
Ask HN: Benefits of Being Disagreeable in Business? - smarri
Im naturally an agreeable person, team player, easy to get along with, friendly, collaborative and rarely rock the boat.<p>Lately I&#x27;ve changed jobs and for various reasons I&#x27;m finding myself having to be more disagreeable. To stop being flooded with work, to stop bad decisions being made and so on. It&#x27;s quite tough for me as it isn&#x27;t my natural mode.<p>However, I&#x27;ve started to notice benefits of being more disagreeable. People are more prepared when they bring work, I get more respect, and listened to more.<p>Has anyone had a similar experience? Is being tougher&#x2F;disagreeable&#x2F;assertive a benefit in your business compared to being easy going? Being my &#x27;nice&#x27; self has served me well so far, but my experiment in disagreeableness is showing some positive results.<p>Would love to get your thoughts.
======
nostrademons
It's not being disagreeable itself that's bringing those benefits, it's the
unpopular but necessary decisions that are getting made by being willing to
stick your neck out and piss people off.

In many situations the _popular_ decision is not always the _right_ one.
People frequently approve of decisions that bring them personal benefits or
ego gratification at the expense of the group, or that seem beneficial now but
have hidden downsides that they don't know about, or that bring short-term
gain but long-term pain. Saying no to these decisions isn't going to be
popular, but it's necessary for the long-term health of the team.

Rational employees can see this, and can see the consequences of always giving
in to what the more vocal team members want, and so they quietly hold leaders
who make the right choice rather than the easy choice in higher esteem. It
builds trust with the team to show that you understand the difference and
won't let a need for approval cloud your judgment.

The idea that being disagreeable itself is an advantage in business is
sometimes known as the Steve Jobs Fallacy, i.e. "Steve Jobs was an asshole and
he was successful, therefore I'm going to be an asshole too and I'll be
successful." This fallacy ignores that Steve Jobs was an asshole _in pursuit
of something greater_ , that a lot of his tirades and emotional manipulation
were tactics to draw peoples' best work out of them and build really great
products that consumers love. The key part there is "build really great
products that consumers love" \- if you can do that without being an asshole,
you'll be even _more_ successful than Steve Jobs, but that's the high-order
bit. (Arguably, some of Steve Jobs's verbal abuse was gratuitous, and the same
product goals could've been achieved with less emotional pain.)

~~~
smarri
This is a really well thought out response, thank you. You've given me some
good things to think about. Especially popular vs right decision.

I've found it's in my nature not to piss people off, I've always been quite
adverse to confrontation (although there is a limit). I'm realising now that
it can be a necessary tool to use, at the right time and for the right
reasons. And practice is making it easier.

*Edit - Spelling

