Podcast Transcript:
Speaker 1:
Welcome to the Management Insights Podcast, your go-to destination for fresh ideas, expert insights, and dynamic conversations on all things management. Each episode brings you thought-provoking discussions with innovative educators and inspiring voices to help you elevate your classroom and connect with your students like never before. Put all that grading aside, cozy in, and let's meet today's guest.
Holly Luky:
Thank you for joining us today. I'm Holly Luky, Marketing Manager here at McGraw Hill. Today I'm excited to introduce you to author Suzanne de Janasz, as she discusses topics from her book, Interpersonal Skills in Organizations. W.
Ell, good morning, Suzanne. Thank you for joining me this morning. I'm excited to chat with you today.
Suzanne de Janasz:
It is my pleasure, Holly. I look forward.
Holly Luky:
Excellent. Well, for our listeners who aren't familiar with your work, do you mind just sharing with our audience your wonderful book?
Suzanne de Janasz:
This book came into existence around the year 2000, and it came as a response to the advisory board of the previous school that I worked for. In the dean's advisory board, they had members who were also parts of companies who recruited the students that we graduated, and they were saying things like, "Your students can read a balance sheet, they can develop a marketing plan. They have a good understanding of accounting principles, but they can't work together." They don't have the interpersonal skills to collaborate, to work through conflicts, to negotiate, to be influential when, for example, their position doesn't give them the power to tell people what to do, which is most of our positions, right? "Can you help us?" And so, when I came to that university, we cobbled together materials that we thought would help students in the classroom not only learn, but more importantly, practice these interpersonal skills.
And so, again, there wasn't that much available at the time. And even what was available was pretty limited in terms of the experiential opportunities, which let's face it, you don't learn how to ski by reading a book, and you don't learn how to negotiate or be a good team member by reading a book either. And so, the book was born along with my co-authors, Beth Schneider and Karen Dowd. And over the years, and it's now in its eighth edition, as you know, over the years, one of the things that we are most proud of is the availability of those experiential exercises, which are a compilation not only of things that we've developed, but also people in our networks who are fantastic teachers and trainers in academia, as well as the real world, if you will.
And so, there are many ways to provide opportunities for students of interpersonal skills to practice these skills, to learn not only the theoretical basis of why they're so important, but also to be able to practice those skills and continuously learn to improve so that in the workplace, they have the ability to work with others in their companies, outside their companies, etc. And so, yeah, that's just a little bit of a birth story, if you will, of the book. And we're thrilled that the book has been successful, not only in North America, but also in other countries, whereas you know there are other versions of the book in China, in Greece and Australia, Canada, etc. So, I'm very proud of my third child.
Holly Luky:
And you should be. So, in discussing your book and your third child, as we say, the first edition, as you mentioned, came out 25 years ago. So, I'm curious, what has stayed the same and what has changed about the importance of interpersonal skills over this time period?
Suzanne de Janasz:
Great question, Holly. So, I'll start with what stayed the same. People still work together. Even through the pandemic when many people were relegated to working from home and sitting behind a computer, the ability to work effectively, to communicate, to resolve conflicts, to influence, etc., it was still and remains a very important element of what we call these soft skills. And I think, if anything, the fact that we have essentially young people in their, say early 20s and later who spent a good part of their developmental years sitting by themselves behind a computer, I would say, and there's some research to support this, that those interpersonal skills have regressed. That overall, the lack of conversations that pop up on the playgrounds at school or the lack of socializing has really put a crimp in people's ability to interact effectively with one another. And we see it, of course, in cell phone usage where people are spending nine, 10 hours a day on their phones, one might surmise, avoiding contact with other people.
And so, what's changed is now, again, we have... Everybody was affected, of course, by the pandemic, but in those really formative years, we have a group of individuals who had very little contact, face-to-face contact with people and with teams. And so, the need for their interpersonal skills' development, I would say is even greater. And of course, of course, the fact that technology has changed a lot, that not only do we have the ability to communicate virtually, but we also are seeing advances in AI. And I think there's more people who are seeing AI as a substitution.
And so, "Oh, I need to write a cover letter. Let me ask AI to write this for me. Oh, I'm having an issue with a teammate, let me have AI craft a good text message so that I can tell this person how I really feel." And so, while AI has shortened the timeframe needed to get some tasks done, and that's, again, well established in the research, I think it has also contributed to an over-reliance on not thinking, not working through conflicts, not dealing directly with the kinds of day-to-day issues that human beings really need to deal with. And so, I'm afraid that this trend bodes poorly on the development of individual's ability to work together in work, in social life, etc.
