The suggestion to reduce one’s agreeableness typically presents itself as an encouraging message, the kind of sentiment found below a sunset image. It feels more like endorsement than substantiation. Nevertheless, there is substantial research that supports the concept that incessant agreeableness has drawbacks, and these are more nuanced and complex than the initial motivational speech implies. Additionally, this comes with a differentiation that determines whether the advice is beneficial or merely a justification for being disagreeable.
First, give agreeableness its due, as it is indeed a commendable quality.
Agreeableness isn’t the issue
In the realm of personality studies, agreeableness stands as one of the Big Five dimensions, characterizing individuals who are warm, empathetic, kind, and cooperative. It is, by a considerable margin, the attribute that people desire the most in their companions. Those who are agreeable often report greater life satisfaction, more robust social connections, and reduced stress. None of the subsequent discussion advocates for becoming less warm or harder to relate to.
The assertion is more specific. It posits that being agreeable in every circumstance, including those that require assertiveness, incurs costs that the agreeable individual frequently accepts without awareness. Two well-documented costs arise: one affects the individual, and another impacts the group.
The cost reflected in earnings
The individual cost is most apparent in terms of income. A study titled Do Nice Guys and Gals Really Finish Last?, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2012, by Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst, explored the correlation between agreeableness and income across four substantial data sets. In all instances, agreeableness was linked to lower earnings, with the relationship being most pronounced among men: the more agreeable a man was, the lower his average earnings tended to be.
This correlation stems from one area of study, not definitive proof that kindness leads to reduced income, and understanding the mechanism is crucial. Part of what is assessed is the readiness to negotiate, to advocate for oneself, and to refrain from simply acquiescing. Those attributes are less commonly exhibited by highly agreeable individuals, and they come with a cost in environments that reward assertiveness.
The finding is also accompanied by a clear asymmetry that should prevent anyone from interpreting it as straightforward advice. The financial advantage associated with disagreeableness was noted in men but not in women. As Judge articulated, a disagreeable man is often perceived as a strong negotiator, whereas a woman who behaves similarly is more likely to have her intentions scrutinized or face social penalties. This reflects a double standard rather than a meritocratic principle, indicating that the takeaway is not to be less agreeable. Judge’s own framing is more useful: there is a distinction between disagreeing and being disagreeable, and the former is a skill worth honing regardless of the prejudiced rewards reflected in the second column of the ledger.
The cost that affects group thinking
The second cost is communal, impacting the overall quality of decision-making. When everyone in a room prioritizes harmony, dissent is stifled, and research indicates that this adversely affects the quality of thinking.
Psychologist Charlan Nemeth at the University of California, Berkeley has dedicated decades to investigating the effects of disagreement on groups. Her primary conclusion, summarized in her research on the importance of dissent, indicates that genuine disagreement, even if the dissenter is ultimately incorrect, fosters broader thinking. Groups that encounter a real minority perspective seek additional information, evaluate more alternatives, and analyze an issue from various angles rather than hurriedly settling on the first agreeable solution. The outcome often leads to better decisions and more innovative solutions.
An important nuance enhances this point. Nemeth’s findings reveal that a contrived form of disagreement, such as a designated devil’s advocate, does not generate the same benefits. Individuals can differentiate between someone playing a role and someone genuinely holding an opposing view, and only authentic dissent expands their thinking. The participant in a meeting who raises a true objection, instead of merely agreeing to maintain harmony, is providing a service to the group that a polite consensus fails to achieve.
Disagreeing is distinct from being disagreeable
When you combine both costs, the same distinction is evident in each. What yields benefits, whether in a salary negotiation or a collective decision, is the willingness