4 ms·

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 fir

by ajb 4y ago

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.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
"It's quite possible to be an agreeable person, and still push through major changes." Mr. Rogers speaking to Congress.
matwood 4y ago
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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
  > 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.

by ajb 4y ago

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

"It's quite possible to be an agreeable person, and still push through major changes." Mr. Rogers speaking to Congress.

matwood 4y ago

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 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
> 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.