'Nice guys' can finish first

I have always been fascinated by the words of author John Steinbeck in his book Cannery Row published in 1945.

 “It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second.”

The first set of traits are universally liked by all, including the corporate world but may not be considered effective in delivering results especially when the time horizon is relatively short. This kind of person is constantly told to become assertive (aggressive, if you read between the lines). Performance appraisals and year-end conversations often start with compliments which are soon followed by a series of ‘buts’. This person is torn between the need to preserve who they are and the demands placed by the organization on them to be someone they have always despised.

At the other end of the spectrum are the ‘abrasive leaders’ (often referred to as ‘go-getters’ in the corporate lexicon). They deliver results consistently, are admired and extolled for their ‘tiger’ like qualities. They leave no stone unturned to get what they want. They break through obstacles (both the living and the non-living), are not shy of being self-serving (putting their own needs and interests first) and grab what they can get. In some organizational cultures, the consequent positive connotation is that he/she is ambitious, takes charge, seizes the day and gets things done. To paraphrase Steinbeck, the tangible outcomes this person brings is music to the ears.

One key assumption I make is that both the types are equally competent and qualified. The difference lies solely in their methods of getting results i.e. abrasive and a self-serving approach versus a more mature, taking others along, broader perspectives approach. Without doubt, qualities such as ambition, drive, intrinsic motivation and results orientation are foundational qualifications for a successful corporate career but both types can possess this in equal measure.

I have often seen three possible strategies that corporates adopt as far as the abrasive type is concerned. The first strategy is that the person’s misdemeanours are ignored. Repeated murmurs, complaints and grouses against these ‘Greek gods’ are brushed under the carpet as seniors look the other way. It is just not convenient. Sometimes they are sent to executive coaches to do what the organization itself could not accomplish. This is a whole new topic in itself.

The second strategy is even worse – these behaviours are actively encouraged and the first type is told to emulate and role model the same.

The third strategy is to actively discourage these behaviours (finally a sigh of relief) and this happens when the organization realises the real cost of such resources. Some organizations are exemplary in this respect - standing up to undesirable behaviour, calling this out early, taking swift action in the interest of the overall culture, morale and team effectiveness. I have deep respect for such organizations.

No doubt, every corporate has to answer to stakeholders and nothing speaks louder than results and tangible achievements. However, here are some issues to ponder over.

• Does undesirable and abrasive behaviour really get results or is it just a case of the person getting away with these behaviours because they accomplish other things well.
• In leading with fear and intimidation, what kind of results are obtained and more importantly what is the cost?
• Why do we give such high weightage to results and outcomes as opposed to the process (the how) of getting them?  
• When will we universally benchmark the positive ROI of leaders who are inclusive, collaborative, selfless and a necessary catalyst for long term and sustainable success?

As Simon Sinek says we are in an infinite game, there is no declared winner and loser as the game never ends (whether it is size, position, market capitalization or any other metrics). Do we not need to ask what and who it takes to play this infinite game?

Finally, Adam Grant found in his research that the world can be categorised as givers and takers. In his research, the givers were at the bottom of the success ladder and the takers were predictably above them. However, the biggest surprise finding was that it was the givers once again that occupied the very top of this ladder. Grant articulates that some givers can be pushovers and find themselves being left behind.  However, there is something truly distinctive about the success of givers at the very top. The success spreads and cascades (when takers win, someone loses). Successful givers are every bit as ambitious as takers, they simply have a different way of pursuing their goals.

There are many visible examples of organizations that do exceedingly well on this count. If these organisations become our role models and benchmarks then this approach would no doubt become more pervasive. 

It is an idea whose time has come.