When it comes to careers and how to improve them, uncomfortable questions quickly arise if you look at the data. We've already seen controversial advice for ascending 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 the last?
That is, it is profitable to follow the rules and help or advantage and success are for those who tread for the rest?
Let's look at the answer, because it's 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", 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 badly and treating others worse in exchange for success professional, right?
TRUE?
Let's start with the bad news for those who bet on good.
In fact, the 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 insufferable, the complainers, and the pressers.
Usually, kinder people are less confrontational and try to be nice and get along with everyone, but that is not profitable according to the data.
However, one might argue, with common sense, that being like that does not mean being good but incapable of daring, a mild person who does not raise his voice and demand yours. 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 that be the advice for improving our home economics and our professional careers, 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 country and individual level).
Plus that famous monetary threshold many cite from a 2010 study that more money doesn't equal more happiness, do 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 bringthat's what there is.
But let's leave money for a moment and consider something more important, life itself.
For this, we will travel in the 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 sinking was true: the fact that, while the British lined up neatly for the lifeboats, the Americans pushed, jumped and glided. as they could in any hole.
This led to Captain Smith's famous (and apocryphal) statement to his crew upon beholding her:
Be British, boys, be British.
Smith didn't say that, but yes the other anecdote was true?
Savage and Frey's analysis concluded that, despite the fact that Titanic was an English ship (and therefore likely bent on saving 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're worthless, you'll have more money than average and a better chance of surviving the test. titanic.
They are not the only figures against goodness. 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 the solution to our home economy is to become unbearable and abandon any pretense of being good in a world that is not.
The full 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 tries to reveal the definitive answer to our concern by analyzing a huge amount of data on success, covering a huge 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 all they can, regardless of others. I'll call them "evil" for simplicity.
- Those who always give to otherswhich I will call “good”, although many call them soft.
- Those in between and give and take depending on the situation, but overall they strike a balance between the two. They give to those who give and receive from those who receive, or do not collaborate with them if they find this attitude.
Well then,who is below in terms of success economical, professional, etc?
The good"which, by the way, 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 does not give more surprises.
Thus, it seems that average values do not belong to the good, as we also saw at the beginning, but its territory are the extremesboth for good and for bad.
Let's see the reason for this curious phenomenon because although it sounds illogical, it actually makes a lot of sense.
Why the Kindness and Success Paradox Occurs
This achievement It doesn't happen because the universe is a fair place.. Success has a base and a top made up mostly of “good” people, according to Grant. Between these two pieces of the sandwich are the “bad guys” and the takers and givers according to the situation. Let's call the latter "balancers".
Well what happens is that they don't look kindly on "evil".
They are people who don't push, but when they find someone who takes and doesn't give, respond in a similar way, 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 among wrongdoers there will be stumbles eventually.
This creates a context where the good guys who are less fortunate in meeting others are left behind. But as there is a greater global percentage of balancers and good ones if you 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, egoists find themselves in the opposite situation, an adverse and competitive environmentwhere most around you (balancers and other bad guys) 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 hard for them to keepbefore encountering balancers and other crooks who will either conspire to take it 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 big numbers and percentages, but those who only drink end up living in a Byzantine courtfull of conspiracies and daggers in the shadows.
Although some take Grant's thesis with a grain of salt, the mathematical reality is consistent and here's one last spear for good, also according to the numbers: good ones 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 bit does.
And now that we have the data, everyone will decide what suits them.