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 power, and organizational "combativeness" isn't really it. I think "corruption" is closer, and good luck measuring that with a self report survey.
Then again, maybe the relevant issue isn't whether or not people who are jerks are more likely to attain power, it's than once they're there they're more likely to cause problems, and they're not less likely to attain power. So then them being in power is salient.
But then I think you have to ask, why aren't they less likely to attain power? Is this a case where a zero correlation is actually masking some mixture of processes, one positive in direction and the other negative? If so you'd think that certain settings would inhibit one or the other of those processes.
I guess I feel like this is a case where studying normative organizational dynamics in a cursory way could end up being really misleading.
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 to use the other tool: Layoffs.
Discriminating against people because they're disagreeable is insane. It's a Big Five personality trait. You hate half of humanity. Evolution produced the best problem-solving thing ever, humanity, and you decided a lot of the work done there was just pointless.
The real reason disagreeable people are valuable and can attain power in the workplace is because you've made it so with this completely unreasonable bias you have. They're not supposed to be extremely rare! That only happens in the tech workplace.
Would you similarly discriminate against anxious people? What about people who aren't open to new experiences? Do you shut them out too? How does your ideology square with black people being way more disagreeable on average? Let me guess: You don't hire any and then mumble something about culture fit.
Working with disagreeable people doesn't suck. Working sucks. The disagreeable people just point it out. How do you ever improve without that? Working at an all-agreeable-people tech firm is a Kafkaesque nightmare of everything being perfect and nothing getting done. And you all deserve it because you decided that when people tend to be one way or the other, the ones who are like you are just better.
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 coincidental but one wonders.
Reverting to the school playgorund, everyone in the dominant group are nice to each other, they are horrible to those outside the powerful dominant group.
Which circle you exist in, determines if that person is 'agreeable' or 'disagreeable'. The workplace is no different.
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.
Steve Jobs was agreeable, as long as you agreed with him. /s
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.
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.
I kind of disagree with this. Biased sample, but ime the type of powerful / influential people who run large prestigious organizations are almost all extremely charismatic and diplomatic. Very agreeable - without necessarily agreeing to anything :)
Note that I did not say morally / ethically prudent, self actualized, or not prone to being a shithead at times. Just that they tend not to be disagreeable.
I really would like to know what is "disagreeable" does it mean being mean to people in obvious ways a lot? In that case of course. But in my experience most people in corporate settings will stab you in the back when it suits them, blame things on you, take credit falsley,etc... all while smiling and being sociable. So you can have an agreeable personality and still be a shitty person based on how you actually behave.
"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
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 those are the definitions to keep in mind here.
I think aggressive or maybe excessive is a part of that. When you're not willing to accept an opinion and just give up, it's one thing. If you put up a huge fight every single time, it's more of a problem.
> If disagreeableness does not help individuals attain power, why do so many people believe that nice guys (and gals) finish last? Given our studies focused on the attainment of power, does disagreeableness help people maintain power once they possess it?
This study seems like common sense. Extroverted people who are agreeable climb the fastest.
People confuse disagreeable with “asshole”. Most assholes can be agreeable, just how they play the game is disagreeable. Political assholes take credit for others work and never take risk. Controlling assholes micromanage and suggest everything was their idea. Most disagreeable people hardly get promoted. It seems rather obvious that being liked tends to serve you well regardless of your expertise. Of course the Peter principle and Dilbert principle can kick in because of this.
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, once again, entering asshole territory. But if being agreeable means picking no battles, then what are you even doing?
Extraversion is completely separate from agreeableness in psychology. They are independent personality traits based on the Big Five model (which is the most scientifically supported model).
Many of the disagreeable personalities I dealt with over the years were that way to co-workers and direct reports. They were completely different when dealing with their superiors. They did well because of that, even when employee opinion surveys (if they were managers) were factored in.
