Although there is a lot of research on leadership skills that shows the importance of likability, there is a saying that disgusting will always prevail.
However, one exciting news is that a study of shows that threatening, manipulating others or being selfish will not help people succeed in the end.
In the results of research from Berkeley Haas University and UC Berkeley, there is evidence that people who hate have no advantage at work. This article was published in the top academic journal PNAS.
"I was surprised by the consistency of the findings." Cameron Anderson, co-author of the study, said in a press release: "Whether from a personal perspective or from the perspective of the entire environment, unfriendliness cannot allow people to gain an advantage in the competition for power - even in a very bad 'dog bite' organizational culture."
To determine this, the researchers conducted a 14-year follow-up study of many people. First, they conducted personality assessments of undergraduate students from three different universities and scored their bad personalities.
10 years later, they were evaluated again. This time, the researchers asked participants about their workplace culture, as well as their power and status at work.
Next, the researchers investigated participants’ colleagues and asked about their cooperation with colleagues at work, their behavior, and their position in the work organization system.
The research results are clear: Those who are generous, trustworthy, and generally good are the same as those who "hate" the chances of gaining power and status, and those who like to manipulate others and are not likable have not achieved more success.
The saying that why hateful people are easy to succeed has always existed?
According to this study, the most likely people to stand out are extroverts, who the authors attribute to their social abilities. Extroverts who get along well with others, have theories and energetic tend to get the highest positions in the workplace.
But these annoying people end up occupying the position of power, but they are no more than others. The authors of the study believe they gained power enhancement from shocking others, but this is offset by their poor interpersonal skills.
Anderson said: "The bad news here is that organizations do put some annoying ghosts in charge, just like they will also put popular people in charge."
"In other words, they will allocate power to the annoying ghosts in the same proportion as others, even if these annoying ghosts take power after they take power, they will cause serious damage to the organization."
This is inevitable, because in our culture, there are still nasty words about success. Think about our stories, think about all the annoying types of bosses in TV and movies, and many people often feel selfish and unfamiliar.
And what's more interesting is that it's a description that no one can prevail over an annoying boss. We see a gangster, a gangster variant again and again, who ignores the organization and does his own way.
Think about the typical scenes in the office, and when Peter Gibbons resisted his annoying boss, he came back to work with a desperate attitude. The decision-maker soon recognized him as a person with the highest leadership potential.
There are many such examples in real life. Those bastards eventually take power, making people feel that deterrent is the reason for their success.
The author of this study took Steve Jobs as an example in his paper. They think some people who have read his biography might think, “Maybe if I became a bigger asshole, I would have succeeded like Steve.”
But besides these examples, there is a different change when it comes to powerful women.
Successful women face crazy/bad women stereotype (crazy/bitch stereotype)
Leadership studies professor at the University of British Columbia (University of British Columbia 2) Berdahl) wrote a compelling article about the perspectives of the academic community on women.
As a graduate student, She noticed that junior female teachers are often seen as “motivated, friendly, kind people.” Each of them is considered to have some kind of impotence that hinders their success, such as having children too young, but they are still more popular than senior teachers.
Berdahl noted that When it comes to senior female teachers, each of them has a seemingly different negative narrative. These rumors will keep young teachers away from students like her because each of them has a certain kind of The way was described as a "crazy" or a "bad woman" (bitch).
At first, Berdal accepted this, but later when she moved to another university as a junior teacher, she noticed that the same was true around senior female teachers. This made her want to work with male teachers, and male teachers seemed better.
Finally, changed again at her third university where she became a senior teacher: "That feeling of a promising 'little sister' turned into a resentful wife; after getting tenured teaching position, she became a despised mom... Now I'm a bitch, a lunatic, a type of mom who hates mom. ” she wrote.
Berdar's article points out the unfairness and deep-rooted nature of these female stereotypes, a position echoed in the article "Why do we need to stop calling powerful women bad women" in "Cosmopolitan" "Why do we need to stop calling powerful women bad women". This is a false narrative intended to discredit powerful women.
After thinking, I wonder if a story like crazy bad women is not just marginalizing powerful women. Doesn't this also reinforce the idea that women must be a bad woman if they want to succeed?
It reflects a nasty way of saying that you need to be selfish and aggressive to rank high in work levels.
However, according to Berkeley research, this is not the case.
Unfriendly behavior hinders the key path to success
"Unfriendly is a relatively stable personality trait, including quarrel tendency, indifference, selfishness and other behaviors. "The researchers explained: "…annoying people tend to be hostile and insult to others, deceive and manipulate others for their own benefit, and ignore other people's ideas or interests. "
This is a problem, because focusing on this alone will ignore some other key factors that can lead to success. In this study, the authors identified four ways to gain power:
Dovernance aggressive behavior: using fear and intimidation.
Political behavior: establishing alliances with influential people.
Collective behavior: helping others.
Collective behavior: helping others. html l2
Competent behavior: good at your own work.
The author concluded that hate ghosts may use dominant and aggressive behavior, but if they ignore collective behavior, they will offset any benefits gained from it. So selfish, aggressive people have no advantage in achieving success.
Anderson stressed that a large number of studies have shown that when those in power put their interests first, they often bring about a culture of abuse and corruption and lead to the decline of their organizations.
Anderson said: "My advice to managers is to be careful of easy-going, which is an important condition for holding power and leadership positions. Previous research is clear: amiable people in power will lead to better results."
By Alison Escalante
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/37/22780
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2020/09/18/research-finds-that-being-a-jerk-doesnt-help-you-get-ahead-at-work/#3f6ec18e3db1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-