7 ms·

Be Nice Or Leave

180 points by dmarinoc 12y ago

baldfat 12y ago
I think this all is based on a person's comfort level with conflict. A) I can't sleep at night when I possibly was a jerk. B)Other's sleep with a smile on their face. Sometimes the room is full of type A or B and everything is good. 95% of the time the room is full of A + B and A thinks they are jerks and B thinks that A is just stupid.
pjmorris 12y ago
I spent a long time in the South Florida IT job market. In an area with millions of people and thousands of companies, it never ceased to amaze me how many people in the field knew each other. One of the key factors in job-hunting, then, was your reputation. If you did good work and people liked working with you, there was usually something available. If either of those things wasn't true, life was more difficult. A consulting firm founder down there used to say 'People like working with people they like to work with'. It pays to invest in your friendships and your decency as well as in your technical chops.
- oinksoft 12y ago
  I'm not going to lie, this sounds like hell. Places like that make outcasts of anybody who makes the rest "look bad" by "working too hard." It's nice to be valued for your technical skills when you consider the alternative.
  - drpgq 12y ago
    Well it is South Florida. I worked with a German software company that for strange reasons opened their US office in Miami. We had a terrible time getting people, although a lot of that was on us. We eventually moved it somewhere else and things were a lot smoother.
  - pjmorris 12y ago
    I never saw someone become an outcast in the community for working harder or smarter. A given organization might operate like that, but the whole point of a community is that there's more to the world than one organization and one job. I've seen plenty of good people pulled out of bad situations by the community.
jgrahamc 12y ago
Some time ago I was involved in founding a company and two VCs were working together to fund us. They'd come up with a term sheet and we needed to alter some of the parts of it. So, we sat down with them and the CEO of our company laid things out by running through all the parts that everyone agreed on and framing the discussion as "and there are these two provisions that we don't, so we're really close". The rest of the discussion was super-smooth because of the way it begun.
- jczhang 12y ago
  This seems more like an example of framing/presentation. Not to say they werent nice people :)
showsover 12y ago
Can't seem to read the article as the server's not working. Also, this submission gets 11 votes even though it isn't readable? Strange.
lukasm 12y ago
This is especially true for VCs. Since dozen of winners generate 90% of returns you should by all means attract the best companies. This is not apparent in stock market. Apart from moral side and integrity. Defaulting to not being evil will yield the best return in the long term. You should do it even if your motives are purely selfish.
comrade1 12y ago
There will always be conflict. I'm currently working with two of the nicest people I've ever met but we still have conflict and we still argue and 'fight' over big things such as direction of the company, goals for growth, etc. It's a matter of how you fight - with these guys it's respectful arguing, sometimes raised voices, even talking over each other, but I know in the end that they're fair and we respect each other. In my previous company I worked with one of scummiest people I've ever met and the fighting was quite different. He avoided it rather than addressed it, and he also seemed to take my disagreements personal. But from the outside it probably looked like he's 'nicer' than my current partners.
- swombat 12y ago
  Heated arguments are not a sign of "not being nice", they're just a sign of differing opinions. If having a different opinion makes it impossible for you to "be nice", then you're not nice.
robbiep 12y ago
Pareto Optimal solutions start with this behaviour
upthedale 12y ago
This was one of my key take-aways from Dale Carnegie's classic, 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. I've seen it mentioned on various reading lists for those wanting to go into the business world too. Funny thing is, when recommending it to a friend, they mistakenly assumed from the title that it was a book of underhand tactics, which couldn't really be further from the truth. There's a lot to be said for being genuinely nice to others.
- thisone 12y ago
  I think How to Win Friends is one of those books that you (you being someone in the supermajority of people who isn't naturally gifted at interpersonal relationships) know you should read but you avoid it. Then one day, you are desperate and you read it and wonder "my God why didn't I read this sooner!"
  - corobo 12y ago
    I've avoided it for so long as it does look like it's either a manipulation guidebook or a social skills for dummies book. Your comment has convinced me to give it a go :)
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      I think a lot of folks today never get around to reading it because they assume it's old or outdated. (It isn't. Human psychology hasn't changed much since Dale Carnegie's day.) Alternatively, they read something sinister, or else hucksterish into the title. To be fair, the idea of "winning" friends implies a sort of gamesmanship. And the idea of "influencing people" can make one think of manipulation or politics. The interesting thing about the book is that it can be read in either light: as a Machiavellian guidebook, or as an earnest how-to about the principles of mutual friendship. Carnegie probably intended the book to be the latter, however, and that's the spirit in which I read it. It is very much worth reading. People can do what they will with the information in the book, but I hope they do good with it.
- mercer 12y ago
wallflower 12y ago
