Competence Meets Likability: Why Do We Prefer Working with Likable Incompetents?

Howard entered the conference room. He nodded, sat down, and opened his black briefcase. “Let’s begin,” he said briefly. Stanford MBA, founder of T/Maker, former Apple director. He knew Steve Jobs personally. His Silicon Valley network is legendary. He didn’t ask for permission—he acted. He leveraged his connections.

“Howard is the type of leader you want to work with,” people said. “Tough, but inspiring.”

Columbia University students reading his case study rated him highly: competent, charismatic, likable. They would want to work with him.

Except Howard never existed. He was Heidi. Heidi Roizen.

Another group of students, reading the identical story—just with a female name—rated her completely differently: cold, selfish, calculating. They wouldn’t want to work with her.

This famous Columbia Business School experiment perfectly illustrates the warmth and competence model in practice.

The Warmth and Competence Model – Four Archetypes That Govern Professional Relationships

In social perception research, two universal dimensions of human evaluation have been identified:

• Warmth: assessment of intentions—friendliness, trustworthiness, benevolence
• Competence: assessment of abilities—intelligence, skills, effectiveness

Based on this, Casciaro and Lobo identified four archetypes in professional relationships:

• Lovable Star – high competence and high warmth (dream colleague!)
• Likable Fool – low competence, high warmth
• Competent Jerk – high competence, low warmth
• Incompetent Jerk – low competence and low warmth (avoid at all costs!)

The study authors analyzed 10,000 professional relationships in five organizations. The results were surprising—people often prefer working with “likable fools” rather than “competent jerks”! But is that really surprising?

Think about it in the context of your team: would you prefer a brilliant colleague who ruins the atmosphere, or perhaps someone average with whom you get along great? For a team member, this choice is easy, but for a manager it’s a real dilemma—a competent jerk helps develop the company, probably while damaging team culture.

Gender and the Competence-Warmth Paradox

What’s truly interesting, research shows a clear difference in the perception of competence and warmth based on gender:

For men: competence and likability are often positively correlated—the more competent, the more liked

For women: these traits are often negatively correlated—a competent woman is perceived as less likable.

This creates a kind of “likability tax” for women climbing the career ladder. Heidi Roizen paid this tax in the experiment mentioned—exactly the same story, the same achievements, but a completely different assessment!

In industries where women still constitute a minority, this effect can be particularly pronounced. Consider whether your competent male colleagues and equally competent female colleagues are evaluated according to the same criteria.

Context Matters

Preferences regarding warmth or competence also differ depending on the situation:

• In short-term projects: we can endure a “competent jerk” if we know we’ll part ways in a month
• In permanent teams: likability becomes crucial when the cooperation perspective is long-term

Practical Tips: How to Use the Warmth and Competence Model in the Workplace

For Managers and Team Leaders

• Awareness of your own biases – Consider whether you evaluate the competence of women and men according to the same criteria. Do you expect greater “warmth” from women leaders, while valuing primarily effectiveness in men?
• Balanced evaluation systems – Implement structured employee evaluation systems based on measurable results and specific behaviors, not general impressions.
• Culture of appreciation – Build a culture that values both technical competence and interpersonal skills. Remember that “competent jerks” can be toxic for the team, even if they individually achieve great results.
• Diverse decision-making teams – Ensure that decisions about promotions and evaluations are made by diverse groups of people. This reduces the risk of unconscious biases.

For Recruiters and HR Specialists

• Gender-neutral job advertisements – Avoid language that may favor a specific gender. Tools such as Textio can help identify unconscious biases in job descriptions.
• CV anonymization – Consider implementing a CV anonymization process in the first stage of recruitment to focus solely on competencies.
• Standardized questions – Use the same questions for all candidates and evaluate their answers according to the same criteria.
• Clearly defined competencies – Precisely define required competencies for a given position to minimize the impact of the “halo effect” (when general impression affects the assessment of specific skills).

For Everyone

• Strategically build your personal brand – Consciously balance the perception of your likability and competence by presenting both achievements and stories of collaboration with the team.
• Precise language: Instead of “I am a good programmer,” “I create efficient code that helps the team achieve business goals.”
• Give constructive feedback – If you notice unequal treatment due to the warmth/competence model, name it directly, but constructively.

Have you noticed similar patterns in the assessment of competence and warmth? Perhaps you have experience working with “lovable stars” and “incompetent jerks,” although you didn’t agree with these assessments? Share your insights in the comments!