Most major activities require co-operating teams of people and of course social skills are vital to building and running teams. Even without taking a leadership role, getting recognition for your abilities and making an effective contribution to a group requires good presentation, comprehension and general communication skills.
Right, but the study, or at least coverages of the study, are sort of misleading when they identify this as "popularity". It's a wholly different kind of popularity to what we're used to thinking of.
A less obvious result, and which I personally find more amusing, is how individualists outperform socialists on challenging projects.
Wait, this is political now?
There is a ludicrous notion popularised on this board of libertarians being unable to co-operate in any fashion while socialists automatically form a perfectly efficient hive mind.
No, it's not that libertarians cannot cooperate, it's that the libertarian system
is unstable and not a suitable environment for cooperation.
In reality, entrepreneurs and independent contractors need considerably more social skills to succeed, because they must convince people to voluntarily invest in their company, work on their project, buy their product, hire them for a contract etc. Networking and building relationships of trust with partners, customers and suppliers is vital for the success and growth of small companies, and management of perceptions, expectations and individual problems is vital to get good performance out of teams. Money is never enough on its own to get the best out of people and often there is not even enough money to match the compensation larger companies can pay, meaning social skills have to cover the gap by making people feel happy about their role.
OK then, so explain how your pet theory checks drug companies releasing dangerous substances to public, concealing side effects and then cutting and running with the profit. How does your precious, entrepreneurial cooperation deal with this issue? So-called "socialists" have these things called federal agencies with qualified professionals and the power to enforce regulations for the public good. Is your deluded solution that the public just suffer the consequences, so that maybe someone will eventually
make the connection, and run the drug company out of business, after tens of thousands have suffered horrible deaths?
What is the private alternative? A private drug-testing agency would not be profitable, could be paid off, and would have no authoritative power. Funded federal agencies have taken many years to expose corporate fraud, and in the meantime, very rarely did private, super-social libertarians figure it out by themselves. By your theory, they should have.
Meanwhile socialists can only think in terms of rules that force people to do what is necessary; and they can never agree among themselves exactly what rules must be enforced. It is never 'here is what we can offer you, what can you offer' it is 'here are my rules which you must follow'. Any time a negotiation is not going there way, it is because it is 'unfair and exploititative'. They can survive in government beurecracies and large companies where they can exploit a mass of rules, are immune to being fired and continue to rack up a fat pension regardless of how many months of 'medical leave to deal with personal stress' they take. They cannot survive any environment where talented people can just walk away from their rules.
I'll assume that "we" here is the government, and "you" is the workers. Did you know that most socialists aren't politicians?