Interpersonal skills
-----------------------------------------------------

"For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth."
- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle

"I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."
- Isaac Newton

Computer Science majors are not, in general, known for their interpersonal skills. Some of us got into this field because it is easier to understand machines than people. As frustrating as computers can be, they at least behave in a logical manner, while human beings often do not. However, your success in graduate school and beyond depends a great deal upon your ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships with your adviser, your committee, your research and support staff and your fellow students. This does not mean you must become the "life of the party." I am not and never will be a gregarious, extroverted person. But I did make a serious effort to learn and practice interpersonal skills, and those were crucial to my graduate student career and my current industrial research position.

Why should this matter, you may ask? If one is technically brilliant, shouldn't that be all that counts? The answer is no, because the situation is different from your undergraduate days. In both graduate school and in business, you must depend upon and work with other people to achieve your goals To put this in perspective, I have excerpted the following from an article called "Organizations: The Soft and Gushy Side" by Kerry J. Patterson, published in Fall 1991 issue of The Bent:


I first learned of the capricious, human side of organizations some 15 years ago while studying the careers of engineers and scientists. The research design required that I spend eight hours a day in one-on-one interviews. For two hours I'd ask "career" questions of an engineer, chemist, physicist, or applied mathematician -- all of whom worked for a Fortune 500 firm. During these 120 minutes, the subjects talked about the perils of the organizations. Two hours was scarcely enough time to share their stories. All energetically discussed their personal careers. Most had been frustrated with the "soft and gushy" side of organizations. Some had figured out the system and learned to master it. Others had not.
As part of the research design, we asked to talk to low, medium, and high performers. This in itself was an interesting exercise. To determine performance rankings, we would place in front of a senior manager the names of the 10-50 people within his or her organization. Each name would be typed neatly in the middle of a three-by-five card. After asking the manager to rank the employees from top to bottom, the managers would then go through a card sort. Typically the executive would sort the names into three or four piles and then resort each pile again. Whatever the strategy, the exercise usually took only minutes. Just like that, the individual in charge of the professionals in question was able to rank, from top to bottom, as many as 50 people. It rarely took more than three minutes and a couple of head scratches and grunts. Three minutes. Although politics may appear ambiguous to those on the receiving end, those at the top were able to judge performance with crystal clarity.

This performance ranking (conducted by individuals not involved in the interviews) was then used as a dependent measure. Those of us conducting the interviews attempted to surface information (independent measures) that would predict the ranking. What about a scientist's career would lead to a top ranking? What trashed a perfectly good career? Surely scientific prowess would have an impact. And it did.

But technological prowess wasn't as predictive as another factor. We discovered that we could tell what performance group the interviewees belonged to within a minute or two by their attitudes toward people and politics. Individuals who were ranked low by their managers spoke of organizational politics as if it were poison. They were exceptionally annoyed by the people side of the business. They frequently stated they would rather be left alone to conduct their research untrammeled by human emotions. They characterized the social side of organizations as "soft and gushy." They sounded like Spock turned bitter.

Top performers, in contrast, found a way to work within the political system. They hadn't exactly embraced politics. They didn't appear like that toothy kid you knew back in college who lived to fight political battles. They didn't come off as glad-handling sales folks. These were professional scientists who were often top ranked in their field. They looked and talked liked scientists. The difference between them and those ranked at the bottom of the totem pole was clear. They had found a way to make peace with organizations, people, and politics. They climbed to the top of their field by mastering both hard things and soft and gushy people.

Engineers and scientists aren't the only ones who find the human side of the organizations to be annoying. As we expanded our research to include professors, accountants, and other professionals, the findings were remarkably similar. All found political machinations to be distasteful. It's just that some had found a way to master the social aspects -- the top performers.


Students usually look down on politics, but politics in its most basic, positive form is simply the art of getting things done. Politics is mostly about who is allowed to do what and who gets the resources (money, people, equipment, etc.) To succeed in your research, you will need resources, both capital and personnel. Interpersonal skills are mandatory for acquiring those resources. If you are incapable of working with certain people or make them mad at you, you will not get those resources and will not complete your research.
For example, which group of people did I try my best to avoid offending? Was it my committee? No, because healthy disagreements and negotiations with your adviser and committee are crucial to graduating within a reasonable amount of time. Nor was it my fellow students, because I did not need help from most of them, and most of them did not need me. The critical group was the research and support staff. These include the research faculty and all the various support positions (the system administrators, network administrators, audio-visual experts, electronic services, optical and mechanical engineers, and especially the secretaries). I needed their help to get my research done, but they did not directly need me. Consequently, I made it a priority to establish and maintain good working relationships with them.

Cultivating interpersonal relationships is mostly about treating people with respect and determining their different working styles. Give credit where credit is due. Acknowledge and thank them for their help. Return favors. Respect their expertise, advice and time. Apologize if you are at fault. Realize that different people work in different ways and are motivated by different things -- the more you understand this diversity, the better you will be able to interact and motivate them to help you. For certain people, offering to buy them dinner or giving them free basketball tickets can work wonders.

A true example: at one point in my research, I needed to make significant modifications to some low-level code in the graphics computer called "Pixel Planes 5." Doing this required expertise that I did not have, but another graduate student named Marc Olano did. How should I tap into Marc's expertise and get my necessary changes done?

The wrong way is to go up to Marc, explain the problem, and get him to make the changes. Marc doesn't need the changes done; I do. Therefore, I should do most of the work. Expecting him to do the work shows disrespect of his time.

What I actually did was to explain the problem to Marc and he sketched out a possible solution. Then I ran off and worked on my own for a few days, trying to implement the solution. I got part of it working, but ended up getting stuck on another part. Only at that point did I go back to Marc and ask him for help. By doing this, I showed that I respected his time and wanted to minimize his burden, thus making him more willing to help me. Months later, when he and Jon Cohen needed my help in setting up a system to demonstrate some of their software, I was more than happy to return the favor.

Interpersonal interaction is a huge subject and goes far beyond my description here. All I can really do in this section is (hopefully) convince you that these skills are vital to your graduate student career and encourage you to learn more if you need to improve these skills. I still have a lot to learn myself. I recommend reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and Type Talk (both listed in the References section) as starting points. The magazine article "How to be a star engineer" (listed in the References) also touches on this subject.