That is also a big flaw in the study. Personality is very much dependent on context. So they measured disagreeability (1) as part of their extra-credit course work, and (2) as a follow-up. To really get into the work environment, either one has to do ethnographic field work, or make assumptions about disagreeability based on other factors.
> [Disagreeable people] engaged in more dominant-aggressive behavior, which positively predicted attaining higher power, but also engaged in less communal and generous behavior, which predicted attaining less power
The one thing I've observed disproportionately among sr execs: they're charismatic & collaborative right up until your interests diverge - and then they're ruthless. Some disagreeable personality traits _are_ actually important - they're just insufficient.
Selfish, combative, and manipulative - are you confusing us with sociopaths?
I don't see disagreeable people as more selfish, just less willing to compromise on what they think are bad ideas.
Combative? Not quite, we're talking disagreeability, not aggressiveness (a better word would just be disagreeable, but then you'd have no need to call us selfish and manipulative).
Manipulative? Go fuck yourself. Why would I try to trick you into doing what I want, when I can tell you that you're wrong and ignore you instead?
As 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...
In personality psychology, factors like agreeableness are umbrellas over often very different subfactors called facets.
Facets of agreeableness include altruism and compliance, which are two very different things. Someone may be altruistic while also breaking the rules. Someone else may be compliant but stingy. But both could score high in agreeableness.
I guess Jordan Peterson, which I consider a master of nonsense, has to go through the dictionary again. The Oxford Languages definition of disagreeable is:
- upleasant or unenjoyable
- unfriendly and bad tempered
At least the first definition fits well with Jordan I believe. Maybe this is his guilty conscience trying to give meaning to the fact that he is fundamentally disagreeable?
Idk, it seems like agreeable people get into management faster, it just depends on the type. There are the agreeable people that do everything they can and go with the flow, but aren't visible because they don't stand out. Then there is agreeable that say things and do things to appear productive but really are faking competence. It's a little more cunning. Then they get into management where they don't need to be technically competent and their people pleasing pushes them higher, based on relying on others to do the work, or outright lying about the status of things.
Disagreeable people can get to low management I think because if they stick around for years they're probably very competent and are willing to say the unpopular correct thing. But they stop rising because they don't play the game for the sake of playing the game. Unless they are adept at politicing. But the agreeable people seem to rise faster because they don't have friction. The problem is when they have issues delivering, but if there are things to blame besides themselves, it helps take the heat off them.
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 courage of your convictions and appearing strong would be enough to rally people behind you. There's probably quite a bit of latent psychological tendencies in the populace that still allow that to work in some circumstances, but in the modern corporate world, especially tech, you'll get your lunch eaten if you can't get the best out of smart people.
Counterargument: There are a lot of nice people that end up in early graves, as they often forgo taking care of their own needs in life due to a misplaced sense of obligation.
Corollary: if the Good do tend to die younger, than they cannot rise to positions of power.
> 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.
That seems like the most obvious explanation to me at least.
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".
There are different degrees of power and influence.
I've found that people who are disagreeable to management indeed might have trouble getting promoted and climb the corporate ladder, but at the same time they might be tremendously influential among their peers.
This is also a common effect that can be observed in anti-establishment/opposition structures, both in work-related (e.g leaders of trade unions) and political manners (e.g opposition parties). The leaders of said organizations can often be hugely influential within, but at the same considered highly disagreeable/assholes by the people on the other side.
> Let's take it a step further: agreeable people don't care about good engineering. They can't, by definition.
This! However, that generally leads to disagreeable engineers being very popular with their peers, and not so popular with management, unless the company is inherently engineer/dev focused.
There does seem to be a change in the way decisions are being "managed" at least from my perspective; I'm not sure how much of it is related to work from home, and how much is hangover from the "we're all in this together" COVID response, or from some other direction - but I seem to be experiencing meetings that start and end with "lets just do this thing" and almost never touch the subject of "why are we doing this thing" anymore.
