next »

[fiona]

This is one of those eternal questions to consider, especially if you're putting off grading papers.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/does-it-pay-to-be-a-jerk/29462

Discuss.

The Fiona

[lost_angeleno]

My college considered me a "jerk," because I regularly pointed out administrative failures they tried to cover up.  Then I began helping file successful grievances for the Union.  The result: no Service appointments for years.  More time for Research and Teaching!  Whee!

It gets better: I finally filed a blacklisting grievance for non-appointment to Service positions.  Got a judgment in my favor and an 11% raise.  Being a jerk can be good.

Jerkiness is in the eye of the beholder?

[hegemony]

Unfortunately it's never worked for me, though I gave it the old team try.

[unusedusername]

I don't think that being "disagreeable" by the psychological definition and being a jerk are the same thing.  An agreeable person goes with the flow--they tend to do things the way that others want them to.  A disagreeable person more decides what to do irrespective of others' opinions.  That is different from being mean, which is someone who does not care if people are unhappy.

Suppose you are in a room with two other people.  Both of them mention that they favor candidate A, and ask you what you think.  Assuming you favor candidate B,

agreeable, "Well, I think both candidates have their strengths."
disagreeable, "I'm for B, and here's why..."
jerk, "What kind of an idiot would support A?"

Disagreeable people are often better at making decisions independently, which can be an advantage in research.

[busyslinky]

Sometimes playing the devil's advocate (disagreeable?) makes one think that they can see both sides of the situation.  They sometimes do it on purpose.  So a disagreeable person may be a critical thinker and better decision maker or more competent?

Also, maybe they get paid more just to get them to shut up and not be a PITA?

[theblackbox]

I don't think that being "disagreeable" by the psychological definition and being a jerk are the same thing.  An agreeable person goes with the flow--they tend to do things the way that others want them to.  A disagreeable person more decides what to do irrespective of others' opinions.  That is different from being mean, which is someone who does not care if people are unhappy.

Suppose you are in a room with two other people.  Both of them mention that they favor candidate A, and ask you what you think.  Assuming you favor candidate B,

agreeable, "Well, I think both candidates have their strengths."
disagreeable, "I'm for B, and here's why..."
jerk, "What kind of an idiot would support A?"

Disagreeable people are often better at making decisions independently, which can be an advantage in research.

I'm sorry but this is not accurate. The way disagreebleness is defined in this area of study is:
"Am not interested in other people's problems; feel little concern for others; believe people should fend for themsleves; insult people; am indifferent to the feelings of others; put people under pressure" etc.

[mouseman]

I don't think that being "disagreeable" by the psychological definition and being a jerk are the same thing.  An agreeable person goes with the flow--they tend to do things the way that others want them to.  A disagreeable person more decides what to do irrespective of others' opinions.  That is different from being mean, which is someone who does not care if people are unhappy.

Suppose you are in a room with two other people.  Both of them mention that they favor candidate A, and ask you what you think.  Assuming you favor candidate B,

agreeable, "Well, I think both candidates have their strengths."
disagreeable, "I'm for B, and here's why..."
jerk, "What kind of an idiot would support A?"

Disagreeable people are often better at making decisions independently, which can be an advantage in research.

I'm sorry but this is not accurate. The way disagreebleness is defined in this area of study is:
"Am not interested in other people's problems; feel little concern for others; believe people should fend for themsleves; insult people; am indifferent to the feelings of others; put people under pressure" etc.

Well, not exactly.  From the article: 

On the one hand, research on the variability of trait manifestation in behavior (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009), indicates that, on average, people low in agreeableness are basically amicable. They are just slightly more likely than people high in trait agreeableness to behave disagreeably in certain situations by, for instance, aggressively advocating for their position during conflicts (van de Vliert & Euwema, 2004). On the other hand, high levels of disagreeableness may be associated with psychopathy (Derefinko & Lynam, 2006), suggesting that disagreeable individuals may be predisposed toward antisocial or deviant behaviors (Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009). However, most disagreeable individuals are unlikely to suffer from clinical psychological disorders, and as evident in the myriad acts of corporate malfeasance reported in the literature (Balch & Armstrong, 2010), antisocial behaviors do not preclude earning higher incomes.

Many of these people may be perfectly good company, but less on the warm and fuzzy side.  So don't think of it as "good guys" versus "jerks", but perhaps as "pushovers" versus people who are willing to argue their points and don't back down easily.  The more "aggressive" guys may also be generous and supportive on all other fronts.


