There are two opposite teachings in the world.
"Nice guys get exploited and finish last."
"Kindness is not just for others; it eventually returns to you."
Which one should you believe? Actually, the data provides a surprising answer.
Both are correct.
Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, conducted a large-scale study on the relationship between success and three types of people:
- Givers: People who give to others before seeking a return (the "nice guys").
- Takers: People who take more from others than they give.
- Matchers: People who believe in fairness and give exactly as much as they receive.
The study found that Givers were most prevalent among the lowest-performing group. This was true for engineers, salespeople, and medical students alike. The "nice guys" were indeed sinking.
However, here is the twist. Givers were also the most prevalent among the top-performing group.
In a study of salespeople, Givers in the top tier outperformed Takers and Matchers by about 50%. While Takers and Matchers clustered in the middle, Givers were split between the very bottom and the very top.
In other words, "nice guys" are both the type most likely to sink and the type most likely to succeed.
This article solves two things: Why "nice guys" reach the top (the real reason), and where the path diverges between the sinking nice guy and the rising one.
Reason 1: Because the majority of the world are "returners," a tailwind blows for those who give.
The first reason lies not within the person, but in the surrounding structure.
In Grant's research, the vast majority of people are neither Givers nor Takers, but Matchers (those who return what they receive).
This habit of Matchers is the key. Because Matchers value fairness, when they find a Taker, they spread their reputation and punish them; when they find a Giver, they provide opportunities and reward them.
In other words, around a nice guy, the majority spontaneously acts as "collection agents." Even if the person doesn't seek a return, the structure collects it for them.
A famous experiment mathematically confirmed this. Political scientist Robert Axelrod held a game theory strategy tournament. Researchers from around the world brought programs that chose to "cooperate or betray" and played them against each other.
The result was that the top spots were dominated by "virtuous" strategies that never betrayed first. Strategies that earned temporarily through betrayal dropped out as the game became long-term due to retaliation and damaged reputation.
The conclusion derived from this is simple:
In a one-time game, the Taker wins. In a repeated game, the nice guy wins.
And business is almost entirely a repeated game. Industries are narrow, transactions continue, and people carry their reputations even when they change jobs. The idea that "nice guys succeed" is not just a spiritual sentiment; it is the equilibrium solution of a repeated game.
Reason 2: Work is distributed by "likability," not just ability.
The second reason is even more blunt.
A study by Casciaro and Lobo published in the Harvard Business Review (2005) analyzed over 10,000 collaborative relationships across multiple organizations to see "who people want to work with."
There were four types. Everyone chooses the "competent and likable" person, and no one chooses the "incompetent and unpleasant" person. The problem lies in the remaining two:
Between the "competent but jerk" and the "lovable fool," which one do people choose?
On the surface, almost everyone answers, "It's work, so I choose based on ability." However, the actual behavioral data showed the opposite. People chose to work with the likable partner even if they had to overlook some lack of ability.
What does this mean?
Work opportunities, informal information, referrals, and help when in trouble—resources in organizations and markets flow according to the "people I want to work with list," not official evaluation sheets.
The second reason nice guys succeed is not talent, but the total volume of opportunities. Because they are called upon more often, they get more turns at bat. Because they get more turns, they gain more skill. It's not that "nice guys get lucky," but that "trials concentrate on nice guys."
There is also data to the contrary. In an experiment by Phelps at the University of Washington, having just one unpleasant member in a team reduced the entire team's performance by 30-40%. No matter how brilliant, a person who cuts the output of those around them by 30% is a net loss for the organization. Business owners wanting to hire "nice guys" is a matter of math, not just emotion.
You can verify this with your own memory. Think about the last time you asked someone for work or referred a project. Did you choose by lining up a list of candidates in order of ability? Probably not. The face that came to mind was likely "that person who is pleasant to work with."
Just as you distribute opportunities that way, the world distributes them to you.
Practice (Moving to the side that increases the total volume of opportunities):
- When receiving a request, make your first word a "reception of the situation" rather than "whether you can do it." A single phrase like "That sounds tough, let me take a look" changes whether you'll be called again.
- Distribute small contributions a few times a week without waiting for a return. Referrals, sharing information, or a word of praise for someone else's work. The smaller the cost of the kindness, the larger the return in the form of reputation.
The Turning Point: What is the difference between the sinking nice guy and the rising one?
We have explained why "nice guys reach the top." The remaining problem is the nice guy who sinks to the bottom.
Grant identified the difference between sinking Givers and rising Givers.
The ones who sink are "self-sacrificing" Givers.
They can't say no when asked. They put their own work aside to help others. They continue to give even to Takers who exploit them. As a result, they burn out, their own results vanish, and they sink to the bottom.
The ones who rise are "other-oriented" Givers.
They consider the other person's interests and their own interests simultaneously. They give, but not to the point of destroying themselves.
There are three specific differences:
1. They have a "rate" for giving.
Rising Givers choose contributions where the benefit to the other person is large and the cost to themselves is small. Adam Rifkin, a famous Giver in Silicon Valley, called this the "5-minute favor." Introducing someone, sending an article, giving a quick piece of feedback. It takes 5 minutes but is huge for the recipient. They distribute many of these asymmetrical kindnesses. Self-sacrificing types, conversely, take on help that dissolves hours of their own time because they can't refuse.
2. They change their way of giving when they detect a Taker.
Rising Givers do not give unconditionally to everyone. If exploitation continues from a partner, they switch to acting as a Matcher. They know that "being a nice guy" and "being a pushover" are two different things.
3. They can ask for help.
Surprisingly, successful Givers are also good at asking for help themselves. A relationship of only giving becomes a hierarchy, but a relationship of mutual giving becomes an alliance. Furthermore, people tend to like those they have helped more. Relying on someone is actually a gift to them.
Summary: Have a Blueprint for Your Kindness
To organize:
- Givers are at both the bottom and the top of success. Both "nice guys lose" and "nice guys win" are half-correct.
- Reason for rising 1: The majority Matchers reward Givers and punish Takers through reputation. Business is a repeated game, and in repeated games, virtue is the strongest strategy.
- Reason for rising 2: Work opportunities are distributed by likability, not ability. Nice guys get more turns at bat.
- Turning point: Sinking types are self-sacrificing; rising types are other-oriented. They have a rate, change response for Takers, and ask for help.
For business owners, there is one more application. Before "hiring Givers," you should "keep Takers out of the organization." As Phelps' experiment showed, one Taker destroys the environment for ten Givers. A Giver culture starts not by adding Givers, but by not mixing in Takers.
People who say "nice guys finish last" are only looking at short-term games. People who say "if you're a nice guy, you'll succeed" are overlooking the turning point.
The truth is this:
Being a nice guy is the strongest strategy. However, it is not unconditional.
The ones who sink are not "nice guys," but "people who can't say no." Successful nice guys not only have a high volume of kindness but also have a blueprint for how to distribute it.
And finally: A Taker who acts as a Giver after knowing this structure will surely be found out. The reputation network of Matchers is more high-performance than you think.
Rather than acting, it's faster to actually move to the giving side. That is the only survival strategy recommended by data in the repeated game of life.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A series told by a mediocre business owner.
I wrote the above article myself.
I write every week, so please follow me from my profile if you like.
Quote posts are also very welcome.