Holly Luky:
It's funny when you mentioned, "Let's ask AI," it's almost as though it is being referred to or even considered as an additional person in the room, right, in that situation.
Suzanne de Janasz:
Sure.
Holly Luky:
It's almost being treated in the same manner as another party that's involved in your interactions.
Suzanne de Janasz:
Well, and I'm not going to diss AI. I play with it myself.
Holly Luky:
Sure.
Suzanne de Janasz:
It's not only important... I remember when AI and ChatGPT in particular first came out maybe two and a half, three years ago as a professor, my biggest concern was are students going to be cheating and completing their assignments by asking ChatGPT to do it for them? And so, my first approach was to put a comment in my syllabus that, "If you do this and I find out, you're going to fail," that kind of thing. And then, I backed off on that a little bit and said, "Listen, the tool is there and you should use it, but you should use it as a tool, not to replace your own thoughts, your own feelings, your own take on what's going on." So, human facilitated AI is what I think we need to really focus on, but not AI for the sake of AI or as a substitute for the work of humans.
Holly Luky:
Yeah, that makes sense. You made a point just a little bit ago about soft skills. I know that formerly we used to kind of refer to this broader skillset as people skills or simply maturity in the workplace, but now we call it soft skills. I also know that you're not a huge fan of that term. So, why is that?
Suzanne de Janasz:
Well, yeah, right. Back in the day when, let's say baby boomers talked about this, they talked about, "Oh, this person's a little awkward or this person has a hard time working with people, but give them some time and they'll mature and they'll grow into that capability," because that always happens, sarcasm. And then, it was human relations skills, right? Concern not only about tasks being done by employees in the workplace, but also concern about that human element, right? Human beings are not automatons. They're not mini computers that you can just send a note, get this done, and that's it. We all know that the best leaders, and in fact, when you ask anybody on the street, talk about a time that you were led in such a way that you were able to achieve something more than you thought you could, or you have this great respect for this person in work, in your family, in your religious institutions. and people would talk about how much this person made them feel and how much this person was able to help them become their best selves.
And so, this idea of maturing or human relation skills then became soft skills. And the word soft is in contrast to the word hard, right? So, the hard skills, of course, were data analysis, financial analysis, being able to do various calculations with or without the help of a spreadsheet or a computer. And those skills are important. And also, again, as technology has changed, the nature of what those hard skills are may have adapted over time, but they don't replace soft skills, number one, again, it's a matter of a balance. And also, Holly, my feeling of the word soft makes it sound unnecessary or less important, right? That person's-
Holly Luky:
That's a great point. Yeah.
Suzanne de Janasz:
... That person is soft, meaning they don't have the gumption to get things done. And again, time and time again, you look at the research of world leaders like Jacinda Ardern, for example, when things were happening in New Zealand, not just in COVID, but the big mass shooting that happened, it was her decisiveness, yes, but also her warmth and her compassion that enabled her to lead a country effectively and possibly more effectively than another person might have done it. And I don't want to ascribe it just to her gender, but sometimes we tend to think of hard approaches to be more masculine and soft approaches to be more feminine, which again, I'm not a fan of that dichotomy.
But again, this idea that the ability to show empathy, to care, to be collaborative as opposed to tell people what to do like an autocrat, why are we calling it soft? It makes it sound less important, less necessary. Let's call it smart. Let's just call it interpersonal skills. But yeah, I'm a little bit non-plussed with, at least the feeling that is conjured up when we use the term soft skills.
Holly Luky:
That's wonderful. I appreciate that insight. I know another topic that's kind of come up in this realm is the emphasis in business schools and how they've been shifting to offer courses in big data, analytics, and of course AI, as we just alluded to earlier. Are you able to kind of talk about this shift? And if you can, also comment on the impact that COVID had in employees and their need for these different skillsets?
Suzanne de Janasz:
So, yeah, when it comes to the analytical side of things, big data has been something of a watershed, right? How did you get a sense of what the population or what a population, let's say all Gen Zs in the United States and what are their feelings toward consumer purchases, things like that? The ability to gather such a large database and analyze that data has really helped move the needle when it comes to, not only selling, but also maybe decisions at an institutional level or administrative, what's the word I'm looking for? Policy, right? So, how can we best understand the needs of a large population by analyzing large data to do this?
