Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Why is "aggressiveness" a good metric to use for determining promotions and compensation, as opposed to something more practical like say competency?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

SpaceClown posted:

If you're talking about why is assertiveness in this context considered more important, it's simple; Unconfident talent simply does not produce like confident talent.

Do you have anything at all to back up this assertion that people who ask for more money are better workers on average?

Or is this just circular reasoning: people who lie convincingly about their resume in interviews get paid more, and well people who get paid more must be better programmers.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

SpaceClown posted:

No, but in support of your argument against such a thing, there's this article: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/75/3/315/

I don't see how this applies.

SpaceClown posted:

The main point of that was that corporations want a confident employee. It's been established they aren't meritocracies already.

But if this preference is arbitrary, then it isn't sufficient justification for the wage gap, in fact it appears to be the proof of sexism that you're asking for.

Why are women less assertive in salary negotiations?
If it has nothing to do with biology, and they're just socialized this way then our society inherently sets women up to fail by establishing an arbitrary standard and training them to not meet it.
If it is 100% biology and women are just :biotruths: less assertive then again our society sets women up to fail by establishing an arbitrary standard that they're biologically predisposed to be unable to meet.

Also just in general if corporations aren't meritocracies and pay is based on something arbitrary like assertiveness then it seems to me we'd have a double benefit by abolishing that standard: we'd get rid of the wage gap which is good, and get rid of the inefficiencies we introduce by promoting people based on a useless characteristic.

  • Locked thread