Earlier today I was reading a blog post over at the Harvard Business Review that asked the question: do nice guys finish last? This is a question that I've thought about on and off ever since my decision to pursue a career in the business world (fun fact- I used to do a bit of freelance design and very seriously considered pursuing my MFA in illustration/fine art), and I still feel conflicted about the answer.
The author's answer? Yep. Nice guys do in fact finish last, a trend displayed by a study showing that men perceived as having more (or larger) "nice" attributes have yearly salaries averaging $10,000 less than their not so agreeable counterparts. Interestingly enoough, the same didn't hold true among women displaying more "nice" characteristics.
So why is it that nice guys finish last but nice girls compete well (compared to their respective counterparts)?
According to the article, niceness doesn't showcase (or can distract from) certain perceived leadership qualities. The ability to make decisions unilaterally when necessary without spending unavailable time seeking universal consensus, the ability to make tough decisions that will likely upset others, and other sleeves rolled up, dirtier aspects of leading others and (sometimes) being the bad guy/gal to ensure organizational growth and progress.
Where do I stand? I'd like to think that, when leading teams, I am a balance of nice and authoritative. After all, a major part of being a leader is convincing your key constituents to support and follow you, and as they say: it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. But the question I have to ask myself is: am I too nice?
The answer is I'm somewhat unsure. I know that I'm definitely perceived as nice and happy (in fact, an NYU Stern admissions officer once jokingly questioned whether I was capable of being sad), but I know that I can't always be the nice guy. On the flip side, when I think about the managers who have had the most lasting and positive impact on my growth, they have all been passionate and charismatic individuals who understood that morale is important. I've also seen and heard from people in environments where tyrannical managers created low morale among staff- the result was almost always that firms lost beneficial (often revenue or profit increasing) talent.
I'm going to keep pushing myself to grow outside of my comfort zone- I know that I need to be able to determine when it's important to be nice and when consensus building must be temporarily put aside to make important, often fast, decisions.
What about you? Do you tend to be on the more or less "nice" end of the management spectrum? Are you trying to change these perceptions, and what's more- should they matter?
Let me know your thoughts and questions in the comments!