Neil Gaiman “You get work however you get work, but keep people keep working in a freelance world (and more and more of todays world is freelance), because their work is good, because they are easy to get along with and because they deliver the work on time. And you don’t even need all three! Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. People will forgive the lateness of your work if it is good and they like you. And you don’t have to be as good as everyone else if you’re on time and it’s always a pleasure to hear from you.” http://vimeo.com/42372767 http://vimeo.com/42372767 A commencement speech so good it is now a slim book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062266764/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062266764/
- greghinch 12y ago
  To be honest, often I found delivering work on time and being easy to get along with trump doing good work to a large degree (particularly being on time). That is to say, if you are easy to get along with and deliver on time, but your work output is nothing special, you can still get by pretty well. But if you are unpredictable or a jerk, your work quality needs to be better than 99% of your peers to get by similarly.
- minikites 12y ago
  This is a great, straightforward summary of something I always hazily suspected in the back of my mind. Thank you for sharing.
- damian2000 12y ago
  Great link, thanks. I found this venn diagram of the statement here: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/25016190500/batsandbones-my-venn-diagram-of-neil-gaimans http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/25016190500/batsandbones-...
antirez 12y ago
In the specific case of open source software / IT scene, which I believe is in part a "business" a this point since a lot of programmers see it as a way of self promotion (which surely is), and many companies build OSS software even if the way it is created is mostly closed-source-alike, I believe that there is a tension between being nice and be successful. It boils down to the fact popularity among IT folks can be reached in two main ways. 1) Build great stuff. 2) Criticize stuff and set a new trend (either for self-promotion or to move people to your product). "2" is a lot simpler than "1", and "2" is definitely not about being nice, so the result is that the IT community is full of people that are not nice and I think this is not going to change in the long run since there are big gains in not being nice.
demystified 12y ago
It is all about taking the short-term vs. long term approach. Both would work -- but I would prefer the latter. Focus on short-term, work towards maximize profit/value and capture immediate benefits (without taking into account other's thoughts). If it works that's great, but most likely it won't. Or focus on long-term - invest in people (your time and resources). No immediate benefits but long-term returns are likely higher.
anathebealio 12y ago
Too often I find that people who are nice in daily life are considered naive or push-overs. It is a skill to be kind to others and to retain the reputation of standing your ground. I'm not sure why there is confusion between having an opinion/looking out for yourself and being a jerk -- and this certainly shines through the most in business where everyone is looking to make money. My boss is an extremely kind man, but when it comes down to it, he always comes out of meetings and negotiations with what he wanted. Everyone in the company highly respects him for it and everyone is better off because of it.
- adestefan 12y ago
  It's the same as knowing when to say "No."
- vidarh 12y ago
  > I'm not sure why there is confusion between having an opinion/looking out for yourself and being a jerk Often it'd down to delivery, and how you interact with people, rather than having an opinion. My "favorite" learning moment personally came when I was once stuck in a meeting room with a colleague while we were waiting for a document revision or something, and out of the blue he told me "you know, when I first joined, I thought you were a jerk". I was really taken aback, because I could not remember any instance of being rude to him. He explained that he thought so because I apparently "always" raised objections when he came up with an idea, while I'd let dumb ideas from [other employee] slide. But eventually he'd accepted that my input tended to be right, and had come to understand that I didn't mean anything with it. It dawned on me what the problem was: I let the dumb ideas from [other employee] slide, because I knew everyone recognised how unworkable they were. I wasn't trying to be nice - I was just not wasting my energy on it; let someone else shoot it down and move on. But this guy often had quite good ideas, that I liked. So with total blindness to how it came across, I tore into them to weed out potential problems. To me, these ideas had merit, and needed to be given careful consideration, either so we had good reason if we rejected them, or to make sure we refined them into the best we could do. But what I communicated was a stream of seemingly hostile arguments, because I did not realise that he needed acknowledgment that the idea was worthwhile and good; to me that was implicit: It was why I found it worthwhile talking about it. So often, the difference between coming across as an opinionated jerk and a nice guy who stands up for his opinions is down to making people feel like you appreciate their input and listen carefully, and that you are negotiating a solution with them rather than just hammering through your own viewpoints, even if the end point ends up being essentially the same. > negotiations with what he wanted. Everyone in the company highly respects him for it and everyone is better off because of it. People love a strong negotiator, because a negotiation gives people a feeling of stake in the outcome. Someone who is recognisably a strong negotiator is often admired even when you come up against them and know logically you're getting a worse deal than you could have, because a good negotiation is about making the other side feel like it's a genuine give and take, and that you are being listened to (hopefully it is true as well...). It comes naturally to people. My son often tries to negotiate his bedtime, and we try to accommodate that as much as possible, because we know from experience that when we negotiate from a starting point we set, he ends up going to bed earlier than he otherwise would, and does so happily and without protest, seemingly triumphant because he put in effort on it and got us to yield a bit on our starting position. When we negotiate a time, he'll even remind us when it is time to get him ready for bed, if we don't notice the time.
