[HN Gopher] Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage ...
___________________________________________________________________
Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at
work (2020)
Author : davidgerard
Score : 95 points
Date : 2023-01-01 21:25 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| leeroyjenkins11 wrote:
| Idk, it seems like agreeable people get into management faster,
| it just depends on the type. There are the agreeable people that
| do everything they can and go with the flow, but aren't visible
| because they don't stand out. Then there is agreeable that say
| things and do things to appear productive but really are faking
| competence. It's a little more cunning. Then they get into
| management where they don't need to be technically competent and
| their people pleasing pushes them higher, based on relying on
| others to do the work, or outright lying about the status of
| things. Disagreeable people can get to low management I think
| because if they stick around for years they're probably very
| competent and are willing to say the unpopular correct thing. But
| they stop rising because they don't play the game for the sake of
| playing the game. Unless they are adept at politicing. But the
| agreeable people seem to rise faster because they don't have
| friction. The problem is when they have issues delivering, but if
| there are things to blame besides themselves, it helps take the
| heat off them.
| dasil003 wrote:
| My gut instinct is that it will not be an advantage in any kind
| of knowledge work, because you need ICs to do deep work with
| enough agency to make the right local decisions. Even if you are
| very smart, dictating based on an abstract high-level vantage
| will quickly hit a wall.
|
| That said, I think historically disagreeable types had a bigger
| advantage because the world was simpler and a lot of times just
| having the courage of your convictions and appearing strong would
| be enough to rally people behind you. There's probably quite a
| bit of latent psychological tendencies in the populace that still
| allow that to work in some circumstances, but in the modern
| corporate world, especially tech, you'll get your lunch eaten if
| you can't get the best out of smart people.
| vaxintar wrote:
| ICs?
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| Individual Contributors
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| > If disagreeableness does not help individuals attain power, why
| do so many people believe that nice guys (and gals) finish last?
|
| Perhaps because jealous and petty people are naturally inclined
| to have contempt for anybody with a higher status than them. By
| hiding behind platitudes like that, they can conceal the immature
| motives of their contempt and instead claim a moral high ground
| as an excuse for their failures.
|
| That seems like the most obvious explanation to me at least.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| It's because they're exaggerating or intentionally choosing to
| believe a simple narrative. Lots of people find they have to
| make a few decisions that are upsetting, even damaging to
| others, in order to get ahead.
|
| Maybe when people see this, they assume that because a nice
| person would never do that, nice people can't get ahead. The
| truth is that the decision could be more complicated, with some
| people being helped, when others our damaged. It could be a
| straightforward decision that anybody in that position has to
| make.
|
| It's a lot easier to just look at the bad and say nice guys
| finish last or that leaders must be jerks. The truth is more
| nuanced and is more like: "Leaders sometimes have to make
| decision that hurts some people, and will almost always (save
| for maybe the best of times) be hated by some"
|
| > Perhaps because jealous and petty people are naturally
| inclined to have contempt for anybody with a higher status than
| them. By hiding behind platitudes like that, they can conceal
| the immature motives of their contempt
|
| I have to ask: Are you in management or an executive? This
| sounds like the version these people would tell themselves to
| sleep at night. "They just hate me because they're jealous"
|
| It's more that while management is important, many managers
| wind up being greedy and/or arrogant despite still being a
| small part of a big puzzle. They're privy to information that
| we aren't, get higher pay scales, and have an easier time
| protecting themselves and managing their careers, due to that
| position of privilege.
|
| They get raised to a higher class and it goes to their head.
| For some extreme examples you can see the fall from grace of a
| number of billionaires Musk, Zuckerberg... I'd even add Marc
| Cuban. What do these people really do that's so special? That's
| been called into question lately. I appreciate that they took
| big risks and won, but that doesn't pertain to ongoing
| projects; in fact, it seems to just give people god complexes.
|
| So it's more the entitlement, privilege, and how it goes to
| people's heads. Not "jealousy".
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I have to ask: Are you a nice guy who's struggling to get
| ahead?
|
| You seem to be suffering from the symptoms described in the
| sibling comment
|
| > All of our own flaws are minor, while other people's flaws
| are major.
|
| And of course it's jealousy, and not just for the elite
| either. Most people hate to see anybody succeed.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| It's also the case that most people finish last, regardless of
| whether nice or not. Organizational structures are a power
| pyramid by design.
|
| But yeah, most people see themselves as good, and synonymize
| that with nice. All of our own flaws are minor, while other
| people's flaws are major.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| > If disagreeableness does not help individuals attain power, why
| do so many people believe that nice guys (and gals) finish last?
| Given our studies focused on the attainment of power, does
| disagreeableness help people maintain power once they possess it?
|
| This study seems like common sense. Extroverted people who are
| agreeable climb the fastest.
|
| People confuse disagreeable with "asshole". Most assholes can be
| agreeable, just how they play the game is disagreeable. Political
| assholes take credit for others work and never take risk.
| Controlling assholes micromanage and suggest everything was their
| idea. Most disagreeable people hardly get promoted. It seems
| rather obvious that being liked tends to serve you well
| regardless of your expertise. Of course the Peter principle and
| Dilbert principle can kick in because of this.
| routerl wrote:
| Let's take it a step further: agreeable people don't care about
| good engineering. They can't, by definition.
|
| Standing up for an idea or principle makes one disagreeable. An
| engineer who is just "going with the flow" is not bringing any
| expertise to the table.
|
| To be clear, there are limits to how much and when one should
| stand-up for an idea or principle (i.e. pick your battles).
| Someone who fights _every_ battle is, once again, entering
| asshole territory. But if being agreeable means picking _no_
| battles, then what are you even doing?
