
The best employees are not the agreeable ones - AuthorizedCust
https://work.qz.com/1309735/adam-grant-the-best-employees-are-not-the-agreeable-ones/
======
kendallpark
> They’re more likely to fight for what they believe in, challenge the status
> quo, and push the organization to make painful but necessary changes, he
> says.

A long time ago, I had a new employer that wanted me to hotfix non-critical
code changes to a live, popular website via FTP with no version control, no
nothing. Like a single typo could crash a high traffic site. I told them this
was extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and refused to do any changes until
we got the system under version control with a reasonable way to deploy
changes. This caused a huge standoff and I basically put my foot down and told
them that I wouldn't be deploying any changes until I got the client's website
under version control--they could dock my pay for the extra time it took, I
didn't care. Anyhow, I set up version control and a deployment strategy that
we could rollback (this only took a day or so). Then I made the changes and
educated the team on how to safely push changes to the site.

A month or so later they decided to not renew my contract, but by then the
feeling was quite mutual.

I told this story while interviewing at what would be my next employer and it
worked as points in my favor.

EDIT: FWIW I consider myself a generally agreeable giver until a certain
threshold is crossed. One such threshold is stuff that moves into what I
consider to be ethically irresponsible behavior. Perhaps you would call this a
"selectively agreeable/disagreeable giver." There are "disagreeable givers"
that pick their battles wisely in terms of when to apply friction and when to
go along with the team. On the flip side there are those that will apply
friction to every little thing and might relish in complaining and "I told you
so"s and cowboying up their own solutions for every small disagreement.

EDIT2: Clarifying that the "hotfixes" were non-critical, normal code changes.

~~~
ng12
I think there's a trade off there. There's something to be said for "getting
shit done" in the short term, voraciously arguing why it was bad afterwards.

~~~
Kluny
You have to decide for yourself how much you can tolerate and still respect
yourself. I'd have made the same choice as OP, and because I know that about
myself, I keep fuck-off money in my bank account in case I ever need to take a
stand that gets me fired. Self-respect is more important to me than any one
job.

~~~
indemnity
I don’t yet have that luxury, but this is one of my big overriding goals - FI
by early 40s.

I’ve been in one or two situations where I would have walked if not for my
mortgage and being sole provider with a young family.

Absolutely hated not having that choice, remembering how disempowering that
was keeps me on track to work towards that freedom.

(I am not in SV, and good options at my level in my location take a few months
to find)

~~~
kendallpark
It's easier to stand your ground when you're young, single, and mobile (which
I was at the time).

As a medical student you might see something unethical or negligent happen
during rotations, but even speaking up could risk your career (superiors give
you a bad eval, this affects residency applications down the line). This
hasn't happened to me personally, but you hear stories from other students
with all kinds of actions and outcomes. So I really feel ya there. There isn't
a one size fits all walk off point because stakes are always different.

Good luck on your FIRE plans!

------
sanderjd
I'm always skeptical of things like this that attempt to distill the full
range of human personality and behavior into a simple table with four values.
I haven't done any studies, but I feel like this sort of thing is disprovable
by simple counter-example: as soon as I come across a single person who does
not fit into this box, the universality of the box is already clearly wrong.
I've come across many such people, whose behavior in the work place can't be
described by the combination of two adjectives. (In fact, it's the only kind
of person I've come across.)

~~~
cup-of-tea
It is implicit in things like this that it's a generalisation suitable for
discussing the case in point and not actually trying to describe the full
spectrum of human behaviour. You should (and clearly do) know this.
Generalisations are very powerful. I know they are unfashionable because
everyone is unique and special, but you won't get very far without them.

Individuals are very difficult to predict. Populations are remarkably easy to
predict.

~~~
brailsafe
> "Populations are remarkably easy to predict."

