What the data actually shows
A large body of social-psychology research, much of it associated with Susan Fiske, Amy Cuddy, and Peter Glick's 'stereotype content model,' finds that people evaluate others along two primary dimensions: warmth (are they friendly, trustworthy, likable?) and competence (are they capable and effective?). Across studies, warmth is judged first and tends to carry more weight in forming overall impressions — we decide whether someone is on our side before we fully assess how skilled they are.
In the workplace specifically, research by Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo on how people choose work partners produced a memorable finding: when forced to choose, people strongly prefer a 'lovable fool' over a 'competent jerk.' Likability had a large effect on who others wanted to work with, while competence alone, absent warmth, did surprisingly little to overcome being disliked. People will route around a disliked expert and toward a liked-but-less-skilled colleague.
Competence still matters, and the research does not claim otherwise. Over time and for tasks where results are clearly measured, capability counts — and likability without competence has a ceiling, since people eventually need the work to get done. The most reliable reading of the evidence is not 'likability beats competence' but 'likability is weighted more heavily than most people assume, and competence alone is weighted less.'
Why this feels different from how it actually is
It feels like competence should win because we are taught a meritocratic story in which the best work speaks for itself. That story is appealing and partly true, but it understates how much of advancement runs through other people's judgments — and those judgments form fast, lean on warmth first, and are hard to reverse once set.
There is also a visibility gap. Competence is often quiet and its effects are delayed, while likability operates in every interaction, continuously shaping who gets included, trusted, and recommended. The person who is pleasant to work with accrues small advantages constantly; the person who is merely excellent accrues them only when results are visible and attributed correctly, which is less often than we like to think.
And people who pride themselves on competence tend to resist this finding, because it feels unfair — as though relationships are a distraction from the real work. The research suggests that framing is itself a disadvantage: treating warmth as beneath you tends to read as coldness, which others weight heavily and negatively.
We decide whether someone is on our side before we fully assess how skilled they are.
What the research says to do about it
Take warmth seriously as a real and learnable part of working well, not a frivolous add-on. The research on warmth and competence suggests that being seen as trustworthy and on others' side — through ordinary things like listening, following through, and genuine interest in colleagues — has a large effect on how your work is received and how far it carries.
Aim for both rather than trading one off against the other. The Casciaro and Lobo work points to the 'lovable star' — competent and warm — as the most sought-after combination by a wide margin. The practical implication is not to coast on charm, but to recognise that competence is far more effective when paired with warmth than when offered alone.
If you tend to lead with competence and assume it will be noticed, the evidence suggests deliberately investing in relationships is high-leverage precisely because you are likely undervaluing it. Conversely, if warmth comes easily, durable advancement still requires the substance behind it — likability buys goodwill, not indefinite cover for results that do not come.
What the research says does not help
Assuming pure merit will win out on its own does not help, and is the belief the research most directly contradicts. Excellent work that is not paired with warmth is routinely under-recognised, routed around, or attributed elsewhere, because the people making those judgments weight likability more than the meritocratic story admits.
Trying to win on likability while neglecting the work has its own ceiling. The evidence shows people prefer a liked colleague, but it does not show that charm indefinitely substitutes for results — over time, and where outcomes are measured, competence still has to be there. Likability buys goodwill and access, not permanent immunity.
Performing fake friendliness tends to backfire, because warmth judgments are sensitive and people detect insincerity. The research is about being genuinely seen as trustworthy and on others' side, which is different from forced cheerfulness or strategic flattery — those often register as the opposite of warmth.
The honest summary is not 'likability beats competence' but that likability is weighted more heavily than most people assume, and competence alone is weighted less.
What this looks like in real life
Routing around the competent jerk
Asked who they want to work with, people reliably pick a likable but less skilled colleague over a skilled but disliked one. In practice this means teams route around a disliked expert and toward a liked-but-less-skilled peer — likability had a large effect on the choice, while competence alone did surprisingly little to overcome being disliked.
The excellent colleague no one seeks out
Someone does genuinely strong work but treats warmth as beneath them, assuming the results will speak for themselves. Because competence is quiet and delayed while likability operates in every interaction, their work is under-recognised or routed around — and the visible coldness gets weighted heavily and negatively. The fix the research points to is not charm but taking warmth seriously as a real, learnable part of the job.
Real numbers in context
The clearest evidence here is about direction and weighting rather than precise percentages, so it is worth stating that plainly. The warmth-and-competence research (Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick) consistently finds warmth is judged first and weighted heavily in overall impressions; the workplace-choice research (Casciaro and Lobo) finds people strongly favour a 'lovable fool' over a 'competent jerk' when choosing who to work with.
What the data supports is a qualitative claim: likability matters more for getting ahead than the meritocratic story assumes, and competence alone matters less than its admirers expect — but both matter, and the combination of warmth and competence outperforms either on its own. Treat any specific figure on this with caution; the robust finding is the pattern, not a single number.