14 ms·

Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)

112 points by davidgerard 4y ago

yarg 4y ago
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 4y ago
  [flagged]
woopwoop24 4y ago
i think as we get older, we get better at distancing ourselves and realizing that work is just work. But as the one always the most dissatisfied with what we do and how we do it and what is left out, i try to understand and give empathy than the easier solution which would be head through the wall :)
mustafabisic1 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Totally agreed. That's why it's nice to have studies like these
allears 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Tip: if anyone brings up "Minders, Finders, and Grinders"... than ponder which one they think you are... There is zero respect in some firms. =)
thenerdhead 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  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?
  - pixelrevision 4y ago
    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.
  - nullsense 4y ago
    >But if being agreeable means picking no battles, then what are you even doing? Usually other people's bidding
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
nullsense 4y ago
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 4y ago
> 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.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
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.
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
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 =)
ath3nd 4y ago
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.
kachurovskiy 4y ago
"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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
- enkid 4y ago
  Agreeable/disagreeableness is a term of art in psychology based on the "Big Five" personality traits.
- brushfoot 4y ago
  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 4y ago
azangru 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Their definition of disagreeable meaning "behaving in aggressive, selfish, and manipulative ways" also surprised me.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  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?
  - bt4u 4y ago
    [dead]
  - azangru 4y ago
    > 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 http://cachescan.bcub.ro/e-book/E1/580591/795-870.pdf
derbOac 4y ago
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.
- throwaway81523 4y ago
  > This is interesting because it counters the idea that someone has to be a jerk to get ahead. One can be a jerk without being disagreeable. Think of the classic smooth talking con artist.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I really would like to know what is "disagreeable" does it mean being mean to people in obvious ways a lot? In that case of course. But in my experience most people in corporate settings will stab you in the back when it suits them, blame things on you, take credit falsley,etc... all while smiling and being sociable. So you can have an agreeable personality and still be a shitty person based on how you actually behave.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  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.
curiousllama 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Could this be described as being skilled at picking your battles?
  - curiousllama 4y ago
    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.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    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.
TomMasz 4y ago
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 4y ago
  I had same experience. The people doing good act much differently based on who you are.
- _glass 4y ago
  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.
wutheringh 4y ago
Can confirm, told a prospective to sleep with me for the job. Not only did I not get promoted, I got fired. AMA
- shapefrog 4y ago
  You did it wrong, if you wanted a promotion you should have offered up not down
dasil003 4y ago
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 4y ago
  ICs?
  - natpalmer1776 4y ago
    Individual Contributors
bravetraveler 4y ago
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.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
> 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.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  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.
- P_I_Staker 4y ago
  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".
AcerbicZero 4y ago
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.
jotjotzzz 4y ago
They have an advantage in a toxic work environment. They basically become the head honcho of toxicity.

112 points by davidgerard 4y ago

yarg 4y ago

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 4y ago
[flagged]

woopwoop24 4y ago

i think as we get older, we get better at distancing ourselves and realizing that work is just work. But as the one always the most dissatisfied with what we do and how we do it and what is left out, i try to understand and give empathy than the easier solution which would be head through the wall :)

mustafabisic1 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Totally agreed. That's why it's nice to have studies like these

allears 4y ago

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 4y ago
Tip: if anyone brings up "Minders, Finders, and Grinders"... than ponder which one they think you are... There is zero respect in some firms. =)

thenerdhead 4y ago

> 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 4y ago
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?
- pixelrevision 4y ago
  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.
- nullsense 4y ago
  >But if being agreeable means picking no battles, then what are you even doing? Usually other people's bidding
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago

nullsense 4y ago

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 4y ago

> 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.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago

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.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

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 =)

ath3nd 4y ago

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.

kachurovskiy 4y ago

"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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
enkid 4y ago
Agreeable/disagreeableness is a term of art in psychology based on the "Big Five" personality traits.
brushfoot 4y ago
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 4y ago

azangru 4y ago

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 4y ago
Their definition of disagreeable meaning "behaving in aggressive, selfish, and manipulative ways" also surprised me.
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
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?
- bt4u 4y ago
  [dead]
- azangru 4y ago
  > 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 http://cachescan.bcub.ro/e-book/E1/580591/795-870.pdf

derbOac 4y ago

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.

throwaway81523 4y ago
> This is interesting because it counters the idea that someone has to be a jerk to get ahead. One can be a jerk without being disagreeable. Think of the classic smooth talking con artist.
_8j50 4y ago
I really would like to know what is "disagreeable" does it mean being mean to people in obvious ways a lot? In that case of course. But in my experience most people in corporate settings will stab you in the back when it suits them, blame things on you, take credit falsley,etc... all while smiling and being sociable. So you can have an agreeable personality and still be a shitty person based on how you actually behave.
jackmott42 4y ago
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.

curiousllama 4y ago

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 4y ago
Could this be described as being skilled at picking your battles?
- curiousllama 4y ago
  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.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  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.

TomMasz 4y ago

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 4y ago
I had same experience. The people doing good act much differently based on who you are.
_glass 4y ago
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.

wutheringh 4y ago

Can confirm, told a prospective to sleep with me for the job. Not only did I not get promoted, I got fired. AMA

shapefrog 4y ago
You did it wrong, if you wanted a promotion you should have offered up not down

dasil003 4y ago

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 4y ago
ICs?
- natpalmer1776 4y ago
  Individual Contributors

bravetraveler 4y ago

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.

AmericanChopper 4y ago

> 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.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
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.
P_I_Staker 4y ago
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".

AcerbicZero 4y ago

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.

jotjotzzz 4y ago

They have an advantage in a toxic work environment. They basically become the head honcho of toxicity.