Willy Loman believed in the power of being "well liked" and "personally attractive". In fact his obsession with the superficial quality of "likeability" set him up for demise.

I agree with you that others need to "find us human" and our brands much the same. Without it people may never give our us or our business a good look.

Yet I can think of some very human and likeable business experiences that lacked the "what" of competence, intelligence, commitment and a whole lot more.

So rather than say "it is about the who, not the what", I would suggest it is about the never ending tension between "the who" and "the what". As a customer I want both. Greedy Gus that I am!

Thanks for stirring the pot for me this Monday morning Lewis. You're always good read!

Great post, Lewis.

Let me take it another direction, though.

I think it's important that not everyone like you or your brand. The companies that try to be "likeable" to every single person are the ones that are losing. They are vanilla. And vanilla is hardly every good (note: I said HARDLY).

You should be likeable to your own audience. We know that we're not a good fit for everyone looking for a name and identity. We answer the main phone in a completely different way that really puts some people off. And that's fantastic. If everyone liked us, then we know we are doing something wrong. It's about kindered spirits. (Rumsfeld probably has them, in fact.)

Yes, I think it's important to be "likeable." But it's far more important to be "likeable" to that thin niche of people who you connect with.

P.S. I didn't know you and Donny were such good pals.

Thanks Michael. You are correct: We must recognize the tension between the who and the what.

You are also right that "like" is ambiguous at best. How about better words that fit our particular character, such as trust, likable, people-centric, etc.?

My argument about the what is that clients and customers expect their product and services to be quality, so at the end of the day, assuming we serve quality, we are chosen based on who we are not what we sell.

Love this conversation Lewis.

Yes, serving up quality ought to be "table stakes" for even being in business!

Getting the "who" and the "what" right isn't easy, but when it doesn happen in a business it is a beautiful thing to behold!

Spike raises a good point -- and one I know Michael "Hate My Brand, Please!" Wagner believes in.

As Michael writes, "Embrace the hate to find your love."

Risking disapproval is hard, certainly. But if you don't, the more damaging risk you take is occupying that icky "mushy middle."

Ann,

I agree with that! I believe, however, that we can be straight-forward, honest and even disagree with our customers without being arrogant, ego-centric and disagreeable.

I used the Rumsfeld example because he is the extreme other from the "mushy middle". I am ecouraging readers to find the balance between the two.

My error was in using the word "like". Well, never too old to learn something new.

As always, thanks to you and Michael for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

well, lewis, you had rumsfeld we still have berlusconi, the media mogul former prime minister.
i think that you can apply to him all the list of rumsfeld attributes except annoying. he is damn good at managing his pr and having people trusting in him: he is beloved by his supporters and deeply hated by the others. the result is that he established a political brand which will last. as spike pointed out we cannot be likeable to everybody without being recognized without personality.

Thanks Gianandrea. No matter how hard we may try (or not), some people will never like us.

I like how you're associating people and brands. However, there's one thing that I think is missing in all of this.

Context.

Were we not attacked on 9/11 and had we not gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I doubt many people would know who Rumsfield is. He probably would have been allowed to resign much earlier, as the stakes would not have been perceived as high for not having a coherent reorganization strategy.

So it's not necessarily just who we are, but the quality of our brand certainly helps determine how we are perceived when we act in a way consistent with our passion and character.

And the right product has to be matched with the right job at the right time. John Edwards is certainly personable, but as Secretary of Defense in a time of war? That's even more scary than a pit bull on steroids - for this nation, at least.

Cam,

Thank you.

In business, politices, the work place and life, people are the brand. Impressions left by people on others determine brand perception.

In Rumsfeld's case, he represents his brand, not the war. So whether he touches 10 people are 10 million, his brand perception is based on what we see.

Comparing John Edwards to Rumsfeld sets up a false analogy because he isn't qualified for Secretary of Defense. However, in the five decades I have been watching and the one decade I worked for the DOD, few have left such an unfavorable impression on others as Rumsfeld, and it had little to do with the quality of his work. Often, strategies are argued but they seldom lead to resignations or firings.

