<p>My observations at work lead me to believe that social skills are more important than competency in obtaining promotions and high level positions. As a matter of fact, many times the more competent people are kept farther down the ladder so that they can focus on the details. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the social skills that lead to success can be taught. I almost think it is genetically based.</p>
<p>I tend to agree DocT–for most organizations. That’s why I moved from a firm with that model to one where only measurable output mattered for the most part. Much less to worry about and it really does not matter much if you are well liked or not or kiss butt or not. It’s wonderful.</p>
<p>Did someone mention politicians and psychopathy? You may be interested in the work of Lisa Marshall.</p>
<p>[The</a> Bolton News - MP Terry’s blast for shrinks](<a href=“http://archive.theboltonnews.co.uk/1996/9/5/845604.html]The”>Archive news from the The Bolton News)</p>
<p>I agree with everything she said, except the “without the criminal intent” bit.</p>
<p>Don’t know what an “MP” is referr5ing to in that article, Canuck, but as explained in post #17, some politicians have antisocial personality traits- NOT antisocial personality disorders. Its the antisocial personality disordered people who have the criminal behavior (serial killers are an extreme example of this). Hope this clarifies.</p>
<p>And I agree with Barons, different organizations have different organizational personalities…just like colleges which is why I also believe in holistic college admissions. It’s why sometimes a sports team of “superstars” has a failing season. The interactive dynamics of people definitely have bearing on throughput and output. That is why we, as individuals, can function better or higher in one organization or another - or why one student might be more successful in one college or another. Personally I don’t feel any need to be a “team player”, but I have the skills to function well on a team…probably because I was “well socialized” somehow through my parents. There is a modicum of truth in that old book “everything I need to learn I learned in kindergarten” or whatever it was called.</p>
<p>An MP is a Member of Parliament and sits in the House of Common, something akin to a member of the House of Representatives in the US.</p>
<p>When Dr. Marshall used the term psychopath, she was not talking about anti social traits or disorders as defined by DSM-VI. She was not using the American definition at all.</p>
<p>To put it simply, a psychopath as defined in the PCL-R, is revealed not by his behaviors but by his personality traits. While most psychopaths fit the definition of APD, most folks with APD are not psychopaths.</p>
<p>This article should help to clarify the differences.</p>
<p>[Psychopathy</a> and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion - Psychiatric Times](<a href=“http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831]Psychopathy”>http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54831)</p>
<p>What we have here are two different instruments that assess two different populations that share some common traits.</p>
<p>I think we are saying the same thing, Canuck. Those with antisocial personality traits are not necessarily either sociopathic or psychopathic. They may think they are above the law (and we’ve had a few politicians do such nonsense as stash bribe money in their freezers) but they arent necessarily textbook sociopaths.</p>
<p>And unless your DSM was a typo-- you are way ahead of us. We here in the states still use the DSM-IV !! I dont believe the DSM V is out yet, let alone the VI!</p>
<p>Yes, I meant IV. :o</p>
<p>Thinking back, the day I read about Hare’s speech to law enforcement officers in Newfoundland in my local paper was an “enlightening” experiment. For a long time I used to wonder what constitutes “leadership” and why political and business “systems” do not work the way they supposed to. Now I think I know.</p>
<p>Hare’s simple definition of a psychopath is one without conscience. If that is the definition, then we are talking about a continuum. On one extreme you have mass murderers, on the other you have folks who lead fairly normal lives.</p>
<p>Since these folks crave excitement, I can see that the dog-eat-dog world of politics and business would appeal to them. Having no sense of guilt or remorse give them an evolutionary edge over their competitors who do. Maybe that is why corporations behave like psychopaths (according to a documentary by that name), because people that run them have such tendencies.</p>
<p>People think I am harsh, but my paradigm helps me to “anticipate” the mess we are in right now. Nothing our leaders do surprise me anymore, and it gives me the breathing space to take evasive action.</p>
<p>I don’t believe students who are highly intelligent are affected by low number of friends/low participation in activities. But I think kids who aren’t so smart can benefit academically from extra curriculars/better social skills.</p>
<p>Nerds on average do better in life. Look at Bill Gates. There’s your answer.</p>
<p>I think it’s a mistake to consider this study a vindication of the benefits of being popular and social (and maybe less academic as a result) as compared to being less socially engaged due to being more studious. The social skills the article refers to are really better labeled work habits. The three qualities mentioned are conscientiousness, motivation and cooperation. I’m not convinced the first two correlate with how socially adept a student is. As for the ability to cooperate, it makes sense that there is a relationship between that skill and participation in sports and other EC’s. However, there are plenty of kids whom teacher will rate as cooperative and “relates well with others” but yet are not at all social butterflies.</p>
<p>PS: there are quite a few very nasty girls on my D’s sports team who do NOT know how to work well with others, so there is not necessarily a correlation there either IMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at how The Apprentice works (or a whole lot of other “reality” TV shows). Plenty of nasty people get ahead. It is a sign of poor coaching when the nasty girls are allowed practice thier craft.</p>
<p>I think the thing about athletes getting ahead is more that they are more accostomed to dealing with competition, cooperation and when one of those is effective and when it is not.</p>
<p>With regards to the “social” skills getting one ahead, just look at sales. Generally, marketing of products gets a larger cut of the revenue than the technical and manufacturing end of any operation. And who ends up in the sales department? Those with the stronger social skills.</p>