“… levels of ‘agreeableness’ are negatively correlated with the earnings of men”
“There are six facets to agreeableness: trust, straightforwardness, compliance, altruism, modesty and tender-mindedness. “
“Women were slightly less likely to get picked for promotion regardless of their personality.”
“Agreeable women weren’t nearly as bad off, earning only 1,100 less.”
This research seems to be anchored in personality trait theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992); and there’s been a lot of theorising around trait theory and leadership over the years. That the facets of agreeableness – trust, straightforwardness, compliance, altruism, modesty and tender-mindedness – might not be considered helpful in some contexts sounds bad.
Why wouldn’t high levels of agreeableness be a good thing? But when it comes to getting things done being agreeable is not always helpful.
For example, scientific advances rarely come to light from agreeing with everyone else. Instead they come from fighting against the current flow of ideas and consensus.
Getting a new business or new business model off the ground requires something different to agreeableness. It requires passion and vision, it calls for team-building and collaboration, it requires dedication and persistence. And, while some of the facets associated with agreeableness are helpful, they alone will not drive the change through to fruition.
Think about many of the leaders of history, for example: Steve Jobs, Jack Welch, Margaret Thatcher, Mohandas Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Winston Churchill. Not one of them was reputed to be easy to get along with. They were each, in their own way, not very agreeable. But, love them or not, they got things done.
But perhaps the agreeable people, who didn’t get promoted, are happier? Where’s the research on that?
However, it is interesting to note that women displaying agreeableness are less badly off than those not displaying it. Thus it seems powerful women remain undervalued, unlike powerful men.