peteretep 12y ago
My boss is a former M&A guy, and very very financially focussed but: I have a lot of trust in him, because I know that he will always delegate to "doing the right thing" over a quick buck. That's saved him a lot of money in working with me when it's come to bonus, salary, or work-related negotiations.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Sounds very American; like the server in a resteraunt being overly nice, making those of us who aren't used to the wallmart greeter style uncomfortable. Cut the bull; I would rather people be more honest than be more nice (and if they are trying too hard, it's easy to tell). It's amazing how a bit of bluntness automatically influences me and how much niceness projection makes me sick.
- namenotrequired 12y ago
  Being nice doesn't mean being dishonest. It means treating people well.
- matwood 12y ago
  So you and I are in a meeting and you throw out an idea. Would you rather me a) call you a fucking idiot without even thinking through what you said and move on or b) explain why I don't agree with your idea and let you clarify? Even if the idea had zero merit, it is still in my long term interest to talk it through with you if I want you fully engaged on the team. The idea could be a teaching moment or even lead to an idea that works. In the end it is not about being overly nice, but being respectful.
  - sejje 12y ago
    That's a ridiculous way to make a point. Being blunt and calling someone a "fucking idiot" are not the same thing.
    - matwood 12y ago
      You're right that I was projecting my personal experiences. The people who I have worked with who called themselves blunt and honest were the same people who never defended an idea and instead resorted to calling everyone else idiots. Saying you are blunt is often a way to sound superior or right when being rude to someone. Very few problems are as straight forward as 1+1=2, which is easy to state bluntly. Most problems though are more nuanced than that, and I have personally found that people who like to think themselves superior to others like to hide behind words like honest and blunt.
smegmalife 12y ago
Funny how often conventional wisdom is wrong, and "not being nice" is no different. When you look at the great companies, they were always focused on relationships and generally doing the right thing. Being nice is good not only from a business standpoint, but a personal standpoint as well.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
phatboyslim 12y ago
There appear to be a number of anecdotes in the book Hatching Twitter where Fred Wilson is painted as the bad guy. I wonder how much of this was for the book, or how possibly I am misinterpreting it.
- GuiA 12y ago
  I have not read the book myself. I do have a former coworker who was fairly involved in the early days Twitter, who told me the book definitely was a biased account of events. I would not blindly trust it.
michaelochurch 12y ago
I worked at a company once that conflated mean-spirited policies with "just business". The result was a downfall that was entirely preventable. Vacation and sick leave were combined ("PTO") which meant that you had to take a vacation day if you got sick. The result of this was that people came into work when ill and everyone was less productive. Very little ever got done in the winter, because it was just one constant office-wide cold. (I had so many colds, that season, that I saw a doctor to find out if something was wrong with my immune system.) Open-plan offices are another penny-wise, pound-foolish institution. They're not used because they're "collaborative" or "hip" but because they're cheap, and they're cheap because they're shitty. The result, however, is high turnover, increased sick load, distraction and antagonism. There's also an overwhelming amount of evidence that open-plan offices hurt the best employees the most, which means you're losing off the top. That's not where you want to lose. The killer was when it bought (cough rescued) another company and installed the acquired company's upper management. The new regime's first move was to kill the acquiring company's R&D team-- not because it wasn't doing useful work (it was) but because "their side" (the acquiring company) didn't have an R&D team. So a high-performing R&D team that had already built some powerful stuff (and was 6-9 months away from solving an existential-risk fraud problem) was shut down. Those guys over there have too much freedom! They're in danger of actually saving the company! Shut them down, now! Of course, the health benefits were shit, which meant that days of work time were lost to haggling with insurance companies and hospitals about bills. Whatever pennies are saved by having a crappy health plan is lost when employees have to haggle on their own behalf to get health care. Sometimes, cost cutting is the right way to go, but that's rare and usually in a well-understood existential crisis. As in, "this company won't be around in two years unless we're really tight, and here's how we plan to make it up". I can't respect companies that play against their employees. If you have a crappy health plan, a bad PTO policy, closed allocation, stack ranking, and a bad office space, then you're not playing to win. Instead, you're in the business of competing against your employees, when you should be in the business of excelling at something, and of winning in the market. You only get to pick one, in the long term, in this world. Unfortunately, for the individual executive, the "be a dick" strategy often works. Most "tech" startups are scams: companies not built to last, but just to be sold to some "greater fool" before it falls to pieces on account of its own sloppy constitution. The individuals who build these crap companies generally get to cash out (or, at least, move on to cushy venture capital jobs) before that happens and, when it does, they can plausibly (if falsely) blame their successors.
