Workplace Credibility

In the comments, Tam asked whether I would say more about my views on credibility in the workplace. Although I doubt anything I have to say on this topic is earth-shattering or even particularly original, I do have some strong opinions on why it’s worth cultivating and its importance to professional success. I’m sure the I/O psychology literature is full of various models of credibility, what the dimensions of credibility are, what the underlying factors that contribute to credibility are, and so forth. I invite you to look this up if you are interested in a scholarly treatment of the subject. What follows is based on my own observations, experiences, and ethical beliefs.

Credibility is a great thing because it influences your effectiveness with other people when they are in either of two modes of processing: the central mode (in which people put a lot of effort into evaluating the information they are receiving on a rational, cognitive basis) and the peripheral mode (in which they react in a more surface way without a lot of consideration). Credibility affects the central route to persuasion by encouraging people to listen to your arguments and consider whether they are valid (they will listen to you) and affects the peripheral route by encouraging people to accept that if you think this is the way things are, you are right (they will believe you).

I view credibility as having several overlapping elements which I will label Competence, Trustworthiness, and Objectivity. I also think credibility is aided by having a communication style that shows respect for others, is collaborative rather than declarative in nature, and involves a lot of listening. It helps to have a “reasonably” (in other words, generally reflective of the reality of your ability) high level of self-confidence as well.

Competence:
When you have a track record of being right and doing a good job, based on the development and application of your expertise, your credibility is enhanced. But it’s critical that you don’t use your expertise as a basis for acting superior or taking a know-it-all attitude because (1) it puts people off and (2) it’s not true anyway so (a) you will get busted at some point and (b) believing that knowing everything about some topic is the standard against which to measure yourself is a sure way to screw yourself up psychologically. No matter how knowledgeable, skilled, and downright amazing you are in whatever your field is, you have your limits; know what they are and acknowledge them publicly when appropriate. Don’t be afraid to say that you need time to consider/research/ask for others’ advice on something – these are all tools the competent person will use and it shows that you will perform due diligence to get the best answer you can rather than being primarily concerned with showing the group that you have a ready answer for any question. It’s also important to admit your mistakes (which you will make!), take responsibility for them, and then learn from them.

Example of incompetence somewhat decreasing credibility: I recently made a presentation to executive management on the analysis of a revenue-generating project. I had included a slide with some numbers that I knew were kind of odd because they were a weird partial net revenue figure. Viewed in isolation, the numbers were reasonably indicative of one thing, but when you tried to match them up with other numbers elsewhere in the report, they didn’t add up quite right. I knew this but thought (hoped) no one would notice. I should have realized they would catch the eye of our smart, detail-oriented deputy director of administration who would be incapable of not trying to make everything jive. I had to confess that yes, the numbers were off because that slide was computed using an approximation methodology and that they weren’t as “real” as the numbers elsewhere. I don’t think I’ve undermined my credibility with him forever, but it had to make the other numbers somewhat suspect to him. I am not going to include that slide, which was a legacy somewhat quick-and-dirty analysis I used back when I needed to identify some poor performing offerings (which is no longer true since we used this very analysis to get rid of them), in the future. Take-away: it’s not very smart to assume something just a little bit sloppy will pass muster. I may think that using an approximation was justified and that attempting to come up with the “real” numbers that would satisfy an accountant was a waste of time (which I do) but it was poor judgment to continue to report those iffy numbers when they weren’t needed.

Example of incompetence totally killing credibility: I cannot get into the details, but I have heard on the QT that a certain PhD researcher I know is not even being considered for the renewal of a contract because of a combination of incompetence, self-aggrandizement, and an overriding desire to show me wrong. For example: When someone says to you, “On this page of the report, I thought we had agreed to change this to X to match the questionnaire,” it absolutely destroys your credibility to say “But of course the questionnaire doesn’t say X. That would be completely stupid. I would never say X.” and then be shown, from a simple glance at the questionnaire, that, indeed, you said X.

Trustworthiness:
Beyond the basic level of not being a shiftless liar, you can earn people’s trust by showing commitment to the organization and its goals (not something I particularly do, by the way), avoiding gossip, following through to do what you say you will, and citing your sources/giving credit where credit is due. Living up to high standards of integrity helps also.

