One might expect that a pleasant nature would be an advantage in the workplace.But according to a new study, being nice could be detrimental to your earnings, with dominant women earning up to £40,000 more during their working lifetime.
The research, carried out by Guido Heineck from the Institute for Employment Research in Nuremberg, Germany, found that personality traits in female employees can affect their earning potential.
Over 5,000 men and women between the ages of 20 and 60 were asked to take a psychometric test, highlighting five basic personality traits – openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion agreeableness and neuroticism.
The 'alpha females', who adopted a more masculine approach in the office earned 4 per cent more than their more 'passive' colleagues. Those who were deemed to be anxious or moody experienced a drop in salary of 3 per cent.
However, varying personality traits in male workers had almost no effect on the salary.
Mr Heineck told the Daily Mail: "Personality traits can have the same impact on earnings as intelligence. Our statistics show that being nice does not pay for women, whereas working hard does.
"This is probably, in part, because agreeable people are too passive in conflict situations and are poorer wage negotiators.
"Traditionally, women are more passive and likeable at work. This shows that to be successful in the workplace, women have to adapt to more alpha male-like behaviour."
With the pay gap between men and women in fulltime work currently 12.8 per cent, according to the Office for National Statistics, it seems women will need to get in touch with their masculine side in order to dominate in the workplace.
Let us know what you think. Is the dominant approach the key to better earnings?
shopping spree
Comments:
Add your comment
Thursday 10 September
Written by The Debt Collector
Interestingly these so called "Alpha Females", who feel that they have absolute rights, ironically are the first to cry "Sex discrimintation" when things go wrong, despite having dismissed other members of staff.
Then we have the Ms Powerfull, who is too busy playing mind games than getting on with the job.
These (wheter male or female) spend more time "delegating" (read having sloping shoulders) and will not take responsibilty for anything; blaming others for what is actually the line managers' fault.
Ironically these so called Alpha Females are the ones who also have the highest turn-over of staff within their departments. Men doing the same thing would be accused of sexual harrassment; but not Ms Super-woman.
Equally the same Super-woman wants special terms when it comes to reproduction; it is only of late that men have been granted "paternity leave"; but not on the same terms as women. This was a Political move, buz all to do with the need for men to be at home with their wives (sorry partners- afterall most children are born out of wedlock).
Ironically there are a lot of men who look after children, some as a result of a relationship breakdown where the female has been the agent provacateur, alternatively on the more tragic situations where the mother is dead or physically unable to deal with the needs of a small, indeed growing child. One example is those who are stricken with the dreadful disability Multiple-Sclerosis and other related illnesses.
I have dealt with legal cases where the woman only got involved in the relationship because she wanted her 2.2 Children, but then applauded for maintaining her position, only to leave her children to a Nanny. The only exception to this scenario I can think of is Nicola Horlick, who had a severley disable child, together with three other healthy children, but never missed a Birthday, Sports day or other important day for her children.
All of these days were taken out of her annual leave; with the exception when her critically ill child was in danger, and tragically passed on. No-one ( in their right mind) would wish to see anyone go through that: male or female.
Yet there are many (younger) women who want to have a position of trust and authority, but at the same time want concessions all the time.
I am not saying that women should not have the right to have children; afterall the latter are our pension payers' but I do take exception when women want their bread buttered both sides.
Women had the Sex Discrimination Act in 1973, but now it seems they want everything their way all the time. Like most of the associated "Discrimiation Acts", one has to ask who is being discriminated against?
Why should women get preference, when they wanted equality?
REPLY