Stocking the Jerk Store

I’ve tried out several variations on the theme “If you’re so X, why aren’t you rich?” So far, though, this is the only X that really seems to describe me:

A new study finds that agreeable workers earn significantly lower incomes than less agreeable ones. The gap is especially wide for men.

The researchers examined “agreeableness” using self-reported survey data and found that men who measured below average on agreeableness earned about 18% more — or $9,772 more annually in their sample — than nicer guys. Ruder women, meanwhile, earned about 5% or $1,828 more than their agreeable counterparts.

“Nice guys are getting the shaft,” says study co-author Beth A. Livingston, an assistant professor of human resource studies at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Well, screw ‘em. As Leo Durocher didn’t actually say of the ’46 Giants, nice guys finish last.

(Purloined — on my own time, mind you — from The Director. Now STFU and GBTW.)







3 comments

  1. KingShamus »

    20 August 2011 · 6:48 am

    So, is 10 grand worth pissing off everyone in your office?

    I dunno. Seems like karma would bite you in the wallet at some point.

  2. Tatyana »

    20 August 2011 · 7:16 am

    wait, so “not agreeable” means “rude”?
    another quirk of English I will never understand

    having opinions and self-respect, not being an “yes” man or a woman – in this case “agreeable” and “agreeing” collide – and office dishrags consider you “rude”? Screw them, I’d say.

  3. CGHill »

    20 August 2011 · 10:05 am

    I have never gone for that “my way or the highway” stuff, but I have a standing offer to anyone who objects to the way I do something: can you do it better? (Hint: no.) I have a surprising amount of autonomy for someone at the bottom of the org chart.

RSS feed for comments on this post