11–20 of 231 posts
If someone's parent is the head of a company, or even well-connected, "achiev[ing] less and [being] considered poor team players" are much less of an impediment. If someone can effectively skip or get more slack in passing through the career levels for which dark traits are a disadvantage, they'll likely do quite well once they're at the top.
>Overall, individuals with dark traits engage in more counterproductive work behaviour, such as theft and abusive supervision. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they don’t end up with higher average incomes than their peers with light personalities. >The key factor here seems to be empathy: the capacity to resonate with – and understand the perspective of – the emotional experiences of others. Individuals with light personalit…
I define empathy as "knowing your customer" (whoever it may be). You can be very attuned to this whether you are agreeable or disagreeable, no?
(Perhaps this is not a widely accepted definition of empathy, and that definition instead somehow indicates "being nice"? I don't think being nice/agreeable necessarily helps you know who you're speaking with.)
The "system" we've collectively developed forces blank slate souls to develop and play out our learned behavior in order to survive, or feel like we're surviving, in the world. But, as the article explains, we do not (typically) inherently hold, are not born with, nor do genetics code for, these "dark" or "light" traits. Therefore the emergence of "dark" or "light" tendencies is really more decided by the family, community, and economic systems. It is not that a "dark" or "light" trait necessarily allows a person more to succeed, but it suggests that some family, community, and economic systems require a person to develop what we would label "dark" or "light" traits from our perspective in order to survive. It appears the point of the article is: when we come across a person with "dark" traits, it is not entirely THEIR fault they have "dark" traits, it is more OUR fault we cannot shape our family, community, and economic systems to produce people with "light" traits.
>Overall, individuals with dark traits engage in more counterproductive work behaviour, such as theft and abusive supervision. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they don’t end up with higher average incomes than their peers with light personalities. >The key factor here seems to be empathy: the capacity to resonate with – and understand the perspective of – the emotional experiences of others. Individuals with light personalit…
Does high agreeableness necessarily translate into more empathy, or vice versa? I define empathy as "knowing your customer" (whoever it may be). You can be very attuned to this whether you are agreeable or disagreeable, no? (Perhaps this is not a widely accepted definition of empathy, and that definition instead somehow indicates "being nice"? I don't think being nice/agreeable necessarily helps you know who you're s…
I would think so as well. In fact, along the way I've learned that sometimes it's the less agreeable ones who are acting in the interest of the customer's situation but there has been a communications breakdown that doesn't necessarily reflect on the character of either party.
It mentions those with "dark traits" tend to be seen as poor team players, but perhaps that's exactly why these types ascend to top leadership positions. Your "team play" ability only matters to the extent that you engage in peer-to-peer relationships, which can be relatively minimal in that position compared to, say, middle management. See, for instance, Steve Jobs. I've never heard him described as a "team player",…
I'd further go on to say that 'unhappiness' is where there's a divergence of "Who you are", "Who you want to be" & "Where you are". Happy people tend to the ones who're really good at their job and a pleasure to work/spend time with.
I'd have thought the ideal would be you'd have your corporate structure/society, with all the varied positions filled and everybody happy in their roles.
Where it goes wrong is where the overall need doesn't map to the population - e.g. half of the people want to be benevolant dictators
>Overall, individuals with dark traits engage in more counterproductive work behaviour, such as theft and abusive supervision. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they don’t end up with higher average incomes than their peers with light personalities. >The key factor here seems to be empathy: the capacity to resonate with – and understand the perspective of – the emotional experiences of others. Individuals with light personalit…
Does high agreeableness necessarily translate into more empathy, or vice versa? I define empathy as "knowing your customer" (whoever it may be). You can be very attuned to this whether you are agreeable or disagreeable, no? (Perhaps this is not a widely accepted definition of empathy, and that definition instead somehow indicates "being nice"? I don't think being nice/agreeable necessarily helps you know who you're s…
It mentions those with "dark traits" tend to be seen as poor team players, but perhaps that's exactly why these types ascend to top leadership positions. Your "team play" ability only matters to the extent that you engage in peer-to-peer relationships, which can be relatively minimal in that position compared to, say, middle management. See, for instance, Steve Jobs. I've never heard him described as a "team player",…
In my personal experience, the problem with individuals with narcissistic psychopathic features in management or executive positions is that there's almost always opportunity costs with regard to a different way that could have achieved more with less cost. That is, they are ruthless and destructive, and claim doing so was necessary, but it's only because there was a very very simple alternate approach (often requiri…
[1] http://snakesinsuits.com/index.html
Succeed at what, making things people want, or operating in a bureaucracy? The latter, absolutely, bureaucracy is the pupal nursery for psychopathy, but when you actually have to help people, these traits don't work well.