One problem that I have with the study is that the degree of "agreeableness" is self determined:

  Agreeableness. We measured participant agreeableness by their responses to three questions that were asked in the 2002 survey. These three questions were: (1) “How much do you feel that agreeable describes you as a person, where 1 means quarrelsome and 5 means agreeable?”; (2) “How much do you feel that difficult describes you as a person, where 1 means cooperative and 5 means difficult?”; and (3) “How much do you feel that stubborn describes you as a person, where 1 means flexible and 5 means stubborn?” The last two items were reverse-scored, and then the three responses were averaged.

This makes me very skeptical - I mean, how many people are good judges of their own personality? 

Since we're in a stats mode on these fora, why should we assume that the income - aggressiveness relationship is linear?  If very few people define themselves ad "very aggressive/stubborn/disagreeable", a humped curve (intermediate levels of aggression/stubbornness/disagreeableness are the highest paid) could produce the same results as a linear relationship.  This is not an unlikely scenario, because few people will indeed admit to being very stubborn or very disagreeable.

I have other criticisms of this study, but that will do for now.

[larryc]

On very rare occasion it can be the right play. Very rare.

[dale1]

So in other words, disagreeables are members of the Tea Party.

[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is not accurate. The way disagreebleness is defined in this area of study is:
"Am not interested in other people's problems; feel little concern for others; believe people should fend for themsleves; insult people; am indifferent to the feelings of others; put people under pressure" etc.
[/quote]

[theblackbox]

Mouseman, thank you for quoting the main article and their operationalization of the key variable in question. I am surprised by how they measured it because what I quoted earlier are items from the actual measure that is typically used in this field (and by the first author of that article) to assess personality.

Self-assessment of personality is the norm. Some studies may ask the person to choose a close friend to report on their personality as well, but having others complete it is just as problematic as self-assessment. Those who argue that personality is more situation dependent would say that you may get 3 different opinions of a person's personality if you ask their friend, family member, and boss, not because one is necessarily more accurate than the other, but that each atmosphere solicits different sides of the same person. The person in question has (presumably) the best sense of who they are "in general" collapsed across all situations. (The personality trait questionnaires almost all use the term "in general" or "most of the time" in the instructions.)

[anthroid]

One thing she says at the end of the blog is this:

Rather than rewarding the jerks, what if we empowered the pay decision makers to be “conflict comfortable?” Instead of bowing to demands and bullying, what if managers felt strong enough to say, “We don’t reward your kind of behavior. If you want a raise, maybe it’s time for you to move along.”

This is absolutely right.  I find that disagreeable people, who rarely consider themselves to be disagreeable, find me to be disagreeable because I do not allow them to bully others or me.  One of the most important skills for academic leaders is, IMHO, the ability to tolerate conflict and to manage it for the good of the department and the school.  Running away from conflict, which, sadly, far too many academic administrators do, leads to toxicity and bullying.

I still remember an incident when I was a chair when the department bully (who thought of himself as much beloved) tried to get in my grill about something and actually threatened to get me fired.  He didn't get what he wanted, either with regard to his specific demand or to get me fired.  Bullies hate it when someone stands up to them but it really is incumbent upon chairs, deans, VPAAs, and presidents to refuse to play nicely with bad actors.

[crowie]

This is absolutely right.  I find that disagreeable people, who rarely consider themselves to be disagreeable, find me to be disagreeable because I do not allow them to bully others or me.  One of the most important skills for academic leaders is, IMHO, the ability to tolerate conflict and to manage it for the good of the department and the school.  Running away from conflict, which, sadly, far too many academic administrators do, leads to toxicity and bullying.

I still remember an incident when I was a chair when the department bully (who thought of himself as much beloved) tried to get in my grill about something and actually threatened to get me fired.  He didn't get what he wanted, either with regard to his specific demand or to get me fired.  Bullies hate it when someone stands up to them but it really is incumbent upon chairs, deans, VPAAs, and presidents to refuse to play nicely with bad actors.

If you are a department chair and reading this, please do take anthroid's words to heart.

[bluezebracat]

I have regretted compromises, but have rarely regretted the times when I stood up for my own position.  However, I do think compromises are central to a harmonious work life.

[busyslinky]

Does disagreeable and jerk necessarily mean bully?

Some disagreeable people can be bullies.  But can someone who disagrees with people be seen as a curmudgeon or 'prickly' or something else instead of a bully.

I think this gets back to the definition of disagreeable.

[anthroid]

Does disagreeable and jerk necessarily mean bully?

Some disagreeable people can be bullies.  But can someone who disagrees with people be seen as a curmudgeon or 'prickly' or something else instead of a bully.

I think this gets back to the definition of disagreeable.

I'm using the definition put forth by the article (it's quoted above).  I agree that disagreeing does not equal bully, but being a jerk almost always does, within the scope of the blog and the article.  It's fine to disagree.  It isn't fine to be rude and jerky about it, and standing up to jerks is an important quality for academic leaders to have, I think.