Could you break that down a little further?

~~~
cup-of-tea
Well it's the very essence of statistics. You probably can't predict how many
of your friends will reproduce and how many offspring they will have, but you
could definitely predict the average number of offspring the current
population will have. Even though the "model person" with 2.1 children doesn't
exist (can't exist even) it's still a thoroughly useful generalisation.

------
analogwzrd
I think the author left out the other side of the argument...maybe the Wharton
professor didn't in the original presentation of the idea.

How does the company treat the employee? I've found that the employee will
generally try to mirror how the company treats them. If they feel the company
is taking advantage of them, then they might start acting like a Taker just to
balance out the relationship.

If they freely give to the company, and the company gives back, then that
could start a positive feedback loop.

Sometimes, the company is structured so that the company can't give back, i.e.
rigid HR policies about raises/promotions that limit a meritocracy. If the
opportunity cost of switching company's is higher, then the employee is
probably going to milking the company for everything it's worth to try to even
out the relationship.

------
extralego
As a disagreeable giver, I have learned to accept a lot of things, mainly that
I am widely misunderstood. A funny thing I’ve come to learn is to always seek
employers who are themselves committed and passionate beyond convention. The
gap between the results of finding such an employer and working for an average
drone spans the almost the entire spectrum. Passionate people always get me,
and I think they have been greatly rewarded for it. I will do anything for
those people; I’ll even knowingly waste their time if I _really_ like them,
but that’s asking a lot.

~~~
staticautomatic
I like to call our approach "radically earnest."

~~~
nso
I generally try to go by this approach as well, which I have found to create
for some interesting situations after moving country.

I come from Norway, where speakig up if something is wrong is highly
encouraged, and you will most of the time be able to directly jump org levels
with your conserns without anyone getting sour. People seem to genuinly want
to contribute in the best way available, and work to that end.

Mexico is my new home, which can be best generalized and summed up as a macho
culture where people mind their own business and don't want to rock the boat
(might be a regional thing, tho. The south where I live is very mañana
mañana). Being afraid of speaking up is not encoded in my genes, so I've quite
a few times called out injustices when I see them, and peoples reactions are a
funny mix.

I luckily have found a company to work for that has one of those dreamer
bosses that OP mentions, and I find myself having a lot of influence on the
business simply because I speak up.

------
cup-of-tea
I'm a disagreeable giver. I've just left a job which didn't appreciate this.
Funny thing is, everyone on my level said all the time how much they
appreciate my openness with knowledge and desire to teach my skills. I found
that odd because I consider it completely normal. The people above me hated
it, though. Some of them shot down my efforts to enable basic knowledge
sharing in the company. Most of the time I just made it very obvious that I
could see them with their clothes off, though, and there were a lot of naked
people above me.

~~~
jl2718
Am I wrong to assume that most of HN is the disagreeable giver type?

I’m assuming that agreeable people tend not to seek out information outside of
their bounds, and takers would be on some crypto trading forum or something.

~~~
cup-of-tea
I think you're probably right, yeah. The typical internet commenter will be
very quick to tell you you're wrong, but they'll make every effort to tell you
why.

------
k_vi
The best I've worked with have a knack for presenting making their contrary
ideas agreeable.

While the jerks assume they are being attacked for their beliefs, the smart
ones understands the value of group effort.

~~~
awinder
Yeah being an X employee is setting a low bar. Behavior has to be adapted on a
situational basis, and if you can’t, that’s a problem across the spectrum.

Though if I had to pick favorites I would totally go for agreeable giver who
wields the other 3 roles for impact :-).

------
jxub
Usually, the employee screening at the entry level relies on assessment of
education history of the prospect.

The problem is that educational excellence often selects for agreeableness, as
there is no real reward of contrarianism in education.

From bullshit Liberal Arts essays where you are graded in function of the
level of endorsement of the brain farts of the professor in question to even
the CS projects that are supposed to be made in a specific technology, often
some JavaEE crap avoiding using more powerful languages or ecosystems like
Python, Elixir or Clojure.

I wonder how many billions has the economy lost as a result.

~~~
dsajames
Not true. A CS degree from say, UIUC has no correlation to agreeableness I can
see. I can't count the amount of jerks I knew in school. Cockiness, yes.
Sometimes brilliant, yes.

The few girls in the CS program could easily verify the lack of agreeableness.

~~~
trentmb
Yeah, I was a student at math.illinois.edu, but did a CS minor- man, that
major had the highest proportion of fuckheads I've ever encountered.

------
EastLondonCoder
I have managed a disagreeable giver. I very much appreciated his upfront style
and his passion. But whenever he was exposed to the rest of the organisation
people took him as hostile and arrogant. Ultimately me backing him made me
untenable. Moral is that working with contrarians are good but be careful.