> They engaged in more dominant-aggressive behavior, which positively predicted attaining higher power, but also engaged in less communal and generous behavior, which predicted attaining less power.
So it's openly disagreeable personalities who have the disadvantage. I would think that successful manipulative (trait the study assigns to disagreeable) persons would engage in "communal and generous behavior" as tactic and generally hide their disagreeableness.
I think it might be an instance of you tend to really remember the exceptions so they stand out, and also in some cases if they root themselves in enough you tend to also end up with an org of that personality so it can be all you see.
If you're disagreeable, extraverted and intelligent, that's usually a recipe for naturally rising up the pecking order in engineering organizations at least.
i think as we get older, we get better at distancing ourselves and realizing that work is just work.
But as the one always the most dissatisfied with what we do and how we do it and what is left out, i try to understand and give empathy than the easier solution which would be head through the wall :)
[+] [-] derbOac|3 years ago|reply
In my personal experience (which is limited) there's a certain constellation of organizational characteristics that leads to disagreeable individuals attaining power, and organizational "combativeness" isn't really it. I think "corruption" is closer, and good luck measuring that with a self report survey.
Then again, maybe the relevant issue isn't whether or not people who are jerks are more likely to attain power, it's than once they're there they're more likely to cause problems, and they're not less likely to attain power. So then them being in power is salient.
But then I think you have to ask, why aren't they less likely to attain power? Is this a case where a zero correlation is actually masking some mixture of processes, one positive in direction and the other negative? If so you'd think that certain settings would inhibit one or the other of those processes.
I guess I feel like this is a case where studying normative organizational dynamics in a cursory way could end up being really misleading.
[+] [-] kyleyeats|3 years ago|reply
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 to use the other tool: Layoffs.
Discriminating against people because they're disagreeable is insane. It's a Big Five personality trait. You hate half of humanity. Evolution produced the best problem-solving thing ever, humanity, and you decided a lot of the work done there was just pointless.
The real reason disagreeable people are valuable and can attain power in the workplace is because you've made it so with this completely unreasonable bias you have. They're not supposed to be extremely rare! That only happens in the tech workplace.
Would you similarly discriminate against anxious people? What about people who aren't open to new experiences? Do you shut them out too? How does your ideology square with black people being way more disagreeable on average? Let me guess: You don't hire any and then mumble something about culture fit.
Working with disagreeable people doesn't suck. Working sucks. The disagreeable people just point it out. How do you ever improve without that? Working at an all-agreeable-people tech firm is a Kafkaesque nightmare of everything being perfect and nothing getting done. And you all deserve it because you decided that when people tend to be one way or the other, the ones who are like you are just better.
[+] [-] jackmott42|3 years ago|reply
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 coincidental but one wonders.
[+] [-] shapefrog|3 years ago|reply
Which circle you exist in, determines if that person is 'agreeable' or 'disagreeable'. The workplace is no different.
[+] [-] bena|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nipponese|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pfisherman|3 years ago|reply
Note that I did not say morally / ethically prudent, self actualized, or not prone to being a shithead at times. Just that they tend not to be disagreeable.
[+] [-] badrabbit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway81523|3 years ago|reply
One can be a jerk without being disagreeable. Think of the classic smooth talking con artist.
[+] [-] the_gipsy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kachurovskiy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brushfoot|3 years ago|reply
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 those are the definitions to keep in mind here.
[+] [-] enkid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelve40|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prettyStandard|3 years ago|reply
You have to average it over self-assessments and also the assessment of all your friends, family, and coworkers.
[+] [-] Eumenes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenerdhead|3 years ago|reply
This study seems like common sense. Extroverted people who are agreeable climb the fastest.
People confuse disagreeable with “asshole”. Most assholes can be agreeable, just how they play the game is disagreeable. Political assholes take credit for others work and never take risk. Controlling assholes micromanage and suggest everything was their idea. Most disagreeable people hardly get promoted. It seems rather obvious that being liked tends to serve you well regardless of your expertise. Of course the Peter principle and Dilbert principle can kick in because of this.
