> They’re more likely to fight for what they believe in, challenge the status quo, and push the organization to make painful but necessary changes, he says.

A long time ago, I had a new employer that wanted me to hotfix non-critical code changes to a live, popular website via FTP with no version control, no nothing. Like a single typo could crash a high traffic site. I told them this was extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and refused to do any changes until we got the system under version control with a reasonable way to deploy changes. This caused a huge standoff and I basically put my foot down and told them that I wouldn't be deploying any changes until I got the client's website under version control--they could dock my pay for the extra time it took, I didn't care. Anyhow, I set up version control and a deployment strategy that we could rollback (this only took a day or so). Then I made the changes and educated the team on how to safely push changes to the site.

A month or so later they decided to not renew my contract, but by then the feeling was quite mutual.

I told this story while interviewing at what would be my next employer and it worked as points in my favor.

EDIT: FWIW I consider myself a generally agreeable giver until a certain threshold is crossed. One such threshold is stuff that moves into what I consider to be ethically irresponsible behavior. Perhaps you would call this a "selectively agreeable/disagreeable giver." There are "disagreeable givers" that pick their battles wisely in terms of when to apply friction and when to go along with the team. On the flip side there are those that will apply friction to every little thing and might relish in complaining and "I told you so"s and cowboying up their own solutions for every small disagreement.

EDIT2: Clarifying that the "hotfixes" were non-critical, normal code changes.