1. Do you think there is a contradiction between what employers want in employees (agreeable employees) and what employees actually do best (disagreeable employees)? Why or why not? I do believe there is a tremendous contradiction between what employers look for and what employees are actually good at. Most employers look for people who are agreeable; people who are easily to be liked and pleasing to be around and people who are willing or are ready to agree or consent very easily.
Agreeable people are more comfortable to have around and are easier to work with; this is why employers prefer and look for agreeable people to hire. I understand why employers prefer to look for people who are more agreeable but it makes no sense why they would hire people who are not better job performers and they are less successful in their career. This is why there is a contradiction; people look for a job that they are good at and a job where they can grow and develop their personal and technical skills.
The main reason why I believe you pursue a job is because you have knowledge on it and you would like to apply your knowledge and grow. Even if you’re not an agreeable person, you are very capable to perform the job with excellence. This contradiction is not good at all because employers look for agreeable employees but what if they are less successful at their job? Being less successful at your job could cost the organization or company a lot of money and also it could lead to many other problems such as customer service or financial matters.
On the other hand, what if a disagreeable person knows how to do his or her job efficiently but she doesn’t get hired because he/she is a little uncomfortable to be around with? As informed in classed, behaviors are influenced by moods and moods by feelings. Feelings can be transmitted to people when they are surrounded by them. They can be able to change someone’s feeling and therefore change their mood and behavior towards their coworkers. This way, they are less unpleasant to be around, and they are still good at job performing. Having this in mind could lead to less contradiction between employers and employees because they can hire people who are going to be good at their job and somehow be pleasant to be around.
Even though it has been proven that people like to have a good relationship with their coworkers and be socializing at work, it is necessary to have a balance of personalities and traits in the work environment. In order for the organization to succeed or improve, they need employees who are going to work hard and be successful at what they do, but also combine them with agreeable people to keep a nice and comfortable environment for the employees.
2. Often, the effects of personality depend on the situation. Can you think of some job situation in which agreeableness is an important virtue? And in which it is harmful? Under stressful moments or circumstances, agreeableness becomes a virtue; when things are going bad at an office or the main vault of a bank doesn’t balance at the end of the day. This is a situation where stress hits and your brain stops making sense. Having an agreeable person at that moment helps to swallow better the situation, calm down, and try to identify the problem. I was stuck in a very similar situation; working in a bank and having money missing is scary and when you have unpleasant people around you who are not helping the situation it becomes even worse.
When this happens, you tend to lose control, your brain stops making sense, you get mad and it becomes harder to find a solution to the problem. When a more pleasant coworker showed up, she was able to calm down the situation, and change all of our feelings and moods, and we were able to find the problem and with-in the solution. Obviously, in these situations the agreeable person was very important to us, and they can also affect many customer service work. In customer service the client looks for someone who’s going to tolerate them and help them in everything. Agreeable people are great for customer service; they are capable of being passive at stressful situations and very warm and welcoming to others.
They are also pleasant people to have around; they help control the mood of the environment and with that help others to be calmer and happier in order to give the customer the best service they can get. As written on the case, when people are agreeable they tend to not be very good at their job, and they tend to be less success at their careers. They are also characterized for being very passive and easier to manipulate. For people who work on sales, for example financial institutions selling and buying stocks, this trait is harmful for them. For these types of jobs you need to be aggressive and straight to the point, and unfortunately your coworkers become your enemies because they need you to sell and move fast; completely the opposite from an agreeable person.
This trait could harm them in many ways. If they are the sales person, they could lose many customers for the organization and make them lose profit. Also, their coworkers can manipulate them and keep them from selling and they can also take away their clients. Sometimes being so agreeable can open a door for people to take advantage of them or even stepping on them to steal their clients or opportunities. I guess that when the situation requires for you to be aggressive in order to perform your job, being agreeable could be harmful.
Also, when your job position is extremely important and you have a high expectation of the results, being agreeable would be a harmful for you too. It important to have this trait, because this way you are able to transmit your good vibe and emotions to the people that surround you, but if you’re not able to perform your job then I don’t see the point of having them as part of the organization or corporation.
3. In some research we’ve conducted, we’ve found that the negative effects of agreeableness on earnings is stronger for men than for women (that is, being agreeable hurts men’s earning more than women’s). Why do you think this might be the case? By nature, men tend to be more aggressive than women, meaning they are more forceful than women. Men tend to attack their client’s in a way that they push them into buying their products while women confront the situation by being more sensitive and persuasive. I’m guessing that if men are agreeable they lose their hostility and it becomes harder for them to sell their products. I believe that men are characterized for being so aggressive and passionate for the things they do that when they become passive, people misunderstand them which unfortunately leads to them loosing opportunities.
On the other hand, women are more passionate but in a sensitive and emotional way. Women have a way to speak to customers that it makes the customer feel safe and not pressured to do anything they perhaps don’t want to do. Although that is a good thing for the customers, sometimes that loses opportunities for women in these situations. This, although, doesn’t apply to all women or men.
There are some women, just like men, that have that extra edge and aggressive approach and at the end of the day, could save the company in earnings and there are men who have that sensitive and soothing approach. Like previously mentioned, it all depends on the person. On average, yes, men have the advantage over women because they have that aggressive approach and can work themselves out of any situation, good or bad. Women can do the same but in their own special way and at times can make them succeed or fail, just like men.