Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by talentedcoin » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

derbOac wrote: post #28

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…

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…

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.

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

#72

Post by P_I_Staker » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

ajb wrote: post #13

routerl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, on…

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.

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.

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

#73

Post by wnolens » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

derbOac wrote: post #28

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…

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…

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 ;)

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

#74

Post by macNchz » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

talentedcoin wrote: post #71

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

talentedcoin wrote: post #71

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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]

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

#76

Post by civilized » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

derbOac wrote: post #28

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…

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…

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.

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

#77

Post by xen2xen1 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

macNchz wrote: post #74

talentedcoin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

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

#78

Post by P_I_Staker » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #60

> 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…

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".

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

#79

Post by _a_a_a_ » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:34 PM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #68

derbOac wrote: post #28

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…

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…

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.

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

#80

Post by ajb » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 6:35 PM UTC

P_I_Staker wrote: post #72

ajb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.