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >Let's take it a step further: agreeable people don't care
| about good engineering. They can't, by definition.
|
| this sounds like another way of saying there is ever only one
| right way of doing something?
|
| If on the other hand you believe that engineering is about
| tradeoffs, then being agreeable might be a willingness to
| work out what tradeoffs to make.
| twelve40 wrote:
| exactly, seems like a big oversimplification. I'm
| "agreeable" at work, as in, let's see if you are correct
| about your way, and if not, we'll correct it based on the
| data. Rarely there is a predictable binary decision about
| how to build stuff, at least in software.
| bkirkby wrote:
| I use the "safe enough to try" test. If I can't convince
| my coworker or employee that my idea has better tradeoffs
| (using my 30+ years of experience), I'm humble enough to
| know that maybe I'm wrong. I then ask myself the question
| "is what they are proposing safe enough to try?" If the
| answer is yes, then they will do their work their way and
| we'll learn something. They will learn the old guy might
| know a thing or two or I'll learn that new things come
| along all the time.
|
| Either way, we are better off for it.
| ajb wrote:
| No, that's massively oversimplified. 'disagreeableness' is
| not literally about _how often you disagree_ , it's about
| _how_ you disagree. The OP defines it in the first sentence
| as 'behaving in aggressive, selfish, and manipulative ways'
| which is much more than simply disagreeing. It's quite
| possible to be an agreeable person, and still push through
| major changes.
| matwood wrote:
| Exactly. This is an entire paper around whether someone
| wants to be 'right or effective.' I may know the right
| answer and how to move forward, but if I'm an asshole about
| it (aggressive, manipulative and selfish), then I'm _less_
| likely to effect change.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| The point is that some engineers can be seen as
| "disagreeable" simply by being competent and unwilling to
| ignore problems and "go with the flow".
|
| I've seen this first hand. It's always smooth sailing
| politically to just go along with what the leader(s) say.
| ajb wrote:
| That can happen. I think it's often a symptom of other
| issues though, either with the org or with that engineers
| communication skills. An organisation needs to reach
| commitment on a course of action, and if you disagree at
| the right points it isn't seen as being disagreeable
| (either before stakeholders have become too invested, or
| after they have but when it has become clear that the
| living with the issues is too painful). The problem is
| that some orgs either don't seek feedback widely enough,
| or are not flexible enough to avoid committment until
| sufficient experts have had a say. Especially if that org
| is one that culturally doesn't value engineers.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > some engineers can be seen as "disagreeable"
|
| Which is why the study didn't ask "is this person
| disagreeable" of laypeople who happen to be their
| coworkers, but used psychological tests designed to
| measure the psychological version of the term over 14
| years.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| "It's quite possible to be an agreeable person, and still
| push through major changes."
|
| Mr. Rogers speaking to Congress.
| pixelrevision wrote:
| Some of the best engineers I've ever worked were just "going
| with the flow". They certainly brought tons to the table.
| Some people are just quiet and don't like conflict. If you
| ask them what they think plus give them a calm environment,
| time and support you can find yourself looking at some very
| elegant easy to maintain systems.
| version_five wrote:
| I agree (ha!)
|
| If you make everybody happy, you're a politician and you're
| not being effective in your role. With the caveat that many
| people don't fully understand their role within an
| organization. A given person is more likely to have been
| hired to go with the flow than to provide, say, technical
| rigor or sanity checks.
| nullsense wrote:
| >But if being agreeable means picking no battles, then what
| are you even doing?
|
| Usually other people's bidding
| enkid wrote:
| Extraversion is completely separate from agreeableness in
| psychology. They are independent personality traits based on
| the Big Five model (which is the most scientifically supported
| model).
| derbOac wrote:
| This is interesting because it counters the idea that someone has
| to be a jerk to get ahead. However I'm also not sure the study
| really examined the idea too well, and ended up feeling like it's
| the sort of thing that could be misinterpreted and overleveraged.
|
| In my personal experience (which is limited) there's a certain
| constellation of organizational characteristics that leads to
| disagreeable individuals attaining power, and organizational
| "combativeness" isn't really it. I think "corruption" is closer,
| and good luck measuring that with a self report survey.
|
| Then again, maybe the relevant issue isn't whether or not people
| who are jerks are more likely to attain power, it's than once
| they're there they're more likely to cause problems, and they're
| not _less likely_ to attain power. So then them being in power is
| salient.
|
| But then I think you have to ask, why aren't they less likely to
| attain power? Is this a case where a zero correlation is actually
| masking some mixture of processes, one positive in direction and
| the other negative? If so you'd think that certain settings would
| inhibit one or the other of those processes.
|
| I guess I feel like this is a case where studying normative
| organizational dynamics in a cursory way could end up being
| really misleading.
