Probably went off track. Think the traits will come into it but probably says more about the manager than the employee. The “alpha” will probably threaten to walk where the person in the blue will have the mentality “I want to quit but then I’ll be letting the rest of my team down”
And believe me, I’ve been in the latter situation.
There’s a lot of reasons that might be true.
Confident, well…I don’t think I need to go over negotiating a package again.
They might also have a better network ( if not actual better networking skills).
They might also know how to play the game better. They might know exactly when it’s time for Them to move on.
They might have more people they can trust, and in higher roles those sort of people are definitely needed, people who will help you bury the body.
Someone like this might be absolute pants at building and keeping an effective team (or department), hence the disagreeable bit, but they’re going to do very well anyway.
The confident person gets rewarded the quite one doesn’t. But given we are talking about work, shouldn’t the persons actual output be the determining factor.
None of them are good business reasons though. A lot of this stuff shouldn’t just be seen through the prisim of equality. It’s how do you maximise output of your team, how do you retain all your good people, what values are you rewarding.
In the modern workforce key skills are communication, relationship building and motivation. I don’t see how being disagreeable helps any of these. As you pointed out they probably completely screw up their teams.
They may also be playing by rules made up to suit their traits.
There are many roles in life that have stereotypical criteria as an ‘ideal’ when in fact, the criteria are the things that need to change, not the skills/traits/attitude/whatever. For example, for a politician to do well, they do not need to be ‘aggressive’. Aggression works for what we think a politician is and for the system we’ve created around the pathway to being one. However, for a ‘politician’ to do well at the function of a politician - aggression is not a valuable trait.
What I’m saying is, without wanting to generalise too much, more men have more of these tools in the kit than women.
Not that they’re exclusively male traits.
And they help people be paid well for not doing a very good job.
While we are talking about it, do politicians all get paid the same? Obviously the PM would be highest but when Labour get into government, will Penny Wong for instance get the same as what the liberal counterpart was getting?
I think this is your different colours thing again.
I think a politician definitely needs to be aggressive.
When it’s appropriate.
And also nurturing and analytical.
And I don’t see any of these things as male or female, they’re simply learned skills.