And so, the tools that are available now are very powerful and it enables us to be able to not just have intuition about what we should do, but rather have data to support these decisions or these policies. And so, again, it's not either or. It's not you should have the skill of data analytics instead of the skill to be able to lead effectively, to negotiate effectively. You should have both sets of skills. And so, again, I'm pleased that many schools are agile and they are adapting their curricula to embody these changes, to be able to teach students about AI and data analytics, etc. But they should do so not at the expense of, again, what we have traditionally called soft skills.
Holly Luky:
Yeah, I like how those two tie together, absolutely. Making sure that they have entrance with both of those entering the workforce after college.
Suzanne de Janasz:
Yeah, and I mean, if you think... Sorry to interrupt, Holly, but if you think about the stereotype of the coder, the person who sits behind a computer all day long and is coding, and then at the end of the day, where do they go? What do they do? What kind of life do they lead? And so, it's about the whole person. It's about the total health of a human being. Burnout is real, and we see plenty of that. And of course, there are subpopulations that we're seeing right now, hordes of women of color, I think over 300,000 that have left the workforce since the beginning of 2025. A lot of women have left the workforce, and some of the policy changes that are going on in this country are giving rise to that. But even those of us who are working, I want to have a healthy nation both here, of course, and abroad.
And so, to not recognize the whole human and the empathy that is necessary in the workplace, the care and concern that is necessary, right, we can't ascribe computer-like qualities to the inputs that are human because if we do, we're going to have, I think, a very sick nation. And it's important to, again, recognize the full spectrum of what people bring into the workplace and to develop all of their skills and not just, for example, the analytical ones.
Holly Luky:
I'm curious, do you have any insight into the current job market as to speaking to these different skills where you've got the big data, you mentioned programmers. Obviously, we know those are in high demand right now. But have you on your own accord or through your own research seen any correlation between what types of jobs are in demand at this moment that pertain to interpersonal skills? Is it versus big data or is it a combination? Ideally, we want to see a combination of the two, but I just feel like there's something there that could be discussed.
Suzanne de Janasz:
I'll first preface it by saying no, I can't speak to a very specific and data-based trend. Some of the things you mentioned are, of course, true. In fact, interestingly though, programming is seeing a decline because that is something that AI can be used to move some of the more tedious aspects of that work. So, once the decision is made to move in a particular direction for a company to have a new web-based platform or an app or a service, a lot of some of the initial groundwork in creating these new systems can be relegated to AI and other automated systems.
So, I think what I'm seeing, anecdotally as opposed to empirically, is the rise again of people who have an understanding of the analytical dimensions and an understanding of AI and what AI can and cannot do, but are able to translate that information, are able to communicate that information, are able to rally the support of employees and help them collaborate as teams, to be innovative and to grow their product and service offerings, to be competitive because the competition space is not the US, it's not North America, it's global.
And right now, if you're not aware, China is eating our lunch on AI, I mean, by an exponential factor. And so, again, let's not rely wholly on just this one thing because if we do, we're lost. But also, we have to adapt, we have to recognize. And so, from an early age, I think it's important that kids are taught some of these skills so that they can compete in the real world once they are ready for the workforce. But again, not just those analytical skills, but also the ability to work with other people, both in their in-person work as well as their remote work, which is a challenge.
Holly Luky:
Absolutely. You mentioned this just briefly, but I just want to dig in a little bit further. Do you feel that AI has begun replacing a lot of tasks in-
Suzanne de Janasz:
Oh, sure. I mean...
Holly Luky:
... Yeah?
Suzanne de Janasz:
Did you say the workforce or...
Holly Luky:
Or just I guess a lot of tasks in general. It doesn't have to pertain to the workforce. Yeah. Do you...
Suzanne de Janasz:
Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, we could talk about something that is pretty present right now. The large, the language models, etc., large language models that are embedded into AI systems, I would say, again, I don't have the actual data and I don't like to make things up, but I'd say a lot of the recruitment is being facilitated by AI, on both sides, right? So, company X posts a position, and because it takes no time at all to upload a resume, or in fact, if this is all done, let's say on the LinkedIn platform, it doesn't take but a single click, literally, to add your name to the list of candidates for this job. So, within minutes, if not hours, they have hundreds, if not thousands of applicants. And so realistically, how are they going to cull that list into something that is more manageable to find the candidate they're looking for, assuming that that position's a real position in the first place, and that's a whole nother conversation because many positions that are posted are not real. They're not actually looking to hire somebody into the workplace.
