What's more interesting to me was that the first third or so of the email was just banter/chit-chat about sports and family updates. Good reminder that business is always about relationships, and while cold hard factual analysis (which is the latter part of the email) is important, the social and relationship building elements are key.
This is so true, even relationships within your organization. These are the networks and skills the current WFH era is going to lack. Similar to how kids are missing out not on learning facts while out of school, but really missing out on learning how to build social bonds and networks because ultimately that's what helps you succeed in life. Twenty years from now the sociological studies on this era are going to be fascinating.
While I completely agree with you, it's also a good indication that the executives running these businesses are in some sense immature. They should not care about ego and other personal things. They should care about effectiveness. If they rely on a personal rapport before acting, it seems to be that they are incapable of acting objectively.
It's about being liked. A 40 year veteran technology sales exec repeats to me all the time, "People do business with people they like." Trust is a big part of liking someone, and trust is key to doing business, especially for Warren. There is no way he'd do business with someone he distrusted. That trust is earned, and this chit-chat is part of building trust. In persuasion, it's called 'pacing': showing that you have something in common, even unrelated to the business at hand, before trying to convince someone to take an action.
It's a bit strange that, Buffett, who made billions on technical analysis of businesses, makes decisions based on who can manipulate him with Dale Carnegey (who changed his named to Carnegie to make people like him) tricks.
Perhaps it's a meta thing, where Buffet only works with manipulators because he knows they need to manipulate others to succeed.
Are you claiming that, in a business setting, all people who are nice to work and talk with are manipulators? Do you think Warren Buffet is incapable of discerning the difference between an authentically pleasant, kind person and a manipulator? Does he strike you as the kind of person to be easily duped?
Whether we're talking about Buffet or in general, this is a pretty dim view of work and of the world. Most of us spend the majority of our time at work. For many (for most, I hope), building relationships at work isn't the bizarre lifehack game I so often see it characterized as here. Instead, those human connections are intrinsically fulfilling and they help give meaning to the work and to our lives, which can sometimes feel arbitrary and meaningless.
I'll probably get flak for this, but here is my experience.
I was fired from my first internship in college. An internship. And the reason apparently had to do with these really subtle ways I interacted with the high level employees that nobody told me about. For example, it appeared to be that getting up and leaving at lunch break while a C-level is talking about his vacation to Cancun without saying "I'm leaving, it was nice to see you, thanks for the chat about Cancun" was a firable offense. So offensive, apparently, that immediately after my manager pulled me into a room and absolutely grilled me for it in the most direct, robotic language he could. The point was clear. Don't just get up and leave if a C-level is making small talk, even if it's on break. I should mention that this was a company that prided itself on its "startup mentality".
At the time this scared the shit out of me. My college age self started to believe: is this just how the real world works? You think all is fine until it isn't, because nobody told you their specific rules for what is acceptable to do or what they really think of you?
By the time they told me it was my last day I completely failed to be surprised. This was what they actually wanted to tell me to my face for so long. But the only place and time they were going to tell it to me was five minutes out of their busy schedule out of the sight of all the people programming and shooting the shit about Cancun and having a good laugh together. Building relationships with each other. Tangible, valuable relationships. "Real" relationships.
Today, with some added experience I more or less understand: Yes, that org was dysfunctional if that's what it came down to, all those unwritten social rules I had no way of understanding if nobody was going to tell me I would be fired for breaking them. I contrast this with my current job where this kind of thing would not be tolerated in the slightest, and instead their policy is tolerance of absolutely everyone and their thoughts and feelings, so long as they aren't disruptive.
But how was that manager talking to me before that lunch break?
With great rapport. I had found him very likeable up to that point. He guided me through the steps to set up my devenv and introduced me to the members of the team who he gave nicknames and shot the breeze with them and me and laughed and talked to me about his opinions on marriage and having children and appeared to be having a nice time with me, until he apparently started believing I was dead weight because of whatever unspeakable thing I did and the subsequent lack of any programming-related direction or input from him, leaving me stranded doing essentially nothing on clock time and a better case for firing, I guess.
Yet from his positive tone and the way he was talking about social things and such, I would hardly guess that if I crossed a line at some point that that would be the end of our relationship, and my relationship with the company, period.
So my understanding is that business relationships are different from completely social relationships with no strings attached. If you're perceived to be not fulfilling the duties that your manager expects, then no matter how much rapport or friendly conversations you have with them there will come a point where the gloves will come off and they have to speak in a completely functional manner, because that's what the business wants in order to optimize, and ultimately that's the most important thing when it comes to business relationships: getting things done and saving face, as opposed to being social and speaking from the heart, without pulling punches.
Here is my failing: this causes me to stray away from rapport, especially with higher ups, because my thought process cynically declares "it doesn't matter what emotions or expressions they use with you. If it comes down to it, they'd fire you in the end in spite of it all." I end up thinking because I am strictly in a business relationship with my coworkers, that trying to make social progress is futile, because I'm there to do work, and what I am mainly being judged for in going to work is how much effort I put in to solving the problems the org has and my abilities to actually accomplish the things they want, not how many witty stories I tell or small talk about hobbies I have. I am not saying it doesn't have its place, on break or even any time there is a meeting. It's just that I believe the only reason such social rapport is possible is because I'm still employed, and that is because I'm good at my job, not my social skills.