digitalengineer 12y ago
I have noticed certain people seem to think 'being nice' equals 'dumb' and 'unexperienced'. Most people are so used to others claiming everything; their time, their concepts, designs,… they think just because you're not an asshole, you're a push-over.
dsirijus 12y ago
"We know that some of the most successful entrepreneurs in tech have been difficult individuals who did what they had to do to get ahead.", "We know that a lot of investors, VCs included, will do what is required to make a buck.", "It's conventional wisdom that being nice is a bad idea", followed by a singular anecdotal data point arguing otherwise. I'd posit that it depends on the actual business domain. Some are cutthroat and being nice is gonna be a world of pain for you. I'm not doing dry flower arrangements myself, so I wouldn't know. But in my domain (games) being nice bit me on my ass as much as being mean (if that's even an antonym to nice) did. So, in conclusion, it's a perpetual dilemma, not one-size-fit-all. EDIT: The whole article is a bit disingenuous imho. Title might as well be paraphrased as "Be nice or I'm gonna be mean". Another food for thought - etymology of nice is from Latin nescius, meaning ignorant.
- jczhang 12y ago
  I like to think the article means to say: be nice and fair, including to yourself.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
lgmspb 12y ago
I think it is important to either be nice to everyone or to be an asshole to everyone. As simple as that
rayiner 12y ago
Here's the thing about being not nice: you can usually get away with it if you're really exceptional, but if you ever misstep, nobody will want to help you out, and some may gleefully put the screws to you. Just in the last couple of years, a couple of acquaintances that had a reputation for being not nice have stumbled career-wise, and unsurprisingly no one was there to lend a hand. Honestly, I was shocked how little time it took to catch up to them.
- song 12y ago
  That's what I really hope when I think of an employee who screwed me completely over after I gave him a chance and spent a lot of time training him... But from the last news I've heard being a snake has been very successful for him and he's landed a high position in the new company where he works (taking over the guy who hired him). I hope one day it all catches to him but I'm not hopeful.. I just wish the world worked like this.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - DarkTree 12y ago
    It may be likely that if the world did work like that, he wouldn't be such a snake. People are conditioned to think that stepping on other people to get ahead is the only way to be successful. In that sense, I too wish the world worked like that, because then we would have a lot less snakes.
  - y4mi 12y ago
    i know i shouldn't judge with this small amount of info, but still... you normally aren't paying an employee in training even close to the normal rate in the profession. which is obviously correct, but makes the argument that the employee screwed the employer by leaving after the the training kinda strange.
    - song 12y ago
      In that case, he left with some of my customers contracts so that was the screwing over part... The training thing is the fact that I spent a lot of time training him hoping to do great things together and eventually making him a partner of my company. Anyway, it's a long story....
ZenPro 12y ago
Almost everybody I have ever learned something truly valuable from was a nice person. I have yet to meet an example of the single-minded-asshole-genius who is actually a success. Most of the truly credible successes I have met are nice people and highly regarded.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  While this is mostly based on hearsay, what about Steve Jobs? From all the anecdotal accounts and unsubstantiated rumors I have heard, Steve Jobs was a reasonably intelligent, single-minded asshole, and Steve Wozniak was the super-nice-guy genius.
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    Everybody always pulls Steve Jobs out of the bag to try and illustrate the asshole boss paradigm. Steve Jobs also used to burst into tears in the Boardroom sobbing about how unfair the system was. I don't see many management books advocating that approach...bawling your eyes out until your business partners acquiesce. But, if I ever meet a Steve Jobs, a single minded visionary who is seeking to shape the entire paradigm of personal computing... ...I still wouldn't let him talk to me the way Isaacson reports in his book. Fuck Steve Jobs. Plus, when it came down to the wire, Microsoft owned them. Literally.
mcmatterson 12y ago
We also have one of those signs, from when a good friend lived next door to Dr. Bob's workshop (he being the purveyor of those signs). He's an incredible (and incredibly oddball) guy, and a visit to his workshop / junkyard is a great example of the part of New Orleans that most visitors never see.
usingathrowaway 12y ago
I work with a legitimately talented and hard-working Lead Architect who is not nice. He's constantly petty, degrading, and passive-aggressive. He'll interpret whatever you say in whichever way allows him to insult you. His "arch reviews" are provided in a way that makes people feel shitty instead of making them smarter. He doesn't create sharable documents or written guidance. He is, in essence, a borderless micro-manager, who shits on the whole damned engineering team. He's tolerated by the CEO because he shipped the first version of the product quickly, so the CEO thinks he's brilliant. He's tolerated by the CTO because the CTO doesn't realize that his ego and passive-aggressiveness have both swelled as the company has grown. He is the reason that many of our best engineers have left. Every single one of his direct reports has transferred or quit in less than 12 months. He is undermining a great company. At this point, he better hope that we have a great outcome despite his bullshit, because if he doesn't make enough money to retire, he's fucked. Zero of the engineers (and engineering management) would ever work with him, ever again. It's too lousy of an experience. And the really sad thing is that if he was just nice about stuff, he'd be one of our best employees. But he has to be a dick about every single little thing. He has to be snarky. He has to be the smartest guy in the room. On all topics.