| pfisherman wrote:
| I kind of disagree with this. Biased sample, but ime the type
| of powerful / influential people who run large prestigious
| organizations are almost all extremely charismatic and
| diplomatic. Very agreeable - without necessarily agreeing to
| anything :)
|
| Note that I did not say morally / ethically prudent, self
| actualized, or not prone to being a shithead at times. Just
| that they tend not to be disagreeable.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| We're not jerks. We're people who notice problems. You're
| shooting the messenger.
|
| Every problem that tech has comes from treating disagreeable
| people as pariahs. Organizational bloat and tech debt are still
| issues even when we're not there. Avoid hiring disagreeable
| people and you'll arrive at the stereotypical tech org that
| can't get anything done. If you don't have disagreeable people
| to solve your issues, you have to use the other tool: Layoffs.
|
| Discriminating against people because they're disagreeable is
| _insane_. It 's a Big Five personality trait. You hate _half of
| humanity_. Evolution produced the best problem-solving thing
| ever, humanity, and you decided a lot of the work done there
| was just pointless.
|
| The real reason disagreeable people are valuable and can attain
| power in the workplace is because you've made it so with this
| completely unreasonable bias you have. They're not supposed to
| be extremely rare! That only happens in the tech workplace.
|
| Would you similarly discriminate against anxious people? What
| about people who aren't open to new experiences? Do you shut
| them out too? How does your ideology square with black people
| being _way_ more disagreeable on average? Let me guess: You don
| 't hire any and then mumble something about culture fit.
|
| Working with disagreeable people doesn't suck. Working sucks.
| The disagreeable people just point it out. How do you ever
| improve without that? Working at an all-agreeable-people tech
| firm is a Kafkaesque nightmare of everything being perfect and
| nothing getting done. And you all deserve it because you
| decided that when people tend to be one way or the other, the
| ones who are like you are _just better_.
| nautilius wrote:
| > We're not jerks. We're people who notice problems. You're
| shooting the messenger.
|
| The definition is literally in the title: "disagreeable
| personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative)".
|
| So, yes, by definition, disagreeable people are jerks. If
| that's you, then you, too, are a jerk.
|
| That is completely orthogonal to "people who notice
| problems". If someone thinks that it's necessary to be
| "selfish, combative, and manipulative" in order to notice a
| problem, then that person is not only a jerk, but also
| deluding themselves that they're just misunderstood.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| I was talking about this in a Big Five sense, but yeah. I
| agree with you. If you're not at work to be selfish,
| combative and manipulative, you are not at work. What do
| you even do all day? Why are we here? A workplace full of
| people who don't need the paycheck isn't a workplace.
| People who aren't fighting for something don't care. People
| who aren't manipulating don't care about the future.
|
| Ideas that aren't challenged suck. The same is true for
| people, at the individual and organizational level. I don't
| think believing this makes me a jerk.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Disagreeableness is a relatively stable aspect of
| personality that involves the tendency to behave in
| quarrelsome, cold, callous, and selfish ways (1). ... For
| example, disagreeable people tend to be hostile and abusive
| to others (2), deceive and manipulate others for their own
| gain (3), and ignore others' concerns or welfare (4)._ "
|
| Your comments such as "...as pariahs", "if you don't have
| disagreeable people to solve your issues, you have to use the
| other tool: Layoffs", "insane", and "hate" are exactly the
| sort of quarrelsome, manipulative statements that make
| working with someone 'disagreeable' so difficult. You aren't
| noticing problems; you're not pointing them out. What you are
| doing is demanding everyone else adapt to you, and you are
| using twisted emotional, disingenuous language to do it.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| My argument is that disagreeable people aren't inherently
| bad. Your argument is that I'm disagreeable so I'm
| inherently bad. I get it. You don't like disagreeable
| people. We can just agree to disagree here. I'm not asking
| anything of you.
|
| If were to make demands, it'd be in the form of helpful
| emotional advice: Hire so that at least 1 out of 6 people
| at your company are disagreeable. Don't ever allow
| agreeability silos, especially not around top executives.
| Never let a disagreeable person serve in a leadership role
| unless they have at least one disagreeable person working
| as a direct report.
| encloser wrote:
| The article describes disagreeable people as "selfish,
| combative, and manipulative." And "Does being disagreeable-
| that is, behaving in aggressive, selfish, and manipulative
| ways-help people attain power?"
|
| Which, to me, sounds very different from voicing concerns or
| identifying problems.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Having a good giggle at this. Joke, right?
|
| > Working with disagreeable people doesn't suck
|
| W00t! By definition it does.
|
| > The disagreeable people just point it out
|
| Ah, perhaps you mean disagree-ing people. That would make
| some sense at least.
| civilized wrote:
| As a self-IDed somewhat "disagreeable" person, I have mixed
| feelings about this. I think you're absolutely right that
| people who notice and articulate problems can come to be
| viewed negatively, and it places a double burden on them to
| notice the problem and then come up with the perfect way of
| articulating it that can't possibly hurt anyone's feelings.
| And if no one is willing or able to assume that burden, and
| there isn't a tolerance for some negativity in the workplace,
| it leads to exactly the thing you mention, a place where
| "everything is perfect and nothing gets done".
