People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work

Abstract

Does being disagreeable-that is, behaving in aggressive, selfish, and manipulative ways-help people attain power? This question has long captivated philosophers, scholars, and laypeople alike, and yet prior empirical findings have been inconclusive. In the current research, we conducted two preregistered prospective longitudinal studies in which we measured participants' disagreeableness prior to entering the labor market and then assessed the power they attained in the context of their work organization ∼14 y later when their professional careers had unfolded. Both studies found disagreeable individuals did not attain higher power as opposed to extraverted individuals who did gain higher power in their organizations. Furthermore, the null relationship between disagreeableness and power was not moderated by individual differences, such as gender or ethnicity, or by contextual variables, such as organizational culture. What can account for this null relationship? A close examination of behavior patterns in the workplace found that disagreeable individuals engaged in two distinct patterns of behavior that offset each other's effects on power attainment: They engaged in more dominant-aggressive behavior, which positively predicted attaining higher power, but also engaged in less communal and generous behavior, which predicted attaining less power. These two effects, when combined, appeared to cancel each other out and led to a null correlation between disagreeableness and power.

Keywords: disagreeableness; extraversion; hierarchy; power.

Fig. 1.

In Study 2, the mediation model for the relationship between personality dimensions at Time 1 (2004 was the median year for the Time 1 assessment) and power measured 14 y later on average (in 2018). Shown are standardized β coefficients. Indirect effects are in italics and gray boxes. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.