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)

#91

Post by kyleyeats » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

xen2xen1 wrote: post #77

macNchz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. B…

How would you do it the other way? If you started off as disagreeable and had to learn agreeability? Do you think you could do that without ever being an ass? Do you think it's fair that you got a chance to develop towards a happy middle but someone working from the other end would never get that chance?

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

#92

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

Name_Chawps wrote: post #85

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.

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…

The study defines "disagreeable" as "selfish, combative and manipulative". I don't think the point is as fine as you think.

It's not about "passive" vs "assertive" like you claim. Both of those can be agreeable!

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

#93

Post by shitpostbot » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

kleer001 wrote: post #57

serverholic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> we’ve chosen to reward in society 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…

[dead]

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

#94

Post by kyleyeats » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

Name_Chawps wrote: post #85

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.

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…

Great point, thanks for making it. It's maybe this very conflation that I have the real problem with.

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

#95

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:40 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…

You don't quite get the Big Five personality trait. It's poorly labelled, I'll grant. But "disagreeable (big five sense)" and "disagreeing with people" have no correlation I am aware of. I am also not aware of any studies showing that disagreeable people are more likely to voice their disagreements in a group setting.

> Would you similarly discriminate against anxious people?

As a bomb-disposal tech? Yes. As a cashier? No. Similarly, would I discriminate against a disagreeable person as a manager? Yes. As a solitary programmer? No.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

svnt wrote: post #67

kelseyfrog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like the evolutionary psychology equivalent of a backronym. Is there any evidence for this other than, "It makes sense if you think about it," or is it speculation?

All ev psych, even the most accurate stuff, runs the risk of being a backronym sooner or later because it attempts to canalize future possibility based on biological history. It tends to contain some teleology in the implicit assumption that humans today are peak human and that all evolution is biological. However, that said, it is very difficult in my experience to make correct decisions for a large organization if…

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:48 PM UTC

kleer001 wrote: post #57

serverholic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> we’ve chosen to reward in society 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…

In the wild, is "high risk, high reward" really the decision you want to make?

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

#98

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 7:52 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.

> 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.

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

#99

Post by nautilius » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 8:04 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…

> We're not jerks. We're people who notice problems. You're shooting the messenger.

The definition is literally in the title: "disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative)".

So, yes, by definition, disagreeable people are jerks. If that's you, then you, too, are a jerk.

That is completely orthogonal to "people who notice problems". If someone thinks that it's necessary to be "selfish, combative, and manipulative" in order to notice a problem, then that person is not only a jerk, but also deluding themselves that they're just misunderstood.

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

#100

Post by mcguire » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 8:05 PM UTC

wnolens wrote: post #73

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…

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 tea…

Once upon a time, I worked with a particular person. At one point we were evaluating version control alternatives and he looked at one. He said it was great, but would never respond when anyone asked, "How do you do X, Y, or Z?" Eventually we picked one of the others (partially because he would never tell us why his was better), but he refused to accept that, resulting in the team lead having to develop a script to exchange changes between the system he used and the one everyone else used. He's also the guy who kept commenting out "-Wall" from our C++ Makefile with comments like "Nobody has time for that." (Though apparently, I had time to fire up Valgrind and track down all the memory issues, most of which would have been caught by compiler warnings.) He also considered "Maybe I'll just throw myself under a bus" to be a valid technical point during a discussion.

I began my career at IBM, where the loudest, most aggressive person got to be in charge. I have a lot of experience working around disagreeable co-workers---usually by doing things their way, whether or not it is best for the project---because there's no other way to get anything done. But then, I don't consider constant bike-shedding arguments as getting things done.

Fortunately, I don't have to do that any more. I've quit jobs because I couldn't stand spending more of my time keeping a disagreeable person happy (well, not happy; they're never going to be happy) than getting my actual work done. (Oh, that co-worker from the first paragraph? A few years later he sent me an email asking if I would be a reference. I said no.)