anarchitect 12y ago
This reminds me of a piece of advice I heard somewhere, which I keep coming back to – "be someone that people want to work with again".
palebluedot 12y ago
A saying that I heard a long time ago, that really stuck with me (both as a business owner, and from the flipside as a customer): You can shear a sheep many times, but you can skin it only once. If you go in for the kill, and really take advantage of someone in a transaction (i.e, skin the sheep), that will likely signal the end of any (positive) transactions with that person, unless you have a monopoly or other such power. Even if they don't realize what you did at the time, eventually they will, and they will resent it. But by just shearing the sheep, you are creating a sustainable profit / relationship with someone, that will have the potential to be repeat business. This works on the customer side, as well - are you the sort of person that grinds away at every contract and transaction, so that the other side makes (almost) nothing? Well, you are walking the line of skinning that sheep...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  That's pretty calculating though. Essentially you're saying 'be nice' because there is money in it. But actually people should just be nice even (or maybe especially) if there is no money in it.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    That's a pretty narrow interpretation of that statement. It could also be simple. If you charge someone so much that they can't sustain their business then you might win but at what price. v.s If you charge someone what they can afford then they will stay in business longer and then you might end up winning in the long run. And that's just one possible interpretation :)
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      That's the 'parasite' model. Don't kill the host :) But you're right, there are more interpretations possible and not all of those are negative.
  - bjustin 12y ago
    The topic post explicitly says that there is money in being nice. So there is more reason to be nice than just being a decent person.
jacquesm 12y ago
"nice guys finish last" and other bs is what drives that culture. The fact that some of the idols in the tech industry are definitely not nice (and in fact are revered for that) does not help either. Your reputation is your most hard won capital, spend it wisely.
rthomas6 12y ago
This reminds me of the book "Getting to Yes". If you take a principled stand in negotiations and truly want what is fair, you can separate the issue at hand from the people. In doing so, you can be polite and nice, while not getting steamrolled in negotiation. You can look at negotiations like working together to get to agreement on what is fair and best for both parties, instead of fighting against one another to get as much as you can. It also allows you to say "no" in a non-personal way, because you're only doing what makes sense for your side.
mathattack 12y ago
Being nice is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. It doesn't pay in the short term, but people who are consistently nice to each other help out in the long run. This is why CEOs that are nasty are actually the exception, though some of their lower level attendants can be jerks. If you aren't trustworthy, you lose access to a lot of people and opportunities.
protonfish 12y ago
Everyone is throwing around "nice" like it is a well-defined term and not a fluff word. Let's try to define it a little better. In my experience, there are 3 types of "nice". One is where somebody is subservient to you. Another is when a person is polite and tells you what you want to hear. The other is where somebody is honest and can be counted on to do what they promise. I propose that you cannot be either #1 or #2 and #3. A subservient doormat may seem great, but don't forget that you are not the only person they will grovel to. They will follow the most dominant person, and you can't count on it being you forever. They are cowards that cannot be trusted. #2, pulling no punches, is a two-faced liar. They are the primary suspects for back-stabbing. Being "nice" is used as a tool to gain your trust. #3 can be rude and abrasive. If they are angry with you, they will act angry with you. They will tell you the truth, even if it hurts your feelings. Being rude and being duplicitous are almost always opposites, but both can be described as being "not nice." If I had a beach house, I'd like people to be the #2 type of nice. My goal there would be to relax, so please don't burst my obliviousness bubble. But when I get back to work I'd rather have my allys be #3.
- dhimes 12y ago
  I believe the conversation is about being like #3, but without being rude and abrasive. It's possible. Being honest and reliable does not excuse rudeness and abrasiveness. In my experience, rudeness and abrasiveness are indicative that the person has not had to/been able to grow up. Perhaps they have extreme talent. Perhaps they have lived a life of extreme focus. Perhaps their moms still look after them. The reason doesn't much matter. #s 1 and 2 are bullshit.
  - protonfish 12y ago
    I would argue that the qualities of "rude" and "abrasive" are similar to "offensive" - They are judgements by the observer, not objective qualities of the observed. What is abrasive to one person might be fine for another. If you are the type of person that gets his panties in a bunch when somebody says something you don't like, maybe you are the one who still needs his mommy?
