Do good people always lose?

In the competitive world of business and the workplace, we tend to prefer people who are well-liked and approachable, but we can't help feeling that those who are domineering and competitive seem to achieve their goals more easily. Unfortunately, recently some scholars used a large sample, years of data, and research to confirm this unpleasant feeling. Recently, a joint study by Cornell University, the University of Notre Dame, and Western University in Canada investigated the impact of gender and personality on income, verifying that employees with an easygoing personality indeed earn less than difficult-to-get-along-with employees, with this income gap being more pronounced among male employees.

This research lasted more than 10 years, conducted four surveys, and interviewed about 10,000 Americans, with the English report PDF version spanning 63 pages. The conclusion: difficult-to-get-along-with men have an average annual income 18% higher than easygoing men (about $9,772), while difficult-to-get-along-with women earn 5% more than easygoing women (about $1,828).

This report, titled "Do Good People Always Lose?—On the Impact of Gender and Agreeableness on Income," has attracted attention from all sectors in the United States, particularly experts in human resources discussing the fairness of compensation systems. "We must take this issue seriously. Easygoing people actually contribute greatly to the company. Their good interpersonal relationships, excellent cooperation skills, and willingness to help can bring many benefits to the company, such as reducing staff turnover," said Beth A. Livingston, associate professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations and a member of the research team. "Many employers do not realize that while they value the role of easygoing people, in terms of compensation systems they still tend to reward difficult-to-get-along-with people more."

Are poor interpersonal relationships a sign of high ability? Renowned American psychologists Paul Costa and Jeff McCrae proposed in 1992 that easygoing people have six main characteristics: trust in others, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, gentleness, and empathy. So, what are difficult-to-get-along-with people like? Do they not care about their interpersonal relationships at all? In fact, most difficult-to-get-along-with people are essentially kind. They just express their differing opinions in certain situations, for example, actively defending their position excessively during disputes. Some extremely difficult-to-get-along-with individuals may engage in antisocial or immoral behavior.However, compared to easygoing people, people who are difficult to get along with are less likely to experience clinical psychological problems, and according to the research conclusions of Dennis Balch and Robert Armstrong, antisocial and unethical behavior does not prevent people from earning a high income. According to the findings of Costa and McCrae, easygoing people may not turn their human capital advantages into economic benefits. If easygoing people's goal is to establish and maintain good interpersonal relationships, this goal may conflict with career success. On the other hand, people who are difficult to get along with do not consider obtaining harmonious interpersonal relationships as one of their fundamental goals; they place more value on a sense of achievement and are therefore unwilling to compromise their own interests. Although being difficult to get along with does not necessarily mean being more capable or more concerned about the company, in the eyes of many employers, cold interpersonal relationships are a sign of strong ability, and people who frequently criticize others are considered more competent than those who frequently offer friendly evaluations. In fact, people sometimes assign high-level, well-paid positions to easily angered individuals. This is not only the boss's way of thinking but also the perception of ability held by most people. Although by nature we all like kind colleagues, we view competitiveness and aggressiveness as signs of capability.

How social expectations of gender affect income
Although being difficult to get along with is considered a competitive advantage, since expectations for professional men and women differ, it impacts men's income more than women's. Statistics show that the income gap between men and women in the United States has persisted since 1955, narrowed significantly in the 1980s, and now shows a trend of widening again. Traditionally, there are two theories explaining the gender-based reasons for income disparities: the demand theory and the supply theory. The demand theory considers the structural needs and institutional characteristics of the labor market, while the supply theory explains from the perspective of differences in human capital and career planning between men and women. Both theories help understand the influence of agreeableness on pay and the combined effect of gender and agreeableness on pay.

People generally believe that men should exhibit masculinity, be individualistic, and less collective, while women should be gentle, kind, highly collective, and less individualistic. If a man or woman behaves in a way that does not align with these social expectations in a certain situation, they may face economic or social 'sanctions.' They either are not recognized or are deprived of opportunities.There is more research on women in this regard. Countless papers have found that women who achieve success in traditional male-dominated industries are seen as having poor interpersonal skills. A few papers have found that men who act more old-fashioned are also socially "punished"—men in traditional female-oriented professions receive far less respect than women in their industry and men in traditionally male-dominated professions. In fact, more high-profile women and lower-profile men are not very attractive to the opposite sex. This may explain why the income of women who are not easygoing has not increased significantly. Because experience tells them that if they act too "manly," they will be "punished" by social norms. Therefore, they often hide parts of their true nature, such as making appropriate compromises in salary negotiations or not expressing opinions when differing opinions. Women who realize their interpersonal relationships are poor put in more effort to improve relationships than men with similar personalities. This may explain why the income gap between hard-to-get and easy-to-get women is smaller. Wait. Since difficult people value personal interests more than easygoing ones, do hard-to-get people tend to overstate their income? Evidence shows that easygoing people are actually more likely to overestimate their income. Because they are more willing to shape their impression of others. Advice for "Easygoing" Turning easygoing people into aggressive ones is unrealistic, so the advice for "easygoing" is to adopt different strategies depending on the situation. For example, in negotiations involving benefit distribution (such as salary negotiations), don't let the value of relationships become a stumbling block to expressing your needs and getting the greatest benefit. Surveys show that women skilled at self-censorship are more likely to achieve good results in benefits distribution negotiations because they can adjust their own toughness according to the opponent's toughness. If the opponent is very persistent, they are also very persistent; If the opponent is easy to compromise, they are also prone to compromise. In other words, they don't need to push every step in every salary negotiation but decide based on the specific situation. This way, they don't have to give up friendly prosocial behaviors that bring them other benefits, such as friendship.