They have an advantage in a toxic work environment. They basically become the head honcho of toxicity.
Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
81–90 of 131 posts
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#82This 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…
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#83This 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…
> 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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#84> 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, w…
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#85Earlier 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.
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#86This 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…
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#87Earlier 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…
> 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 sho…
> 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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 manipulat…
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#89Earlier 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.
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.
Re: Disagreeable personalities do not have an advantage in power at work (2020)
#90As 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...
> possibly under the distant influence of Jordan Peterson Here's where you're going wrong.
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.