|
| On the other hand, I do think it's possible to assume this
| double burden, and the people who do it well can become the
| most valued people in an organization. Consider taking it as
| yet another problem that you can work on!
|
| The hidden superpower of the "neurotic" and "disagreeable" is
| being sensitive to how things are not great, which helps give
| rise to the drive to improve. And that drive can and should
| be applied to our sometimes socially suboptimal ways of
| expressing ourselves. An "opportunity to improve" can be a
| lot more popular than a "way things suck", depending on who
| you're working with.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Great insights. Curious about your result on my personality
| test: https://eristicstest.com/
|
| Disagreeable people often have an over-the-top people-
| pleaser side because they're _bad at agreeability_. For
| them it 's usually a choice of being a doormat or a jerk.
|
| When people are bad at agreeability in this way, but still
| agreeable, nobody is in a rush to correct them. Nobody
| threatens to quit over the doormat. But it's the exact same
| personality flaw, just expressed differently in Big Five
| terms.
| civilized wrote:
| I got The Fixer. Very interesting test. I'm kind of
| impressed/mystified at how it got so much information
| about me from those questions. Like Myers-Briggs but
| seemingly both more ambitious theoretically and using
| fewer questions. I wonder how it would fare under
| psychometric validation (as I understand MBTI doesn't
| fare well despite being so popular and so many people
| including me finding insight there).
|
| Re: agreeability, it seems like you're speaking of it as
| a skill more than just a personality variable. I see the
| skill of being prosocial and the personality trait of
| agreeability as separate. I see myself as a high-
| functioning disagreeable person, where I see things more
| negatively than average and have more conflictual
| feelings than average, but usually manage to turn it all
| into something effective and prosocial when working with
| other people.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Thanks! Yeah the test is super creepy. You can email me
| if you have questions (see profile).
|
| The "disgust" in your result (I have one too) is what's
| rare in tech and mostly what I'm talking about here. The
| Fixer is holding the entire industry together, from where
| I'm sitting, and the only archetype I ever 'click' with
| (I'm fear/disgust/pride, so we both have that instant
| inner critical voice). They are really good at the
| disgust -> prosocial process you mention. My archetype
| is... way worse at that.
|
| Re: Skill. Yeah it's both, agreed. A role for virtue too.
| unsui wrote:
| > You hate half of humanity
|
| This reeks of all-or-nothing thinking, which itself reeks of
| deep insecurity (a very likely root condition of being
| disagreeable).
|
| It's one thing to have differing thoughts and opinions. It's
| another thing to be "disagreeable", which is the personality
| trait of being difficult to work with, often for the sake of
| being contrarian or having an ego trip (i.e, proving that you
| are right to showcase your power and value relative to
| others).
|
| As others have stated, disagreeing is orthogonal to being
| disagreeable. One can disagree via constructive dialogue and
| open communication; however, taking disagreeableness as an
| identifying personality trait (and moreover, holding it as
| valuable in-and-of-itself) is a slippery slope to the
| creation of toxic working relationships.
| Name_Chawps wrote:
| > It's one thing to have differing thoughts and opinions.
| It's another thing to be "disagreeable", which is the
| personality trait of being difficult to work with, often
| for the sake of being contrarian or having an ego trip
| (i.e, proving that you are right to showcase your power and
| value relative to others).
|
| You have the psychology wrong. That's not what the term
| disagreeable means in personality psychology.
| wnolens wrote:
| As a somewhat disagreeable person, I have to agree.
|
| So much of my time spent at work is in a state of frustration
| at processes and people. I think it's my job to be vocal
| about what I see, either to improve the situation, or correct
| my perspective (i.e. learn!).
|
| However.. I have to sanitize my language and use the most
| gross of corporate speak. I often sleep on it before sending
| a contentious email. I'm still the team asshole, but an old
| boss said every team needs one ;)
| mcguire wrote:
| Once upon a time, I worked with a particular person. At one
| point we were evaluating version control alternatives and
| he looked at one. He said it was great, but would never
| respond when anyone asked, "How do you do X, Y, or Z?"
| Eventually we picked one of the others (partially because
| he would never tell us why his was better), but he refused
| to accept that, resulting in the team lead having to
| develop a script to exchange changes between the system he
| used and the one everyone else used. He's also the guy who
| kept commenting out "-Wall" from our C++ Makefile with
| comments like "Nobody has time for that." (Though
| apparently, I had time to fire up Valgrind and track down
| all the memory issues, most of which would have been caught
| by compiler warnings.) He also considered "Maybe I'll just
| throw myself under a bus" to be a valid technical point
| during a discussion.
|
| I began my career at IBM, where the loudest, most
| aggressive person got to be in charge. I have _a lot_ of
| experience working _around_ disagreeable co-workers---
| usually by doing things their way, whether or not it is
| best for the project---because there 's no other way to get
| anything done. But then, I don't consider constant bike-
| shedding arguments as getting things done.
|
| Fortunately, I don't have to do that any more. I've quit
| jobs because I couldn't stand spending more of my time
| keeping a disagreeable person happy (well, not happy;
| they're never going to be happy) than getting my actual
| work done. (Oh, that co-worker from the first paragraph? A
| few years later he sent me an email asking if I would be a
| reference. I said no.)
