When it comes to career and how to improve it, uncomfortable questions quickly arise if you analyze the data. We've already seen controversial advice to move forward in your day and today I want to answer another committed question: Is it worth “being good” or is it true that you will be last?
In other words, it is profitable to follow the rules and help or advantage and success are for those who step for the rest?
Let's look at the answer, because it is full of fascinating nuances.
The top doesn't seem to be for good people, does it?
Expressions like: “If you don't cheat, you don't care enough” or “the good guys finish last”, These are phrases that many think in secret and some say it out loud. After all, all bosses are unbearable and they are bosses, that is, they are above us and earn more than us, so maybe this is the way to go.
Meanwhile, the front trench also has its share of proverbs, such as: “Every pig has its San Martín”, “cheaters never win” or, simply, that it's not worth sleeping poorly and treating others worse in exchange for success professional, right?
TRUE?
Let's start with the bad news for those who bet on the good.
In fact, scumbags make more money
It may not be a good start to confirm the suspicion that yes, the “good guys” win less money than the unbearable, the complainers and those who pressure.
Typically, nicer people are less confrontational and try to be nice and get along with everyone, but which is not profitable according to the data.
However, one could argue, with common sense, that being like this does not mean being good, but rather incapable of daring, a soft person who does not raise his voice and demand his own. Be that as it may, the numbers continue to bring bad news.
If we talk about being more ethical, an indisputable quality when considering someone “good”, also makes you poorer.
I could leave it at that and let this be the advice to improve our home economy and our professional career, but I wouldn't be telling the whole story.
going beyond money
Some say that there are more important things in life than money, and maybe that's true. However, economists have always known that happiness is related to wealth (both at the country level and at the individual level).
And what's more, that famous monetary limit that many cite from a 2010 study, that more money does not equal more happiness, does not agree with the new data. The more you have, the happier you are and There seems to be no limit to the joy that euros bringis what there is.
But let's leave money for a moment and consider something more important, life itself.
To do this, we will travel to titanic and let us examine the curious analyzes of two other economists, David Savage and Bruno Frey, who set out to reveal whether one of the legends of the shipwreck was true: the fact that, while the British lined up perfectly for the lifeboats, the Americans pushed, jumped and slid. as they could in any hole.
This led to Captain Smith's famous (and apocryphal) line to his crew upon beholding her:
Be British, boys, be British.
Smith didn't say that, but rather the other joke was true?
Savage and Frey's analysis concluded that despite the fact that the Titanic was a British ship (and therefore likely inclined to save more countrymen), the British were 10% less likely to survive than other nationalities.
And the Americans? 12% more than the British.
For now, the data is clear: if you are worthless, you will have more money than average and a better chance of surviving the titanic.
They are not the only figures against kindness. If we look in more corners, O narcissists are more successful in their professional career (greater chances of being hired, promoted and paid more), anger conveys a sense of competence and neither men nor women show a predilection for modest men.
Finally, it seems that the solution for our domestic economy is to become unbearable and abandon any pretense of being good in a world that is not.
The complete picture of success
Despite the above, let's try to have a global view of the situation. At least that's what he tried Adam Grant in your book Give and receive.
In it, he attempts to reveal the definitive answer to our concern by analyzing a huge amount of data on success, spanning a large number of industries and situations.
Grant distinguishes three basic types of people in his works:
- Those whose philosophy of life is to take for them everything they can, regardless of others. I’ll call them “evil” for simplicity’s sake.
- Those who always give to otherswhich I will call “good”, although many call them soft.
- Those who are in the middle and give and receive depending on the situation, but overall they find a balance between the two. They give to those who give and receive from those who receive, or they do not collaborate with them if they encounter this attitude.
Well then,who is below in terms of success economic, professional, etc?
The good"which, in fact, end burned and exploited by the “bad guys”always willing to take one more piece of what the species has.
On the contrary, who else fills the pinnacle of success in their respective fields?
According to Grant's data, also the “good”. So that later they say that life no longer gives surprises.
Thus, it seems that the average values do not belong to the good, as we also saw at the beginning, but its territory is the extremesboth for good and for evil.
Let's see the reason for this curious phenomenon because although it seems illogical, it actually makes a lot of sense.
Why the Kindness and Success Paradox Occurs
This achievement This doesn't happen because the universe is a fair place.. Success has a base and a top made up, for the most part, of “good” people, according to Grant. Between these two pieces of the sandwich are the “evil” ones and those who take and give according to the situation. Let’s call the latter “balancers”.
Well, what happens is that They don’t look favorably on “evil”.
They are people who don't keep pushing, but when they find someone who takes it and doesn't give it, respond in a similar manner, thus retaliating against these they take them out and push them down.
But what happens if they come across a “good” that gives? They also give and help, pushing the type.
Balancers are also selfishly interested in surrounding themselves with kind people as it benefits them. In addition to this effect, the “bad guys” are unable to cooperate with each otherits nature is always to take, so that among evildoers there will be stumbles eventually.
This creates a context in which the good guys who are less fortunate in meeting others are left behind. But, as there is a greater overall percentage of balancers and good ones if we add it all up, a portion of these charitable souls, with more fortune when it comes to finding others, It is seen in a favorable context where it is also given to them most of the time and it lifts them up.
Meanwhile, the selfish find themselves in the opposite situation, an adverse and competitive environmentwhere the majority around you (balancers and other bandits) will mow the grass under your feet sooner or later.
Ultimately, life is unfair. but its mechanisms prevent those who only drink from reaching the top en masse.
Or when they arrive It's very difficult for them to maintainbefore encountering balancers and other crooks who will conspire to take from them or respond to their selfishness in kind.
It is undeniable that there are despicable people at the top, after all, we are talking about large numbers and percentages, but those who only drink end up living in a Byzantine courtfull of conspiracies and daggers in the shadows.
While some take Grant's thesis with a grain of salt, the mathematical reality is consistent and here's one last jab for good, also according to the numbers: good people are better parents, have better friends, longer and more successful relationshipslike this better health. Maybe it has nothing to do with what I was hired to write, but a little yes.
And now that we have the data, everyone will decide what suits them.