New research by two UC Berkeley experts tracked disagreeable people — those with selfish, combative, manipulative personalities — from college or graduate school to where they landed in their careers and found that being a “jerk” didn’t get them ahead.

两位加州大学伯克利分校（UC Berkeley）的专家进行了一项新研究，跟踪调查了性格不随和的人，即那些自私、好斗、爱控制别人的人，从他们大学或研究生院一直到职业生涯结束，结果发现，成为一个“混蛋”并不能让他们获得成功。

The evidence is in: Nice guys and gals don’t finish last, and being a selfish jerk doesn’t get you ahead.

证据是：好人最后并非总是输，做一个自私的混蛋不会让你更好。

That’s the clear conclusion from research that tracked disagreeable people — those with selfish, combative, manipulative personalities — from college or graduate school to where they landed in their careers about 14 years later.

这是对那些个性自私、好斗、喜欢控制别人的人进行跟踪调查后得出的明确结论。跟踪调查从这些人大学或研究生院一直到14年后走上职业道路。

“I was surprised by the consistency of the findings. 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,” said Berkeley Haas professor Cameron Anderson, who 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.

“我对调查结果的一致性感到惊讶。无论个人或群体，在权力的竞争中，不随和并没有给人们带来任何优势——相反更多的劣势,比如“狗咬狗”的企业文化,”伯克利哈斯商学院（Berkeley Haas）教授Cameron Anderson说道，同时他也是这项研究的合著者，包括加州大学伯克利分校的心理学教授Oliver P. John，加州大学伯克利分校哈斯商学院博士生Daron l .专家和科尔比学院（Colby College）的副教授 Christopher J. Soto。

The paper was published Aug. 31 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

这篇论文发表在8月31日的《美国国家科学院院刊》（Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences）上。

The researchers conducted two studies of people who had completed personality assessments as undergraduates or MBA students at three universities. They surveyed the same people more than a decade later, asking about their power and rank in their workplace hierarchies, as well as the culture of their organizations. They also asked their co-workers about the study participants’ workplace behavior and rank. Across the board, they found those with who scored high on disagreeable traits were not more likely to have attained power than those who were generous, trustworthy and generally nice.

研究人员对三所大学的本科生或MBA学生进行了两项研究。十多年后，他们对这些人进行了调查，询问他们在工作场所的权力和等级，以及他们所在企业的文化。他们还询问了他们的同事关于研究参与者在工作场所的行为和等级。总的来说，他们发现那些在令人讨厌的特质上得分高的人，并不比那些慷慨、值得信赖和通常很好相处的人更容易获得权力。

That’s not to say that jerks don’t reach positions of power. It’s just that they don’t get ahead faster than others, and being a jerk simply doesn’t help, Anderson said. That’s because any power boost they get from being intimidating is offset by their poor interpersonal relationships, the researchers found. In contrast, they found that extroverts were the most likely to have advanced in their organizations, based on their sociability, energy and assertiveness — findings backed up by prior research.

这并不是说这些混蛋就不会有权力。Anderson说:“这只是因为他们不能比别人进步得更快，做个混蛋根本没有帮助。”研究人员发现，这是因为他们从恐吓中获得的权力提升会被他们糟糕的人际关系所抵消。相比之下，他们发现，外向的人最有可能在组织中获得晋升，这基于他们的社交能力、活力和魄力——这一发现得到了之前研究的支持。

“The bad news here is that organizations do place disagreeable individuals in charge just as often as agreeable people,” Anderson said. “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.”

Anderson说:“坏消息是，在组织中，让不友善的人担任主管的次数与友善的人一样多。”“换句话说，他们允许蠢人和其他人一样以同样的速度获得权力，即使这些蠢人掌权会对企业造成严重损害。”

The age-old question of whether being aggressively Machiavellian helps people get ahead has long interested Anderson, who studies social status. It’s a critical question for managers, because ample research has shown that jerks in positions of power are abusive, prioritize their own self-interests, create corrupt cultures and, ultimately, cause their organizations to fail. They also serve as toxic role models for society at large.

Anderson研究社会地位，他一直对一个古老的问题很感兴趣，那就是咄咄逼人的马基雅维利（Machiavellian）是否有助于人们获得成功。对管理者来说，这是一个关键问题，因为大量研究表明，掌权的混蛋会滥用权力，优先考虑自身利益，创造腐败的文化，并最终导致企业失败。他们也为整个社会树立了有害的榜样。

For example, people who read former-Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ biography might think, “Maybe if I become an even bigger asshole, I’ll be successful like Steve,” the authors note in their paper.