| HWR_14 wrote:
| You don't quite get the Big Five personality trait. It's
| poorly labelled, I'll grant. But "disagreeable (big five
| sense)" and "disagreeing with people" have no correlation I
| am aware of. I am also not aware of any studies showing that
| disagreeable people are more likely to voice their
| disagreements in a group setting.
|
| > Would you similarly discriminate against anxious people?
|
| As a bomb-disposal tech? Yes. As a cashier? No. Similarly,
| would I discriminate against a disagreeable person as a
| manager? Yes. As a solitary programmer? No.
| mcguire wrote:
| A solitary programmer, as in someone who never has to
| interface with another person?
| kyleyeats wrote:
| You're crazy not to take the anxious bomb-disposal guys.
| talentedcoin wrote:
| Strong disagree. It is possible to disagree without being
| disagreeable, and I personally find it frustrating when
| people excuse their behaviour in the manner you are doing.
| Yes work sucks, but being unpleasant, cynical and snarky just
| makes it even worse. Roll up your sleeves and help or please
| get out of the way.
| [deleted]
| kyleyeats wrote:
| No, it's not possible, if you're disagreeable. Being
| disagreeable is a matter of personality, not a matter of
| personal choice. It would be like me disagreeing while not
| being tall. I can't do it because I am tall all the time.
|
| Obviously disagreeable can agree or disagree, and they can
| do either well or badly (I happen to be very good at both,
| thanks). It doesn't change who they are while doing it.
| Just like someone who isn't open to new experiences doesn't
| experience a personality change while trying a new
| restaurant.
|
| Disagreeable people do, as a group, have more unpleasant,
| cynical and snarky people. But that doesn't mean that all
| people in that group are that way. It's not fair for you to
| assign me these qualities and then argue against them when
| I'm talking about disagreeable people at large. Again, it's
| half the population so there's a wide spectrum of outcomes.
| Name_Chawps wrote:
| This study, and the person you're replying to, are using
| the term disagreeable in the Big Five psychology sense.
| They don't mean unpleasant, cynical, or snarky. Sometimes
| disagreeable people are snarky, but they don't have to be.
|
| You do, actually, have to be disagreeable to disagree.
| Agreeable people don't like to cause a fuss and just go
| along with stuff even if they disagree internally.
| Disagreeable people are the people who tend to disagree.
| That's all it means. Some of them are snarky assholes (you
| right now?), and others are just people who disagree.
|
| "Disagreeable" in common parlance means difficult, overly-
| critical, and aggressive, but that's not what 's being said
| here.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The study defines "disagreeable" as "selfish, combative
| and manipulative". I don't think the point is as fine as
| you think.
|
| It's not about "passive" vs "assertive" like you claim.
| Both of those can be agreeable!
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Great point, thanks for making it. It's maybe this very
| conflation that I have the real problem with.
| macNchz wrote:
| Absolutely, organizations need someone who will stand up
| and ensure important things are dealt with, but doing so
| _does not require being unpleasant_. This is something I've
| actively tried to cultivate in myself, and have been happy
| to receive feedback both that I am "not at all a yes-man"
| and am "someone who has a calming presence" by coworkers.
|
| I think that being the unpleasant version of "not a yes-
| man" just means that people will try to find ways around
| you.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I'm known as the nice friend who will tell you hard
| things. I'm a nice guy who knows how to be a dick when I
| have to be. I actively work on both being "softer" as I
| probably have gone a bit too direct, and being more
| assertive as I can be too easy going. I usually like the
| balance I've struck, and often have people thank me after
| I tell them hard, serious stuff. I wish more people could
| do that, know so many jerks. Being assertive does NOT
| mean you have to be ass.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| How would you do it the other way? If you started off as
| disagreeable and had to learn agreeability? Do you think
| you could do that without ever being an ass? Do you think
| it's fair that you got a chance to develop towards a
| happy middle but someone working from the other end would
| never get that chance?
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I have trouble believing someone could never end up
| starting as an ass, and end up been agreeable. I've known
| too many people who have moderated over the course of
| their lives. However, everyone who even tries to stand up
| to anyone else risks being an ass, so everyone with a
| backbone probably will be at some point.
| shapefrog wrote:
| Reverting to the school playgorund, everyone in the dominant
| group are nice to each other, they are horrible to those
| outside the powerful dominant group.
|
| Which circle you exist in, determines if that person is
| 'agreeable' or 'disagreeable'. The workplace is no different.
| nipponese wrote:
| Steve Jobs was agreeable, as long as you agreed with him. /s
|
| Seriously tho, there seems to be a difference between people
| who are trying to sell you/force their POV and straight up
| contrarians who will always take an adversarial position for
| kicks.
|
| The former _can_, at least be productive, the latter is just a
| roadblock.
| bena wrote:
| I think people have gotten things conflated.
|
| You don't have to be a jerk to get ahead. And being a jerk
| won't get you ahead. What you need is to not care if you look
| like a jerk.
|
| Sometimes you'll feel you're right so strongly that you'll just
| not care if people disagree with you. And when you will not
| budge on an item at all, people are going to think of you as a
| bit of a jerk.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| The conflation was mostly my fault. I read "disagreeable
| personalities" and my head went to the Big Five.
