Across the credibility gap

By VIKKI BLAND

You have made it to a position of leadership, control or extra responsibility. You are climbing the ladder, running the company, or at least managing a substantial part of it. Congratulations.

Now, how does everyone else in the organisation feel about it?

If you are nearing the top of your game, there will be a few jealous types who secretly hope you will crash and burn. There will be a few absolute blind devotees who always liked you, always wanted to work for you, and who want you to like them.

Then there are the rest - the ones who haven't thought much about you one way or another. They are just waiting to see how credible you are.

Most managers and executives work hard to appear credible to those under their direction. But is it possible to be naturally credible without making any effort?

What about salespeople who can sell ice to Eskimos? Cult leaders who induce great numbers of people to live in a bizarre manner? Or con artists whom everyone believes when no one should?

In the early 1990s, an interesting theory on personality and credibility was developed by Yale University psychologists Peter Salovey and the University of New Hampshire's John Mayer. The psychologists mooted that intellectual intelligence was less successful in human interactions (and there are lots of those in business) than emotional intelligence (EQ).

For example, people with a high EQ were considered to be more optimistic, have better self control and be more self aware and empathetic than people of a lesser EQ.

While most people have some degree of emotional intelligence, the psychologists deduced emotionally intelligent people are probably born that way and so have an edge when it comes to interacting with others.

Not surprisingly, the same psychologists felt exceptionally emotionally intelligent people would therefore appear naturally credible. In 1995, US psychologist and science writer Daniel Goleman put this theory simply: "If IQ gets you hired, EQ gets you promoted".

It's an interesting concept, but in reality EQ can't be measured with any degree of accuracy. EQ critics say credibility requires action-based performance and consistency and that so-called natural credibility without credibility tends to be short-lived; the conman gets caught out, the Eskimos sue when the ice melts, and the charismatic cult leader isn't credible; the cult's followers are incredible.

When Michael Barnett, chief executive for the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, is asked if he believes people can be naturally credible, he's credibly decisive.

"No. People look for success [launched] off a platform of knowledge and values."

Bill Ralston, head of news and current affairs for Television New Zealand, is equally dismissive.

"I don't think there are [credibility] naturals, whose charisma means they charm their way to success. The boring fact is successful management usually comes from making consistently good decisions and getting good results."

Ralston stresses he's no expert on the wider field of management technique after a quarter-century specialising in news and current affairs. However, he's well aware of the business importance of executive credibility in his industry.

"In the media business, the only tangible asset is your staff. If you can maintain an enthusiastic newsroom with a staff unafraid to take risks, and who believe their management will back them in a tight corner, then they will increasingly break original stories."

Barnett says to develop or maintain credibility, executives must be able change their style of management according to time and environment while maintaining an underlying consistency.

"Do have dreams and know how to translate them into a vision to share with a team. And be prepared to stand for something, develop a brand around who you are and what you stand for."

As you'd expect, executive credibility remains inexorably linked to the amount of respect employees have for those in senior positions.

However, new managers and particularly younger managers of worldly older employees may struggle with how to gain that respect.

Ralston says credibility is awarded to those who know what they are talking about.

"I have always respected managers who were originally good journalists or producers in their own right. This meant they understood the difficulties of the job and so their criticism had some validity. Staff don't have to like their managers, but they do have to respect their judgments."

Barnett echoes these sentiments, saying credibility will only follow if managers know how to put in the hard yards themselves and work off a platform of knowledge.

"Leadership credibility is built around actions. If you are new to an industry and are expected to lead, it doesn't hurt to sit at the table and listen first."

Ralston says the managers he has experienced come from other industries and consider journalism as just another product to be manufactured.

"[Such] characters blunder about spouting the latest inane management slogans they've discovered in some trite bestseller and usually end up being heartily despised by all. Inevitably [they] fail because they haven't got a clue about the true nature of the industry and their staff do not trust or respect their judgment."

Barnett says new executives need to learn to step up to the plate and make hard decisions.

"That's what your team will expect. And if you get it wrong be prepared to acknowledge you got it wrong."

It's not just executive decisions people get wrong. One managing director, we'll call her Mary [not her real name], lost all credibility with her staff following a personal crisis.

"I was shaking all the time," she says. "I'd forget to contact customers. I'd leave work equipment and confidential documents behind at customer sites. And I felt so angry."

Mary's staff quickly stopped seeing her as credible. Despite her position in the business, they prevented customers from talking to her and stopped passing Mary customer information in fear she would lose the customer through her lack of professionalism.

"I thought about walking away, about resigning," she says. "But in the end I took some time off and pulled myself together. Then I had to go back and earn credibility with my staff and customers all over again."

Mary's experience highlights the importance of maintaining a work/life balance in a bid to maintain credibility. And it pays not to be a control freak.

Barnett points out that delegating to staff and trusting them actually increases manager credibility.

"[Credible] managers build talented teams, allow them to be successful and then give them credit for that success," he says.

And developing a bit of emotional intelligence probably doesn't hurt either.