Objectivity:
This may seem like a more controversial part of the mix than the other two elements I’ve talked about but at least for me, objectivity is very helpful. I would say it’s especially significant when you want to persuade others to believe that you are right about something and have them act accordingly. Show that you care about the truth and what makes sense for the organization, not personal gain, and that you are not supporting or suggesting some course of action because it is easy or convenient for you. Make it clear that you came to your belief for valid reasons and lay the evidence out, carefully distinguishing between fact and opinion, so that others can judge for themselves. (And if you have changed your mind on the topic based on additional evidence, you don’t need to hide it.) I think many people often want to avoid this because they don’t trust their audience to come to the “correct” decision if they see all the facts, but in my view, treating people with that little respect for their rational abilities is a self-fulfilling prophesy. People are good at sniffing out spin and they hate it, so you’re better off having them think you’re wrong but at least honest than both wrong and deceitful (diminishing trustworthiness). (And if you manage to bullshit them on the front end, eventually you will sell somebody on an idea that ends up being wrong and then they will really hate you for putting them in the position of feeling stupid for having believed you. This is a kiss of death, in my opinion.) I have found that it’s always better to point out the weaknesses in your plan or recommendation yourself before anyone else has a chance to. Not only does this seem to me the right thing to do from an ethical standpoint, but it shows that you are being open and honest (hence creating trust) and as a matter of strategy, gives you the opportunity to preemptively explain why these weaknesses do not compromise the idea in its entirety.

Also, I cannot emphasize enough how much I think you can gain from learning to love your skeptics. Taking criticism can be very hard. It’s especially hard when you’re in front of a room of people, all eyes on you waiting to see how you will respond. But not only does criticism give you additional information and often lead to what is ultimately a better recommendation than you came up with yourself, it gives you the opportunity to make your case again and, in a surprising number of cases, hear somebody else make the case for you (and sometimes very effectively, especially if the two people share common values or a similar background that you do not). You may or may not be able to convince the skeptic that you are right, but you do show that you are a reasonable person, open to the opinions of others, and not unconditionally in love with your own thoughts. You will of course run into those skeptics who are rude or abusive or dismissive; if they do this in front of a group and you keep your cool, answer them a respectful way even when you want to slap them, etc., they have just done you a huge favor. (It does not feel that way the first time, though.) Most everybody else will now look at that person as an asshole and you as a person just trying to have a dialogue. You don’t have to maintain a super-human level of sangfroid through this process, but by not taking an aggressively defensive stance in response to the provocation, you will win sympathy and respect. (Your momma told you that it’s better to take the high road and she was right.)

Example of objectivity increasing credibility:
A short time after I started this job, I analyzed some data and presented results to a fairly large group of people in the organization (an open invitation to attend was extended). At that time, I was not very familiar with the general field of outdoor recreation or with the Hispanic population that I was going to talk about, while my audience was full of people with a lot of experience in the field and a good number of Hispanics. I was acutely aware that my credibility on this topic as an outsider and stranger who is also the whitest person many of my co-workers have ever seen (or at least, that’s what I’ve been told several times and even if it’s hyperbole, it’s not a gross untruth) was minimal. So I took the position from the very beginning that I am not an expert on the subject we are going to look at today but that I had the opportunity to analyze some data that I think will be interesting and I hope will spark some good discussion of the topic. I told them that the data we are going to look at is by no means the definitive, final word on the truth but will give us all more information to work with as we try to understand this complex and important topic. After my presentation, there were a gazillion comments and questions, some people just trying to understand what I was saying (since research results are not easy for everyone to grasp right away), some of them offering their own perspectives that were consistent with or somewhat different from what I had said, but definitely some who were upset by the information, had a strong emotional investment in believing something else, or fancied themselves experts and wanted to show off. I think I handled the situation well, however, and it definitely seems to me that my credibility was greatly enhanced after that. People discovered that I had expertise in the area of research and analysis (and was able and willing to explain what I did rather than stand on some authority that they should just trust my methods), that I was genuinely open to and interested in learning what other people know about content areas where they have experience, and that I wanted to contribute toward our shared knowledge rather than sell everybody on my own pet theories.

There was one finding in particular that was so highly controversial that not only did many, many people not want to accept it but I had actually said something borderline taboo. (In my ignorance of the organization and the background of this topic area, and not having considered the political implications, I had not identified it ahead of time as a potential bomb.) A couple years later, I was in a meeting where we were discussing this same general topic area and another person, who I don’t know was present at that earlier presentation or not, said, “I have heard that research has shown [my highly controversial finding].” Someone else said, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too. Sally, is that right?” I said, “Yes.” And someone else said, “Well, I wouldn’t normally say this but [tells how he has seen this exact thing happen].” The meeting head said, “This sounds like an important consideration for our plan. How should we account for this?” And people started contributing ideas. (I know this scenario sounds like an employee training video on how to have effective meetings, but it was basically like that.) It was kind of surreal but totally cool, too, that this thing nobody had been willing to talk about had became a part of reality to be reflected in planning a project. Also it was strange to be in the position where my Current Self is the subject matter expert being asked to verify research findings that my Prior Self had reported while I don’t think anybody but myself and my boss realized that was what was happening. That’s credibility.