|
| IMO a better way to think of it is that _someone_ needs to be
| a jerk to get ahead. The three things we 're accusing people
| of in this topic (being selfish, combative, and manipulative)
| are the three things that all companies do all the time. We
| want to launder that, I think.
| shanebellone wrote:
| I believe some with power are jerks. I do not believe being a
| jerk increases efficacy. If anything, they share qualities.
|
| For example, if someone prioritizes their interests before
| another's, are they a jerk? The distinction depends on
| whichever construct you've subscribed to.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| The most powerful people seem to do shady and aggressive things
| but always keep a professional and calm composure on the
| outside, no matter what. (Think of politicians who have
| remained in power for a long time)
|
| As maybe an interesting business example, Elon has begun to
| shed the calm outward composure more and more over the last 5
| years and has lost more wealth than anyone in history at the
| same time. Maybe that is coincidental but one wonders.
| serverholic wrote:
| Yes. People at the top have a natural affinity for power.
| They intuitively understand power, they feel it, and they
| don't feel any shame about seeking and wielding power.
|
| These are the type of people we've chosen to reward in
| society and unfortunately most people have drunk the kool-aid
| and have been convinced that these people deserve to be
| rewarded. And even further, they think society can't function
| unless we reward these people!
| kleer001 wrote:
| > we've chosen to reward in society
|
| It's not a conscious choice. And it's not a choice with
| even odds against the alternative. It's choice with more
| benefits than deficits.
|
| Historically (back to the very beginning of us as social
| animals) these are the type of people that quickly and
| surely make high risk and high reward decisions. And those
| are the types of decisions that determine life or death,
| feast or famine, in the wild.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This sounds like the evolutionary psychology equivalent
| of a backronym. Is there any evidence for this other
| than, "It makes sense if you think about it," or is it
| speculation?
| svnt wrote:
| All ev psych, even the most accurate stuff, runs the risk
| of being a backronym sooner or later because it attempts
| to canalize future possibility based on biological
| history. It tends to contain some teleology in the
| implicit assumption that humans today are peak human and
| that all evolution is biological.
|
| However, that said, it is very difficult in my experience
| to make correct decisions for a large organization if you
| prioritize personal relationships. Often, we define that
| behavior as corruption.
| [deleted]
| kleer001 wrote:
| I like the big five, but HEXACO has that edge to ferret
| out corruption.
| kleer001 wrote:
| Ev psych? Certainly. But as a second order effect.
|
| I was thinking game theory, from the prisoners dilemma
| complex as a first principal.
|
| And the whole thing as a cocktail napkin guess. I'm not a
| scientist nor do I have decades and millions of human
| monies to run proper tests.
|
| I was trying to give a little wide grounding to the "we
| choose" token which sounded to me like the difference
| between choosing pants for the day or a type of beer.
| It's not arbitrary, low cost, novel, or small scale.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| In the wild, is "high risk, high reward" really the
| decision you want to make?
| wizofaus wrote:
| If there's a dearth of low-risk options (which
| undoubtedly has been true at many points in our
| evolutionary history) then I'd say "yes".
| shitpostbot wrote:
| [dead]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Different workplaces will punish or reward these personalities
| in very different ways.
|
| In my experience, if a company rewards disagreeable people who
| use shady tactics, politics, and power plays by giving them
| more power, it's not going to be a good place to work.
|
| On the other hand, a culture that legitimately rewards people
| who play well together and reduces the influence of people who
| use politics and other games, there's a good chance it's going
| to be a good place to stay for many years.
|
| I suspect a lot of people start their careers in the first type
| of company (rewards bad behavior) and assume it's totally
| normally. It's the only environment they know, so they assume
| all workplaces operate by the same rules. When you think all
| workplaces are equally bad, you start losing motivation to find
| a better culture at a different company. You might also start
| imitating some of the bad behavior that seems to be working out
| for other people. In a way, disagreeableness and office
| politics are contagious.
|
| My advice to anyone who thinks that it's normal for companies
| to reward the "bad" employees at the expense of the "good"
| employees is that you might be at a company with backwards
| priorities. Consider prioritizing good peer references in your
| next job search to find a company that is better at these
| things. No workplace is perfect, but you don't want to work at
| a company that is consistently bad at reward alignment.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Sociopathy is the way to attaining power in organizations.
| "Disagreeable personality" doesn't allow for much manipulation.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Counterargument: There are a lot of nice people that end up in
| early graves, as they often forgo taking care of their own needs
| in life due to a misplaced sense of obligation.
|
| Corollary: if the Good do tend to die younger, than they cannot
| rise to positions of power.
|
| Happy 2023 =)
| allears wrote:
| Unless they're your boss. They may be too obnoxious to rise any
| higher, but they'll still make your days extremely unpleasant.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Tip: if anyone brings up "Minders, Finders, and Grinders"...
| than ponder which one they think you are... There is zero
| respect in some firms. =)
| ath3nd wrote:
| There are different degrees of power and influence.
|
| I've found that people who are disagreeable to management indeed
| might have trouble getting promoted and climb the corporate
| ladder, but at the same time they might be tremendously
| influential among their peers.
