to manipulate people or it may create an environment where you don’t need to manipulate people to form a consensus.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you. This is the real ultimate truth:
> "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."
The emotional trauma is the real thing you need to address. Still, many people in the tech industry are not yet ready to go deeper on the emotional part, so you need to help them go there using skillful means, which means meeting people where they are.
A piece of informative advice is not completely helpful, but it can trigger the curiosity that people need to go deeper into the emotional realm.
Wow, I’ve never considered this but it makes sense, to a degree. Children who are “properly” socialized, or socially motivated, would have much less time available to pursue technical skill acquisition. I could imagine things snowball from there as they choose paths of least resistance in life, e.g. opting for engineering rather than sales as a career.
Interesting insight. I do think there's some truth to this - seeking an "objective" truth is emotionally comforting because it eliminates all the messy ambiguity of human culture.
But it's not that technical folks lack these social skills, it's that we've been conditioned not to use them for fear of appearing subjective and not rigorous enough.
In it's toxic form, this leads technical folks outright rejecting messages from anyone who tries to be charismatic. The effort is viewed negatively and with suspicion. Surely the correct answer would be dull and obvious and not require showmanship to convey. Charisma is an attempt to manipulate the room using levers other than objective facts. The horror! /s
Reality is you can't ignore the human factors. Your ability to sell the idea is just as important as your ability to code it.
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.
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.
Similarly, Steve Wozniak isn't considered charismatic, yet no one denies his code.
And I've never heard anything but good about Woz. He seems like a genuinely nice, enthusiastic, approachable person.
I've never met either of them in person so I can't personally vouch for their charisma, but I don't think of them have reputations as _not_ having it.
There are a few uncharismatic people across the planet who are so unreasonably unrivaled in their combination of intelligence, drive, and luck that they are accepted despite their social shortcomings.
Though as I understand it, Woz is quite kind, and while Torvalds is blunt, he often is charismatic, as he easily convinces others that his path is correct (if he actually believes it is).
https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html [Now with "politics-free" as a design goal!]
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”
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.
But for a lot of people, developing social skills and "a nice personality" has been a life-long struggle
There is a big overlap in STEM with the autism spectrum, with ADHD, with anxiety and trauma, all of which make it very hard for people to "fit in" and develop social skills that come easily to neurotypical people
So while I share your sentiment that soft skills are valuable and are worth developing. Please don't judge others for not doing so, and keep in mind that they might not even have the capacity to do it, even if they want to. They might also have had a really hard time their whole lives being judged and rejected by "normal people". Please have some extra empathy with them
Goofus and Gallant are both on the autism spectrum, and tend to be blunt in ways that come off as rude. They are both very stubborn about what they consider high quality code, and guard their status as domain experts in particular technologies.
Goofus gets incredibly defensive when they don't understand something. Goofus talks over people in meetings. Goofus is generally rude and hard to work with.
Gallant wants people to understand what they understand. While blunt, Gallant is also patient in walking more junior engineers through their thinking. Gallant isn't quick to give praise, but gives it when earned. Gallant doesn't want to be the only person who understands how something works.
These are based on several real people I've worked with, and the Gallants are some of my favorite coworkers. Bluntness might put some people off, but it doesn't bother me as long as the purpose of that bluntness is to connect with people.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and everybody has a different brain, and maybe it's much harder for the Goofus for reasons I can't see. But I have encountered enough Gallants that I know it is possible for neurodiverse people to still be themselves AND kind and empathetic. I certainly hope it's true of myself, not that I always succeed.
Deleted Comment
Well, some people certainly have a judgment problem of their own (not referring to parent commenter here).
> It’s a totally solvable problem — or, if you prefer, an attainable skill.
The resistance to developing this trait is also telling and belies a lack of objectivity: if it's a weak point for you, then even a modest amount of effort and attention can help a significant amount. If you're not interested in doing the work, that's totally fine, just work/pay/ask to figure out what the relevant 20% is that gets you 80% there. I suspect it will be somewhat different for everyone.
I feel like my charisma (feels like too strong a term for myself, but whatever) took a big leap once I became more comfortable with myself and learning to be okay with people not liking me. Still working on the last one but small increments help a lot. Once people perceive you don't need something from them without being stand-offish, they're often more open to you.
In this day and age I’m not even convinced anymore that I’m not actually just some kind of an elaborate fine-tuning layer running in a cluster somewhere, but that’s a whole another discussion!
> Charisma sets enjoyable coworkers apart from difficult ones
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
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
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
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
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I would generally correlate being charismatic with being an asshole, particularly in any company or professional environment. There's surely overlap between charismatic and manipulative. IMO the best influential people are those who are genuinely likeable and respectful and have solid ideas, who don't need to "sell" their opinions based on some social hacking bullshit.
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 :)
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.