Mr. Nice Guy Is In, The Jerk Is Out; UC Berkeley Research Shows

BERKELEY, CA — Wipe that smug look off your face, it won't bring you success — and research has proven it. UC Berkeley psychology and business experts published a study Monday that tracked the performance of disagreeable people in the workplace and found that their behavior didn't get them ahead, contrary to popular belief.

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and followed a group disagreeable people—those with selfish, combative, manipulative demeanors—and analyzed where they landed in their careers about 14 years after college.

“I was surprised by the consistency of the findings," Berkeley Haas professor Cameron Anderson told Berkeley News. "No matter the individual or the context, disagreeableness did not give people an advantage in the competition for power — even in more cutthroat, ‘dog-eat-dog’ organizational cultures."

Cameron co-authored the study with UC Berkeley psychology professor Oliver P. John, Berkeley Haas doctoral student Daron L. Sharps and associate professor Christopher J. Soto of Colby College.

The team of researchers conducted two studies with a group of people who had undergone personality assessments as students at three universities. More than 10 years later, they asked the same people about their status at work and about the culture at their respective workplaces.

They found that the workers who had scored high on disagreeable traits were less likely to have attained power in the workplace over those who were generous, trustworthy and all around friendly people.

This goes against the age-old trope of step on the little guy to get ahead, in cutthroat corporate America. Take Steve Jobs for example, the authors note in their paper, "Maybe if I become an even bigger a------, I'll be successful like Steve."

The research also points to the fact that these stereotypes sometimes do reach positions of power; however, they simply don't get ahead faster than others.

According to Anderson, this is due to the fact that any elevated position of power they reach from intimidating others is often offset by their poor relationships and communication skills with others.

In their research, they found that extroverts who were perceived as genuine and friendly, were more likely to have excelled in their careers.

“The bad news here is that organizations do place disagreeable individuals in charge just as often as agreeable people,” Anderson told Berkeley News. “In other words, they allow jerks to gain power at the same rate as anyone else, even though jerks in power can do serious damage to the organization.”

These described "jerks" had all taken a personality test called the Big Five Inventory, which is based on the five fundamental personality dimensions determined by psychologists: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism and agreeableness.

In this study, which involved 457 participants, researchers found no correlation between power and disagreeableness.

In a second study, in which the authors evaluated the participants and their varying degrees of success, they looked at how disagreeable or aggressive behavior in the workplace affects overall performance.

They concluded that people who have dominant personalities with a lack of communal consideration, cancels out any advantage their aggressiveness would give them.

According to Berkeley News, Anderson said that these discoveries don't necessarily speak to how people attain power in the political world since those power mechanics are different than the workplace dynamic, but there may be some parallels.

"Having a strong set of alliances is generally important to power in all areas of life," Anderson said. "Disagreeable politicians might have more difficulty maintaining necessary alliances because of their toxic behavior."

Read more from Berkeley News: Being a selfish jerk doesn’t get you ahead, research finds