Many are qualified, few are called. But an onery guy doesn't build confidence and trust with his public, whether it is Donald Rumsfeld or a CEO who is replaced because his/her style when dealing with others leads to poor results.

Point taken... Rummy represents his brand, not the war, but the context of the war frames the manner in which
people will perceive him. He was the longest-serving SOD in
the history of the U.S., and the CIC refused Rummy's repeated attempts to resign because of the context of the war.

Being SOD isn't easy... Generals have egos; they're used to having everyone just do what they're darn-well told, as I'm sure you know. They're also passionate about their troops (the good ones are, anyway). It's a combination that, in a time of war especially, can turn minor disagreements into major ones.

Had Rumsfeld left earlier, had there been no war, no conflict, I wonder if he would have been looked at differently. I think he would have, just as Abe Lincoln might have been seen differently had South Carolina never fired on Union troops at Ft Sumpter.

That the analogy I offered is false actually demonstrates the point; it does not refute it. John Edwards wouldn't fit as SOD because that is not the context he would work well in. As you said, he's not qualified, or as I said, he's not the right "product" at the right time in the right place.

Rumsfeld is at the rock bottom of my list of people I'd like to meet.

I would like to meet Paula Deen and her sons but at the same time would I really.

No matter how hard an individual fights for a positive perception. Meeting that person can be a huge disappointment.

All this transparency and good-will marketing may be real but after all we're still trying to sell something. Whether it's ourselves or our product. How far can that go until you run into the bricks and mortar - the machine that makes it - the ego that drives it.

WHO is that? WHAT is it? Aren't we looking for the least evil endeavor.

I'll take risks with an idea and challenge myself to create a positive perception. Ultimately the client wants to sell something and make money. Lots of money. Even campaign's like RED have a sleaze factor. But at least you can feel better about the experience if some good comes of it.

I hear a lot of idealistic motives but sometimes the reality is Rumsfeld. ICKY.

How do you steer within the gunk of greed, ego and ick?

Cam,
As always, you offer great perspective.

Tammy,
I am not always successful but I make every effort to see the best in people and companies. I think Rumsfeld is personality challenged but he has a distinguished public service career, including military service.

Strong brands often repel as many people as they attract. But with people like Rumsfeld, he seems to repel many, many more than he attracts. Because branding is about standing out and taking a stand, it is inevitable (and essential)that you will not please all of the people. But often, we have personal brand attributes that could be seen as positive, but are often perceived externally as annoying - confidence can be perceived as arrogance, decisiveness can be seen as being dismissive. When I work with my clients to build their personal brands, we use a tool I developed called 360Reach which helps them obtain feedback from those around them so they know how others see them. After all, our brands are held in the hearts and minds of those around us.

Leave it to a Rumsfeld post to bring everyone to the comments section! Not many of us have "uh, no opinion really" on Rummy.

Lewis, you are correct that he is all these things -- an absolutely brilliant man who really doesn't care what you think -- and this works in many business settings. Not in politics, though. You have to get along in politics, which is why they call it politics. Imagine what H. Ross would have been like. Yikes.

Rummy's brand is extremely well-defined and you either like it or Brand X (which would be Mr Gates, right)? This brand either works in its environment or it fails, as do we all.

I think the key takeaway here is this: without likeability, you have no means of influencing others.

(Excellent work has been done here by Robert Cialdini in his book, Influence -- http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert-Cialdini/dp/0688128165/sr=8-1/qid=1163704142/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2094670-7787251?ie=UTF8&s=books); his site, www.influenceatwork.com is also excellent. I've handed this book out to every person on my staff in my last two companies).

"Revolutionaries" are often highly prized in companies, but "terrorists" get fired.

Excellent post --

Stephen and William,

So true, so true. Brilliance is seldom rewarded where over-heated egos are at odds (think politics), and I think revolutionaries are less and less apreciated in the business world.