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
I've found that the people that seem the nicest are the worst people to do business with. Niceness is often mistaken for not telling the whole truth. Also, many of those nice people often disappear when the shit hits the fan, because they don't want to be seen bringing bad news. That doesn't fit with the "nice" image they have of themselves. All things being equal I would rather do business with an honest asshole than a nice person I cannot trust. Niceness is overrated. Not screwing people over and being "nice" are two very different things.
candybar 12y ago
Being nice is easy. Being good is hard. What's missing here is that powerful people are almost always transacting on behalf of many others who are not present at the bargaining table. By being nice, they may be trading other people's money for personal goodwill that they get to keep for themselves. This is "being nice" in some ways, but this isn't good for society and may be highly unethical. Would you want government regulators to be nice to the industry people they are regulating because in the long run they benefit from having good relationship with industry leaders? Would you want hedge fund managers who's managing your money to be nice to banks, that is, overpay for services, because fees come out of your pocket while they can monetize the relationship in the future? Would you want college admissions officers to be nice to their friends with college-bound kids? When you're applying for internships, would you want the hiring managers to be nice to all their church friends who may need something to do during the summer? People in powerful positions being nice to personal acquaintances at the expense of strangers is a huge problem and the root of all corruption. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be nice - being ethical and balancing the interests of all parties involved is an extremely tricky proposition but I'm surprised at the amount of agreement here, because so much of what people complain about around here often comes down to other people being nice to one another at your expense. Edit: I'm especially surprised that a VC would make such a comment because it's an industry where being nice for the sake of relationship can be highly unethical. You're always working with other people's money and whether as an investor or a board member, you're often responsible for making decisions that benefit people you represent even if it involves some kind of hit to your "nice" reputation. At the top level of management, big decisions are rarely easy and always have winners and losers. Edit2: As another example, the recent non-poaching deal between SV companies was probably rationalized as "let's be nice to one another" while those that didn't participate were seen as not being nice or being too cutthroat. Niceness between natural competitors can quickly lead to a collusive agreement. Edit3: I'm not advising any specific course of action, simply noting that the advice as given is far too vague and can often lead to rationalization of highly unethical activities. I'm sure Steve Jobs thought Google trying to recruit Apple employees was "Google screwing over Apple" and the consequent no-poach agreement is partners being nice to one another. Edit4: Dreamweapon, I didn't downvote you (don't have the power anyway) but regulators work with executives, directors and employees who are people. Regulators have strong incentives to cultivate relationships with people in the industry so that they can transition into the private sector. Likewise, hedge fund managers aren't trying to be nice to the banks - they are being nice to specific salespeople, brokers and bankers because they can expect favors in return. Also favoritism to people you know is being nice to people you know - the gist of what's being advocated here is be nice to people you know, because relationship.
jimmyjohnson12 12y ago
One of the biggest companies in the world invited us the little guy innovator to demo our new technology. They were down right NASTY and mean. I say this not because they didn't buy us out, but because we spent our money to fly to the valley to demo our tech only to learn they blocked our tech from working and said things like, you better run the race is on. They also baited us with money and opportunity if we told them how our tech worked. We took the bait and they kicked us out! Not sure why they had to be such jerks!?!
ChuckMcM 12y ago
I find this an interesting counter to the Diplomacy post (Alpha Nerd Game) yesterday. I wonder if the same rules apply in Fred's world.
adamzerner 12y ago
This post makes a claim, and provides minimal/no support for it. Really, the support is because it's a trustworthy source. But still, there's a lot more value in truly understanding the reasoning behind it.
SyneRyder 12y ago
Possibly related: last week on This Week In Startups, the interview with Yossi Vardi discussed his philosophy of only investing in "nice" people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozcfDoC-srM#t=14m37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozcfDoC-srM#t=14m37s And later that week, during the interview with Gil Penchina, Jason mentions the benefits of being nice, after being screwed over by someone who shut him out of a deal and took advantage of a founder by offering them a term sheet & telling them not to shop it around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=30m49s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=30m49s (more specific comments here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=37m57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=37m57s Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's curious to see so much discussion of "nice" at the moment.
sbhere 12y ago
> It’s not the fastest way to make a buck. It takes time. But it is way more sustainable than screwing people over. Being nice != not(screwing people over) Big difference.
JVIDEL 12y ago
Being nice in business is easy, it's the not-being-a-backstabing-jerk part that most people don't seem to get.