例如，读过前苹果CEOSteve Jobs传记的人可能会想，“如果我成为一个更大的混蛋，我可能会像他一样成功，”作者们在他们的文中写道。

“My advice to managers would be to pay attention to agreeableness as an important qualification for positions of power and leadership,” Anderson said. “Prior research is clear: Agreeable people in power produce better outcomes.”

Anderson说:“我对经理们的建议是，注意亲和性，这是担任有权力和领导力职位的重要条件。之前的研究很清楚的表明：和蔼可亲的掌权者会产生更好的结果。”

While there’s clearly no shortage of jerks in power, there’s been little empirical research to settle the question of whether being disagreeable actually helps them get there, or is simply incidental to their success. Anderson and his co-authors set out to create a research design that would clear up the debate. (They pre-registered their analysis for both studies on aspredicted.org.)

虽然掌权的人中不乏蠢人，但很少有实证研究来解决这样一个问题：不友善到底是有助于他们取得成功，还是只是他们成功的偶然因素？Anderson和他的合著者着手创建一个研究设计，以澄清争论。(他们在aspredics.com网站上预先注册了这两项研究的分析。)

Defending disagreeableness

保卫不愉快

What defines a jerk? The participants had all completed the Big Five Inventory (BFI), an assessment based on general consensus among psychologists of the five fundamental personality dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism and agreeableness. It was developed by Anderson’s co-author, John, who directs the Berkeley Personality Lab. In addition, some of the participants also completed a second personality assessment, the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R).

混蛋的定义是什么?参与者都完成了Big Five人格量表(BFI)，这是一项基于心理学家对五个基本人格维度的普遍共识的评估：开放性、尽责性、外向性、神经质性和亲和性。它是由Anderson的合著者John开发的，他是伯克利人格实验室的主任。此外，一些参与者还完成了第二次人格评估，NEO Personality inventory -修订版(NEO PI-R)。

“Disagreeableness is a relatively stable aspect of personality that involves the tendency to behave in quarrelsome, cold, callous and selfish ways,” the researchers explained. “Disagreeable people tend to be hostile and abusive to others, deceive and manipulate others for their own gain and ignore others’ concerns or welfare.”

研究人员解释说:“不合群是性格中相对稳定的一个方面，表现为容易争吵、冷漠、无情和自私。不友善的人往往怀有敌意，虐待他人，为了自己的利益欺骗和操纵他人，忽视他人的关心和利益。”

In the first study, which involved 457 participants, the researchers found no relationship between power and disagreeableness, no matter whether the person had scored high or low on those traits. That was true regardless of gender, race or ethnicity, industry or the cultural norms in the organization.

在第一项有457名参与者参与的研究中，研究人员发现，权力与不随和之间没有关系，无论这个人在这些特质上的得分是高还是低。无论组织中的性别、种族或民族、行业或文化规范如何，这都是事实。

Four paths to power

权力的四种途径

The second study went deeper, looking at the four main ways people attain power: through dominant-aggressive behavior, or using fear and intimidation; political behavior, or building alliances with influential people; communal behavior, or helping others; and competent behavior, or being good at one’s job. They also asked the subjects’ co-workers to rate the subjects’ places in the hierarchy, as well as their workplace behavior. Interestingly, the co-workers’ ratings largely matched the subjects’ self-assessments.

第二项研究更深入，着眼于人们获得权力的四种主要方式：通过支配性攻击行为，或使用恐惧和恐吓；政治行为，或与有影响力的人结盟；公共行为，或帮助他人；有能力的行为，或擅长于自己的工作。他们还让受试者的同事给受试者在等级中所处的位置以及他们的工作行为打分。有趣的是，同事的评价与受试者的自我评价基本一致。

This analysis allowed the researchers to better understand why disagreeable people do not get ahead faster than others. Even though jerks tend to engage in dominant behavior, their lack of communal behavior cancels out any advantage their aggressiveness gives them, they concluded.

这一分析让研究人员更好地理解了为什么不友善的人不能比其他人更快地获得成功。他们总结说，尽管混蛋倾向于主导行为，但他们缺乏集体行为，抵消了他们的攻击性给他们带来的任何好处。

Anderson noted that the findings don’t directly speak to whether disagreeableness helps people attain power in the realm of electoral politics, where the power dynamics are different than in organizations. But there are some likely parallels. “Having a strong set of alliances is generally important to power in all areas of life,” he said. “Disagreeable politicians might have more difficulty maintaining necessary alliances because of their toxic behavior.”

Anderson指出，研究结果并没有直接说明在选举政治领域，不亲和性是否有助于人们获得权力，在这个领域，权力动态与组织中是不同的。但两者之间可能存在一些相似之处。他说:“在生活的各个领域，拥有一组强大的联盟对权力来说都很重要。由于不友好的政客们的有害行为，他们可能更难维持必要的联盟。”