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? In the past all too often an employer would forget the value of the employee and vice versa the employee would forget the value of having a paying job. However, today I think the table have turned where the employees have become more agreeable know all too well jobs are hard to come by. The disagreement between being agreeable or disagreeable employee is still there just a little less shown to the employer. Depending of the job not all employers will want a high agreeable employee, for example if the position required someone with strong leadership stills and the ability to make decisions is might not be a good idea to hire someone that is overly agreeable. One the other hand highly agreeable person would be great for a personnel assistance position. From the text Conscientiousness and not agreeableness was more important than any other trait in the Big Five Traits related to job performance. Tanking that into account it’s prudent and I believe many employers do with hiring judge individual on many different traits. Being disagreeable is not necessary a bad thing, however to deal with any conflict from disagreeable employees, cooperation from both parties need to be practice in order to receive resolution for the overall goal.
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? Any job situations where saving the life of another person in involved the workers should in agreement. In times when being disagreeable can make or drive a business out of business. Question 3
In some research we’ve conducted, we’ve found that the negative effect of agreeableness on earning is stronger from men...