180 points by dmarinoc 12y ago

I think this all is based on a person's comfort level with conflict. A) I can't sleep at night when I possibly was a jerk. B)Other's sleep with a smile on their face. Sometimes the room is full of type A or B and everything is good. 95% of the time the room is full of A + B and A thinks they are jerks and B thinks that A is just stupid.

pjmorris 12y ago

I spent a long time in the South Florida IT job market. In an area with millions of people and thousands of companies, it never ceased to amaze me how many people in the field knew each other. One of the key factors in job-hunting, then, was your reputation. If you did good work and people liked working with you, there was usually something available. If either of those things wasn't true, life was more difficult. A consulting firm founder down there used to say 'People like working with people they like to work with'. It pays to invest in your friendships and your decency as well as in your technical chops.

oinksoft 12y ago
I'm not going to lie, this sounds like hell. Places like that make outcasts of anybody who makes the rest "look bad" by "working too hard." It's nice to be valued for your technical skills when you consider the alternative.
- drpgq 12y ago
  Well it is South Florida. I worked with a German software company that for strange reasons opened their US office in Miami. We had a terrible time getting people, although a lot of that was on us. We eventually moved it somewhere else and things were a lot smoother.
- pjmorris 12y ago
  I never saw someone become an outcast in the community for working harder or smarter. A given organization might operate like that, but the whole point of a community is that there's more to the world than one organization and one job. I've seen plenty of good people pulled out of bad situations by the community.

jgrahamc 12y ago

Some time ago I was involved in founding a company and two VCs were working together to fund us. They'd come up with a term sheet and we needed to alter some of the parts of it. So, we sat down with them and the CEO of our company laid things out by running through all the parts that everyone agreed on and framing the discussion as "and there are these two provisions that we don't, so we're really close". The rest of the discussion was super-smooth because of the way it begun.

jczhang 12y ago
This seems more like an example of framing/presentation. Not to say they werent nice people :)

showsover 12y ago

Can't seem to read the article as the server's not working. Also, this submission gets 11 votes even though it isn't readable? Strange.

lukasm 12y ago

This is especially true for VCs. Since dozen of winners generate 90% of returns you should by all means attract the best companies. This is not apparent in stock market. Apart from moral side and integrity. Defaulting to not being evil will yield the best return in the long term. You should do it even if your motives are purely selfish.

comrade1 12y ago

There will always be conflict. I'm currently working with two of the nicest people I've ever met but we still have conflict and we still argue and 'fight' over big things such as direction of the company, goals for growth, etc. It's a matter of how you fight - with these guys it's respectful arguing, sometimes raised voices, even talking over each other, but I know in the end that they're fair and we respect each other. In my previous company I worked with one of scummiest people I've ever met and the fighting was quite different. He avoided it rather than addressed it, and he also seemed to take my disagreements personal. But from the outside it probably looked like he's 'nicer' than my current partners.

swombat 12y ago
Heated arguments are not a sign of "not being nice", they're just a sign of differing opinions. If having a different opinion makes it impossible for you to "be nice", then you're not nice.

robbiep 12y ago

Pareto Optimal solutions start with this behaviour

upthedale 12y ago

This was one of my key take-aways from Dale Carnegie's classic, 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. I've seen it mentioned on various reading lists for those wanting to go into the business world too. Funny thing is, when recommending it to a friend, they mistakenly assumed from the title that it was a book of underhand tactics, which couldn't really be further from the truth. There's a lot to be said for being genuinely nice to others.