But what's happening is, and I'm concerned about this, people who may be using AI to write their resume may be at an advantage for these large language models that companies are using to cull the list, and maybe we're going to start missing out on those very interesting candidates that don't necessarily hit the algorithm score of 79.6% or higher match, and I'm making that number up. What about the people who have a different background that would add some creativity? So, to establish a job description and to connect that to the tool that culls these resumes is, on the one hand, more efficient, Holly, but on the other hand, efficiency is not the same as effectiveness.
And I can say this, I'm somebody a little bit unique in that I'm a business school professor with an undergraduate degree in music. I'd originally aspired to be an opera singer. And in getting my first job, if somebody saw that my degree was a bachelor's degree in music and made the decision binary that either they have a bachelor's in business or in economics or not, we don't even look at them, I never would've gotten that job. And so, how do you create analytical tools that account for the less quantitative or the quantifiable elements of what someone might bring to the job? And again, I'm a bit worried. So, the tools save time, they increase efficiency, but without that human interaction, they don't necessarily provide greater effectiveness.
Holly Luky:
Yeah, I like that. So, I guess summing it up, do you feel like when you hear the hype, are we going to lose jobs because of AI?
Suzanne de Janasz:
I'm going to hope that the answer to that question is, we're going to have different jobs as a result of AI, right? When I first started my PhD, we had just started the shift from, and I'm dating myself by saying this, by having cards, data cards that were, each person that was part of your sample, each one of them was on a card and it was fed into a machine, and the big room over there that contained the computer that would run the data analytics would tell you. And so, in my schooling for my PhD, we had just started moving into a platform-based, a web-based pull down window. You want to do a regression and analysis, here it is.
And so, yeah, so people who were doing jobs that were data input clerks don't exist anymore. Just like 10 years ago, UX designers didn't exist. So, maybe what we're seeing is the fall of more tedious jobs that are, again, not face-to-face jobs, but the kinds of data input, data analysis, etc., in favor of other jobs that are hopefully more broad in their thinking, more broad in their scope and their influence. But I don't know, Holly, if only I had a crystal ball.
Holly Luky:
If only. Well, thank you, Suzanne. We've spent a lot of... We've covered a lot of different territory today in our conversation. I appreciate the ability to speak to AI, what we consider soft skills and how this all impacts, of course, our interpersonal skills in education, in management, in business, in everyday life, really. Is there one kind of, one last parting thought that you'd like to leave our listeners with for today?
Suzanne de Janasz:
That's a good question, Holly. I guess, the first thought that comes to mind is to be our role model, right? It's one thing to complain about the state of affairs, to complain about the education system, to complain about companies that are dealing with cashflow crises and cutting education support for their employees. We could complain about that, but I think the challenge is, we need to have positive role models of what that kind of interaction and interpersonal skill looks like. And I do a lot of mentoring. I volunteer my time to a number of causes. I also work with women in particular and girls and people from underrepresented groups, people of color, etc. And I think, especially where you have some measure of privilege and you know who you are, give some of your time, give some of your advice. Be available as a role model, as a mentor, as an informal mentor.
I mean, we don't need to necessarily get into programming when it comes to mentors. The most effective mentors, in fact, I do a lot of research on mentoring, are those informal connections that we bump into somebody at a conference and, "Hey, can I chat with you in the future?" Those kinds of relationships are super important for not only our ability to grow and our satisfaction in our work and our balance between work and family life, but they're also important for our careers and the career trajectory that we're on. So, be a mentor, give your time, and be a role model, I would say, especially if you believe that your interpersonal skills are strong.
Holly Luky:
Wonderful. Thank you so much. I've enjoyed our conversation today, and I look forward to our next one.
Suzanne de Janasz:
Thanks, Holly. It was fun talking with you.
Speaker 1:
Thanks for listening to the Management Insights Podcast. We hope today's episode offered fresh perspectives and inspired your teaching journey. Stay tuned for more engaging conversations and innovative ideas. Until next time, keep shaping the future of management education.