[+] [-] routerl|3 years ago|reply
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, once again, entering asshole territory. But if being agreeable means picking no battles, then what are you even doing?
[+] [-] enkid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomMasz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _glass|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watwut|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousllama|3 years ago|reply
> [Disagreeable people] engaged in more dominant-aggressive behavior, which positively predicted attaining higher power, but also engaged in less communal and generous behavior, which predicted attaining less power
The one thing I've observed disproportionately among sr execs: they're charismatic & collaborative right up until your interests diverge - and then they're ruthless. Some disagreeable personality traits _are_ actually important - they're just insufficient.
[+] [-] jackmott42|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yarg|3 years ago|reply
I don't see disagreeable people as more selfish, just less willing to compromise on what they think are bad ideas.
Combative? Not quite, we're talking disagreeability, not aggressiveness (a better word would just be disagreeable, but then you'd have no need to call us selfish and manipulative).
Manipulative? Go fuck yourself. Why would I try to trick you into doing what I want, when I can tell you that you're wrong and ignore you instead?
[+] [-] beyond_based|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] azangru|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brushfoot|3 years ago|reply
Facets of agreeableness include altruism and compliance, which are two very different things. Someone may be altruistic while also breaking the rules. Someone else may be compliant but stingy. But both could score high in agreeableness.
[+] [-] jansan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solumunus|3 years ago|reply
Here's where you're going wrong.
[+] [-] pastacacioepepe|3 years ago|reply
- upleasant or unenjoyable
- unfriendly and bad tempered
At least the first definition fits well with Jordan I believe. Maybe this is his guilty conscience trying to give meaning to the fact that he is fundamentally disagreeable?
[+] [-] leeroyjenkins11|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasil003|3 years ago|reply
That said, I think historically disagreeable types had a bigger advantage because the world was simpler and a lot of times just having the courage of your convictions and appearing strong would be enough to rally people behind you. There's probably quite a bit of latent psychological tendencies in the populace that still allow that to work in some circumstances, but in the modern corporate world, especially tech, you'll get your lunch eaten if you can't get the best out of smart people.
[+] [-] vaxintar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joel_Mckay|3 years ago|reply
Corollary: if the Good do tend to die younger, than they cannot rise to positions of power.
Happy 2023 =)
[+] [-] bravetraveler|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AmericanChopper|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] P_I_Staker|3 years ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] anonymouskimmer|3 years ago|reply
But yeah, most people see themselves as good, and synonymize that with nice. All of our own flaws are minor, while other people's flaws are major.
[+] [-] allears|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joel_Mckay|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ath3nd|3 years ago|reply
I've found that people who are disagreeable to management indeed might have trouble getting promoted and climb the corporate ladder, but at the same time they might be tremendously influential among their peers.
This is also a common effect that can be observed in anti-establishment/opposition structures, both in work-related (e.g leaders of trade unions) and political manners (e.g opposition parties). The leaders of said organizations can often be hugely influential within, but at the same considered highly disagreeable/assholes by the people on the other side.
> Let's take it a step further: agreeable people don't care about good engineering. They can't, by definition.
This! However, that generally leads to disagreeable engineers being very popular with their peers, and not so popular with management, unless the company is inherently engineer/dev focused.
[+] [-] AcerbicZero|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trabant00|3 years ago|reply
So it's openly disagreeable personalities who have the disadvantage. I would think that successful manipulative (trait the study assigns to disagreeable) persons would engage in "communal and generous behavior" as tactic and generally hide their disagreeableness.
[+] [-] mustafabisic1|3 years ago|reply
And even that doesn't help them?
I'm glad it's like that, it's just a bit off for me a bit.
[+] [-] ender341341|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nullsense|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woopwoop24|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jotjotzzz|3 years ago|reply