Does it pay to be naughty or nice?

Article reprinted from The Management Blog.

do nice guys finish last?The old saying says that nice guys finish last, and I'm sure most of us could recount numerous examples of people we regard less than favourably achieving greatness they surely don't deserve.

New research from Cornell University adds weight to this argument, suggesting that nice guys earn £4,500 less than nasty ones.

The study, by Beth A Livingston of Cornell University, Timothy A Judge of the University of Notre Dame and Charlice Hurst of the University of Western Ontario, interviewed 9,000 people who entered the labour force in the past decade about their career, and gave personality tests which were then measured against income data.

The researchers identified six key elements of niceness:

 

  • trust 
  • straightforwardness
  • compliance
  • altruism
  • modesty 
  • tender-mindedness

 

All of which seems reasonable enough, and it's hard to imagine someone lacking those traits getting far in the workplace.

So why is niceness a disadvantage?

 

It's important to clarify what we mean by disagreeable, for it isn't being an arsehole.  What it does mean however that you forcibly defend your position during times of conflict.  Nicer people are more prone to compromising for the good of the group, whereas 'nastier' people tend to hold firm.  They're quite happy to fight for what they believe in.

From the research it was found that both women and agreeable men earnt quite a bit less than their disagreeable male colleagues, to the tune of around £4,500.

In a series of follow up studies these results were replicated.  They found that less agreeable men earnt 18% more (approx £6,000) than nice guys.  For women the penalty for niceness was only 5.47%, or £1,300.  So for men it's three times as valuable to be forceful at work than it is for their female colleagues.

What's behind these results?

A final experiment resembled a recruitment situation where people were asked to rate which candidates to put forward for a management position.  Candidates were given certain character traits, with some candidates described as much more trusting, altruistic and humble than others (ie more likeable).

Alarmingly, people with these traits were much less likely to be fast tracked into management, especially if they were male.

The researchers suggest this is down to our expectations of each gender.  Since we assume men will selfishly pursue their interests we tend to look down on those who do not, which leads to a “backlash” against unselfish and altruistic men. In other words, we expect the worst and punish the best.

All is not completely lost for the nice guys however.  Another study found that whilst nice guys might not get ahead in the office, niceness is officially the trait most desired by women in a partner.  So niceness might not make you rich, but it seems it will help you find love.

 

Related

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

7 thoughts on “Does it pay to be naughty or nice?

  1. Kinda sad that we define success as having lots of money isn't it? I'd much rather be a good guy and not have so much money than be a rich tosser.

    • Think you've hit the nail on the head there Marco. There has been a lot of management research into how we're motivated, and money comes way down the list. Success is much more important. As you, and Wayne, say, success and happiness is much more than something that can be measured in material ways.

  2. This study does assume that winning in life is reflected by how much money you have and I really don't think that's the case. You don't need any of the luxuries a high salary provides in order to be happy. So if we make the assumption that happiness rather than wealth is the point of life, I'd say being a nice guy is much the better approach to take.

    • An indictment of modern society isn't it, that success and happiness can only be measured by how much money we earn or what trivial luxury we have.

  3. Part of the problem is that we perceive "leaders" as someone who goes around giving orders, "inspiring" others and the like. Only when we change the notion of leadership into developing the leadership of others rather than turning them into lemmings will we move beyond these beliefs.

    • That's a good point David. Being a 'bosshole' does not lend itself well to collaborative working. It's very much command & control thinking.

  4. Negotiations aren't won by steamrolling people, says Wharton professor Stuart Diamond. A better strategy is to listen to your opponents and to focus on their stated needs as much as on your objectives. "Really good negotiators have a firm grip on the obvious," Diamond says.
    http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/02/how-

    Nothing in there about being a bosshole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Captcha loading...