I don't really mean people who are assholes can get away with it, because they impact productivity. I just never felt the need for something that was putting on airs and obscuring the real reason I'm at work.
I had a good friend who was talking to his boss once. His boss said, "we can be friends, you know." And my friend replied. "You can fire me. Can I fire you?"
I don't think this means that personal relationships at work are futile, just that there is another component to them. The business and structure of the business come first. Coming out of college, this is a bit confusing because when you're young nearly everything is personal, there is no professional life. Kids have to learn these boundaries, and, I'm sorry your lesson was harsher than it should have been.
This is a bit unrelated to the point you were making, but not unrelated to the story: the truth is that a lot of executives become executives solely (or at least primarily) for the prestige and respect the positions attract. Although I might not think there's anything impressive about being an executive in a company, many people do. And enough people do, that it effectively becomes the truth. It's something to look out for in future jobs:
- Do the executives use their captive audience to inflate their egos?
- Are employees afraid of the executives?
If so, you're not in a business, but in a social hierarchy. And one where people enjoy that they have power over others.
This was part of the point I was originally intending to make: why would the executive care that you left during his story? You'd think all he would care about is that you were an effective employee. But in your case he did not become an executive to improve the business. Likely he became one to attain status. This is what I mean: his status shouldn't have anything to do with the effectiveness of the business. But of course, the effectiveness of the business is not truly his primary concern. (if it were, he wouldn't hold a bunch of employees hostage talking about his stupid fishing trip.)
There's a definite normalization of coded socialization throughout the business world and most any occupation. It emerges from the same quality that makes founders see their business as a "child" - they are going to protect it, and usher you towards similarly protecting it, because that is the thing parents do above all else. That isn't wrong - lots of folks fall in love with ideas.
If a person should come in that room, though, and make the case that they are the child, you start to get this sort of dysfunction. And when you wield a lot of authority, it's easy to fall into a child's mindset and never get called on it, and there is nothing innocent about what happens in those scenarios. You can pathologize it with various terms of the psyche, call them predatory or whatnot, but the underpinning of it is that these people are good at turning people into doting chaperones, and they will seek out such wherever they go and twist the rules as needed so that their own mistakes are "oopsies" while those of others are "unforgivable".
The only counterbalance I know of is to be so committed to an idea of your own that you immediately drive away anyone looking to engage you in this way. Then you will be bad at "socializing", but good at finding others similarly committed to ideas.
Technical analysis means something else in investing than what Buffett does. And working to minimize psychological influences on his decisions is a big part of what Warren does.
Your post speaks a lot about your perspective of the world. But humans fundamentally aren't rational.
As well what I've found is that the ones that view themselves as striving towards being devoid of emotion and purely rational end up being some of the less rational ones because they are also the most unaware of their irrational/emotional blind spots.
Usually the ones that accept their irrationality are more successful becsuse they try to understand and account for it - not mistakenly think they can eliminate it.
We are all human - we have inherent flaws, biases, and irrational behavior. Success comes from acknowledging, understanding and managing them - not thinking we can eliminate them.
So everyone at the top is a robot? The reality is that we are human and it is important to communicate effectively...part of this is building relationship with others. I've met billionaires and 100's of millions in financial services and they are all great with people. This isn't because they are great guys....some are narcissists...its because it works!
This is clearly an unpopular opinion, but yes. If you need socialization to do business, then you're building a social network, or a social club. I don't think that generals in the army make small talk before giving orders. Yes, of course, there is going to be some personal chatter, but the ability to give orders does not depend on it. They can get down to brass tacks, and can work well with people they dislike personally.
I understand that businesses are NOT the military. But, I'm perplexed that business leaders are seeking out peoople they have a good rapport with rather than people that are effective. These will not always be opposites, of course, but I would think that effectiveness would always matter more than rapport.
Perhaps the problem is that in business there is no higher calling. It's all just about making money, and so there is generally not something worth setting aside your ego for.
You can both be effective and build rapport with people. It's both/and, not either/or.
In fact, building a rapport is actually an important part of being effective. Esprit de corps is a real thing (and a military concept, to boot), and you do not get it by treating people like robots.
However, you can't hack being kind and attentive. It only provides stat boosts if pursued as its own intrinsic good. Humans are really good at detecting false fronts - only world-class manipulators can consistently fool people into believing they're cared for.
Given all that, an effective analyst like Buffett will understand that he should look for people who are effective and personable. They're out there, and they're better economic bets than the ones who hobble themselves by pretending emotions, kindness, and taking an interest in others for their own sake are irrelevant (I hobbled myself this way for years).
I feel like your view is more of a reflection of you and your perspective (i.e. efficiency is #1 priority) rather than the world we live in. I feel like even in the military, relationships would be hugely important. If I was a soldier but hated my commanding officier...my performance would be very different to a situations where I had a great leader.
Great relationships and trust results in higher efficiency.
