In a recent article from The Guardian, a study into the economic value of childhood social-emotional skills challenges the conventional wisdom that bullies do not prosper. But is this really the case? Surely we should be thinking of the wider implications of framing aggressive behaviour as a pathway to success.
The study, spanning five decades and tracking nearly 7,000 individuals born in 1970, suggests a surprising association between aggressive behaviour exhibited during childhood and higher earnings in middle age. Additionally, those displaying such behaviours are more likely to report higher job satisfaction and hold more desirable positions.
The research team examined data collected from primary school teachers who assessed the social and emotional skills of children at age 10 in 1980. This data was then compared to the individuals' lives at age 46 in 2016. While the study did find that children with attention and emotional challenges tended to earn less in the future, it was unexpected to discover a strong association between aggressive behaviour in school and later financial success.
There are some problems with this.
The fact that data was collected from ten year olds, in the 1980s, raises concerns about the applicability of the results to more recent settings. Additionally, the study is said to be observational, and so does not establish causality. While the researchers report that care was to consider the effects of a range of demographic and contextual factors at the time, there might be other aspects, such as the evolution of peer influences, school characteristics and family dynamics that confound or mediate the observed associations. Moreover, the study's findings may overlook potential community disparities in the perception and manifestation of aggressive behaviour. Research and lived experience demonstrates that societal expectations and consequences for aggression differ between demographic groups, warranting a nuanced examination of a cross-section of society in relation to career outcomes.
The study speculates that encouraging competitive environments in classrooms may prompt children to adapt by displaying aggression to secure their place in the hierarchy. There is the suggestion that reevaluating discipline in schools and finding constructive outlets for aggressive tendencies could be beneficial, which aligns with previous research indicating that externalising behaviour linked to aggression and hyperactivity is associated with lower educational attainment but higher earnings. To cushion the assertion that we should promote negative behaviour, the researchers caution against encouraging misbehaviour in children; instead promoting assertiveness and standing one's ground in a constructive manner. Additionally, the study's scholars advocate for policies supporting social-emotional skills in education to prevent negative impacts on earning potential later in life.
I do take issue with the promotion of aggression and ill-placed assertiveness.
The suggestion that aggressive behaviour or 'constructive' assertiveness leads to greater financial success may perpetuate harmful stereotypes and undermine efforts to promote empathy, cooperation, and non-violent conflict resolution, with the latter attributes considered attractive to prospective employers. It is essential to consider the ethical implications of framing aggressive behaviour as a pathway to success. In addition, it is essential to recognise that success manifests in various forms and is influenced by multifaceted factors beyond aggression. Emphasising a narrow definition of success may overlook individuals who excel through collaboration, innovation, and empathy. Rather than focusing solely on aggression or social-emotional skills in isolation, efforts to support children's development should adopt a holistic approach. This includes cultivating empathy, bouncebackability, and conflict resolution skills alongside academic achievement, promoting well-rounded individuals capable of navigating diverse social and professional contexts. The article briefly touches on shifts in workplace culture, particularly in response to recent social justice movements. As organisations rightly prioritise inclusivity, emotional intelligence, and ethical leadership, the value attributed to aggressive behaviours should justifiably diminish, challenging the long-term relevance of the study's findings.
The article's headline conclusion that aggression at school leads to better-paying jobs is eye-catching but oversimplifies the study's findings. Furthermore, the study's findings are misaligned with the direction of the educational sphere. If we want to increase educational attainment, and better the outcomes of young people in preparation for the future, policies should focus on children's holistic development that promotes well-rounded individuals and tackles systemic issues. The study's many limitations should give us pause before drawing definitive conclusions. Policymakers and school leaders should be careful to consider all of these factors before implementing any interventions based on these findings.
Comments