|
| This is also a common effect that can be observed in anti-
| establishment/opposition structures, both in work-related (e.g
| leaders of trade unions) and political manners (e.g opposition
| parties). The leaders of said organizations can often be hugely
| influential within, but at the same considered highly
| disagreeable/assholes by the people on the other side.
|
| > Let's take it a step further: agreeable people don't care about
| good engineering. They can't, by definition.
|
| This! However, that generally leads to disagreeable engineers
| being very popular with their peers, and not so popular with
| management, unless the company is inherently engineer/dev
| focused.
| curiousllama wrote:
| The key point here is buried:
|
| > [Disagreeable people] engaged in more dominant-aggressive
| behavior, which positively predicted attaining higher power, but
| also engaged in less communal and generous behavior, which
| predicted attaining less power
|
| The one thing I've observed disproportionately among sr execs:
| they're charismatic & collaborative right up until your interests
| diverge - and then they're ruthless. Some disagreeable
| personality traits _are_ actually important - they're just
| insufficient.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Could this be described as being skilled at picking your
| battles?
| shapefrog wrote:
| Seeing the office as a warzone which will, if you knife
| enough enemies (in the front or back - it doesnt matter),
| eventually be conquered in your favour and the spoils going
| to the you the victor ... is the real skill.
| curiousllama wrote:
| That's a related skill, but not the same thing. It's more
| that once they think "this is a battle," they win. They may
| just dominate in the meeting if they need to, but they also
| might just shmooze with your skip-level manager.
|
| Think of Tom Brady - he's a charismatic guy, but if you're on
| his team and slack off, he'll get you cut without a second
| thought.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| There does seem to be a change in the way decisions are being
| "managed" at least from my perspective; I'm not sure how much of
| it is related to work from home, and how much is hangover from
| the "we're all in this together" COVID response, or from some
| other direction - but I seem to be experiencing meetings that
| start and end with "lets just do this thing" and almost never
| touch the subject of "why are we doing this thing" anymore.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| I have to get disagreeable at times -- not to 'achieve power',
| but to protect the things over which I _already_ have power.
|
| In organizations of sufficient size, if you run something
| important enough, everyone will have input - at the worst times.
|
| No, I won't fundamentally change the design on a whim because of
| something you noticed.
|
| I'll discuss it and work with you towards it, but I will not be
| strong-armed.
|
| This has gone as far as me outright refusing to do things that
| reached executives -- being able to prevent them, because I/my
| team own the keys.
| kachurovskiy wrote:
| "being disagreeable-that is, behaving in aggressive, selfish, and
| manipulative ways" - am I the only one finding this definition
| incorrect? I think a disagreeable person is one not willing to
| accept an opinion they find incorrect. None of the attributes
| they listed seem relevant :) Or maybe I'm just being disagreeable
| twelve40 wrote:
| I think aggressive or maybe excessive is a part of that. When
| you're not willing to accept an opinion and just give up, it's
| one thing. If you put up a huge fight every single time, it's
| more of a problem.
| mannykannot wrote:
| I agree - this is how it is generally used, and usage
| determines the meaning of words. You cannot, in general,
| deduce the precise meaning of words from first principles or
| the dictionary definitions of related words.
|
| 'Opinionated' is a related word which does not mean exactly
| what it might seem from 'opinion'.
|
| In academia, there is plenty of disagreement, mostly handled
| without being disagreeable.
| brushfoot wrote:
| Agreeableness/disagreeableness have specific meanings in
| personality psychology.
|
| Agreeableness in the five-factor model (Big Five) doesn't
| necessarily mean being overly compliant; it can also mean being
| trustful or altruistic (trust and altruism being two facets of
| agreeableness).
|
| The study uses five-factor terminology with participants
| completing the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and some also
| completing the NEO-PI-R, so those are the definitions to keep
| in mind here.
| mjburgess wrote:
| And according to their source on the term,
| https://personality-
| project.org/revelle/syllabi/classreading... , this isnt the
| definition.
|
| On page 113 we find the following most associated with low-
| aggreableness:
|
| > Fault-finding, cold, unfriendly, quarrelsome
|
| And with high-aggre,
|
| > Sympathetic, Kind, appreciative, affectionate
|
| Now I do not read either as having to do with the picture of
| "selfish, combative, and manipulative".
|
| I find the agreeable kind of manipulativeness, ie., the
| "Jerry-kind" (from Rick & Morty) just as egregious as the
| "Rick-kind".
|
| What might equally be said of this study is that "agreeable
| methods of manipulation" are as effective as "disagreeable
| ones" _in aggregate_.
| b3morales wrote:
| That is extremely interesting. I had no idea that the Big
| Five had been formulated based originally on linguistic
| analysis (specifically of English). It's a brilliant
| direction to research. But it also accounts for the pretty
| obvious bias in the terminology.
| prettyStandard wrote:
| "How quickly you are to agree or disagree" has been my
| interpretation of the big five definition.
|
| You have to average it over self-assessments and also the
| assessment of all your friends, family, and coworkers.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Agreed 100%
| enkid wrote:
| Agreeable/disagreeableness is a term of art in psychology based
| on the "Big Five" personality traits.
