51–60 of 131 posts
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 cour…
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…
Which circle you exist in, determines if that person is 'agreeable' or 'disagreeable'. The workplace is no different.
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…
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.
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…
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.
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 cour…
ICs?
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…
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.
For example, if someone prioritizes their interests before another's, are they a jerk? The distinction depends on whichever construct you've subscribed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 rewa…
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.
"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
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.
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.