------
lordnacho
There's another point that's relevant. If someone isn't producing the goods,
they need need to make themselves liked somehow. Joke around, pat people on
the back for whatever they do, generally act positive. That way people might
not notice they're not pulling their weight.

This happened at a place I worked at, and it was compounded by the others
being too agreeable to call him out. When I eventually did it ended badly for
me.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _If someone isn 't producing the goods, they need need to make themselves
> liked somehow_

In competitive work environments, I've seen this heuristic overcorrect more
often than be right, _i.e._ the nice person is assumed to be incompetent.
Having worked on a trading floor, where niceness was not valued, and on teams
with nice people with whom one could vent, reconsider interpersonal disputes
or bounce ideas off (in terms of how others on the team might see a proposal),
I strongly preferred the latter.

------
crispyambulance
Most orgs favor takers IMHO.

It is more compatible with how project managers run things: "Here's your
tasks, tell me when they will be done, don't do other tasks (like helping your
peers) or the deadline will slip." That way of working is almost antithetical
to givers.

These places prefer agreeable takers-- that's why people always say stuff like
"I have a lot on _MY_ plate!"

------
perl4ever
I've worked at places where people are "too busy" to help with anything, and
where nobody asks me for help with anything. I can't imagine anybody prides
themselves on that sort of culture, but it seems common. My first job after
graduation, I was lucky to be in a place where giving and asking for
help/advice was normalized. The more cocooned and protective of their job, and
the more distrusting of the organization people are, the less I suppose they
want to share information.

------
cortexia3
Cool, I just need to get my boss to read this.

~~~
Etheryte
Being disagreeable doesn't necessarily make you a good employee.

------
purplezooey
_" Disagreeable givers, on the other hand, can be a pain in the ass, but
valuable to an organization, Grant says."_

The problem is this person doesn't exist. Most people that are constantly
disagreeable are just bluster and talk and don't get anything done.
Occasionally disagreeable is useful, though.

~~~
ghthor
We never get anything done because everyone tells us how wrong we are all the
time and the psycological toll is hard to manage. I get my best work done when
I tell no one, just do the thing that I know needs done and then try to
navigate the politics at the end to get it accepted.

------
readams
You want people who can "disagree without being disagreeable"

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I've seen the word disagreeable being used in a few studies lately and I was
beginning to wonder if it meant something else in psychological circles, ie
not agreeing to everything rather than being unpleasant.

Every definition seems to point to being vexatious, which I find somewhat sad.

------
eximius
While I agree with the result, let's be cognizant that we don't allow assholes
to blend in by claiming they are 'disagreeable'.

------
kemiller
Disagreeability is itself a form of taking. You had better be amazing at what
you do if you want to be grumpy.

~~~
EpicEng
Disagree with the first sentence, agree with the second. How precisely is
"Disagreeability... a form of taking"?

~~~
michaelcampbell
You just took his time by having to explain.

~~~
majkinetor
You could also save A LOT of time by making others realize that idea has no
merit.

------
pcmaffey
Related: The best employers don't seek out and promote agreeable employees.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The best employers don 't seek out and promote agreeable employees_

The best employers know _when_ to hire agreeable employees.

"It may be that agreeableness may aid performance in some jobs but be a
limitation in others... Evidence supports a link between agreeableness and
prosocial work behaviors (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011). Such a
link exists, at least in part, because agreeable individuals are motivated to
maintain positive interpersonal relationships with others (e.g., Barrick,
Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). This is particularly important when considering
group activity. Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996) found that agree-
able individuals reported higher levels of liking toward a randomly assigned
partner. Most relevant to the current study, Mount et al. (1998) found that
agreeableness was positively related to performance for service jobs requiring
dyadic interactions.

However, some agreeableness characteristics—namely, the eagerness to cooperate
and avoid conflict (Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1990)—suggest that
agreeable individuals might struggle in competitive environments." [1].

Also, "agreeableness more positively predicted job performance in jobs
requiring attention to detail and involving independence in completing work"
(page 11670.

[1] [http://leeds-
faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/Judge%20and%20zap...](http://leeds-
faculty.colorado.edu/dahe7472/Judge%20and%20zapata%201149.full.pdf) _page
1155_