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| Interesting. It's counter-intuitive. I feel like those are the
| kind of people that need to have the least amount of talent to
| rise to the top.
|
| And even that doesn't help them?
|
| I'm glad it's like that, it's just a bit off for me a bit.
| ender341341 wrote:
| I think it might be an instance of you tend to really remember
| the exceptions so they stand out, and also in some cases if
| they root themselves in enough you tend to also end up with an
| org of that personality so it can be all you see.
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| Totally agreed. That's why it's nice to have studies like
| these
| jotjotzzz wrote:
| They have an advantage in a toxic work environment. They
| basically become the head honcho of toxicity.
| TomMasz wrote:
| Many of the disagreeable personalities I dealt with over the
| years were that way to co-workers and direct reports. They were
| completely different when dealing with their superiors. They did
| well because of that, even when employee opinion surveys (if they
| were managers) were factored in.
| watwut wrote:
| I had same experience. The people doing good act much
| differently based on who you are.
| _glass wrote:
| That is also a big flaw in the study. Personality is very much
| dependent on context. So they measured disagreeability (1) as
| part of their extra-credit course work, and (2) as a follow-up.
| To really get into the work environment, either one has to do
| ethnographic field work, or make assumptions about
| disagreeability based on other factors.
| azangru wrote:
| As a layman, possibly under the distant influence of Jordan
| Peterson, I thought "disagreeable" meant strong-willed,
| principled, uncompromising (on what one considers important),
| direct, etc., i.e. what the article probably designates as
| "combative"; and was surprised to see "selfish", "manipulative",
| and "deceitful" also lumped into this category. These seem to be
| so different personality traits...
| jansan wrote:
| Their definition of disagreeable meaning "behaving in
| aggressive, selfish, and manipulative ways" also surprised me.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| I guess Jordan Peterson, which I consider a master of nonsense,
| has to go through the dictionary again. The Oxford Languages
| definition of disagreeable is:
|
| - upleasant or unenjoyable
|
| - unfriendly and bad tempered
|
| At least the first definition fits well with Jordan I believe.
| Maybe this is his guilty conscience trying to give meaning to
| the fact that he is fundamentally disagreeable?
| azangru wrote:
| > The Oxford Languages definition of disagreeable is:
|
| General-purpose Oxford dictionaries are not the appropriate
| reference for a term from clinical psychology. Jordan uses
| the term "agreeableness", and, as its derivatives, adjectives
| "agreeable" and "disagreeable". If you consult psychology
| texts, e.g. Handbook of Personality Psychology [0], you will
| notice that what has been understood by it has varied: some
| interpreted it as conformity or compliance (which is more in
| line with the impression I got from Peterson), whereas others
| interpreted it as likeability or pleasantness, which is more
| in line with the title of the paper.
|
| [0] - Its chapter on agreeableness is, luckily, available
| online at
| http://cachescan.bcub.ro/e-book/E1/580591/795-870.pdf
| bt4u wrote:
| [dead]
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| [dead]
| solumunus wrote:
| > possibly under the distant influence of Jordan Peterson
|
| Here's where you're going wrong.
| azangru wrote:
| He taught clinical psychology at a university; whatever his
| shortcomings, he should have a grasp on the fundamentals.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Odd question. Why is this person creating such a strong
| reaction in some? Unless I am mistaking him for someone else,
| he struck me as an educated version Joel Osteen ( with oddly
| similar outlook on life ). I watched some of his videos and
| found little beyond somewhat generic 'good things come if you
| work for them' prosperity gospel equivalent.
| brushfoot wrote:
| In personality psychology, factors like agreeableness are
| umbrellas over often very different subfactors called facets.
|
| Facets of agreeableness include altruism and compliance, which
| are two very different things. Someone may be altruistic while
| also breaking the rules. Someone else may be compliant but
| stingy. But both could score high in agreeableness.
| nullsense wrote:
| If you're disagreeable, extraverted and intelligent, that's
| usually a recipe for naturally rising up the pecking order in
| engineering organizations at least.
| trabant00 wrote:
| > They engaged in more dominant-aggressive behavior, which
| positively predicted attaining higher power, but also engaged in
| less communal and generous behavior, which predicted attaining
| less power.
|
| So it's openly disagreeable personalities who have the
| disadvantage. I would think that successful manipulative (trait
| the study assigns to disagreeable) persons would engage in
| "communal and generous behavior" as tactic and generally hide
| their disagreeableness.
| wutheringh wrote:
| Can confirm, told a prospective to sleep with me for the job.
|
| Not only did I not get promoted, I got fired. AMA
| shapefrog wrote:
| You did it wrong, if you wanted a promotion you should have
| offered up not down
| yarg wrote:
| Selfish, combative, and manipulative - are you confusing us with
| sociopaths?
|
| I don't see disagreeable people as more selfish, just less
| willing to compromise on what they think are bad ideas.
|
| Combative? Not quite, we're talking disagreeability, not
| aggressiveness (a better word would just be disagreeable, but
| then you'd have no need to call us selfish and manipulative).
|
| Manipulative? Go fuck yourself. Why would I try to trick you into
| doing what I want, when I can tell you that you're wrong and
| ignore you instead?
| beyond_based wrote:
| [flagged]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-03 23:01 UTC)