thisone 12y ago
I think How to Win Friends is one of those books that you (you being someone in the supermajority of people who isn't naturally gifted at interpersonal relationships) know you should read but you avoid it. Then one day, you are desperate and you read it and wonder "my God why didn't I read this sooner!"
- corobo 12y ago
  I've avoided it for so long as it does look like it's either a manipulation guidebook or a social skills for dummies book. Your comment has convinced me to give it a go :)
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    I think a lot of folks today never get around to reading it because they assume it's old or outdated. (It isn't. Human psychology hasn't changed much since Dale Carnegie's day.) Alternatively, they read something sinister, or else hucksterish into the title. To be fair, the idea of "winning" friends implies a sort of gamesmanship. And the idea of "influencing people" can make one think of manipulation or politics. The interesting thing about the book is that it can be read in either light: as a Machiavellian guidebook, or as an earnest how-to about the principles of mutual friendship. Carnegie probably intended the book to be the latter, however, and that's the spirit in which I read it. It is very much worth reading. People can do what they will with the information in the book, but I hope they do good with it.
mercer 12y ago

wallflower 12y ago

Neil Gaiman “You get work however you get work, but keep people keep working in a freelance world (and more and more of todays world is freelance), because their work is good, because they are easy to get along with and because they deliver the work on time. And you don’t even need all three! Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. People will forgive the lateness of your work if it is good and they like you. And you don’t have to be as good as everyone else if you’re on time and it’s always a pleasure to hear from you.” http://vimeo.com/42372767 http://vimeo.com/42372767 A commencement speech so good it is now a slim book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062266764/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062266764/

greghinch 12y ago
To be honest, often I found delivering work on time and being easy to get along with trump doing good work to a large degree (particularly being on time). That is to say, if you are easy to get along with and deliver on time, but your work output is nothing special, you can still get by pretty well. But if you are unpredictable or a jerk, your work quality needs to be better than 99% of your peers to get by similarly.
minikites 12y ago
This is a great, straightforward summary of something I always hazily suspected in the back of my mind. Thank you for sharing.
damian2000 12y ago
Great link, thanks. I found this venn diagram of the statement here: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/25016190500/batsandbones-my-venn-diagram-of-neil-gaimans http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/25016190500/batsandbones-...

antirez 12y ago

In the specific case of open source software / IT scene, which I believe is in part a "business" a this point since a lot of programmers see it as a way of self promotion (which surely is), and many companies build OSS software even if the way it is created is mostly closed-source-alike, I believe that there is a tension between being nice and be successful. It boils down to the fact popularity among IT folks can be reached in two main ways. 1) Build great stuff. 2) Criticize stuff and set a new trend (either for self-promotion or to move people to your product). "2" is a lot simpler than "1", and "2" is definitely not about being nice, so the result is that the IT community is full of people that are not nice and I think this is not going to change in the long run since there are big gains in not being nice.

demystified 12y ago

It is all about taking the short-term vs. long term approach. Both would work -- but I would prefer the latter. Focus on short-term, work towards maximize profit/value and capture immediate benefits (without taking into account other's thoughts). If it works that's great, but most likely it won't. Or focus on long-term - invest in people (your time and resources). No immediate benefits but long-term returns are likely higher.

anathebealio 12y ago

Too often I find that people who are nice in daily life are considered naive or push-overs. It is a skill to be kind to others and to retain the reputation of standing your ground. I'm not sure why there is confusion between having an opinion/looking out for yourself and being a jerk -- and this certainly shines through the most in business where everyone is looking to make money. My boss is an extremely kind man, but when it comes down to it, he always comes out of meetings and negotiations with what he wanted. Everyone in the company highly respects him for it and everyone is better off because of it.

adestefan 12y ago
It's the same as knowing when to say "No."
vidarh 12y ago
> I'm not sure why there is confusion between having an opinion/looking out for yourself and being a jerk Often it'd down to delivery, and how you interact with people, rather than having an opinion. My "favorite" learning moment personally came when I was once stuck in a meeting room with a colleague while we were waiting for a document revision or something, and out of the blue he told me "you know, when I first joined, I thought you were a jerk". I was really taken aback, because I could not remember any instance of being rude to him. He explained that he thought so because I apparently "always" raised objections when he came up with an idea, while I'd let dumb ideas from [other employee] slide. But eventually he'd accepted that my input tended to be right, and had come to understand that I didn't mean anything with it. It dawned on me what the problem was: I let the dumb ideas from [other employee] slide, because I knew everyone recognised how unworkable they were. I wasn't trying to be nice - I was just not wasting my energy on it; let someone else shoot it down and move on. But this guy often had quite good ideas, that I liked. So with total blindness to how it came across, I tore into them to weed out potential problems. To me, these ideas had merit, and needed to be given careful consideration, either so we had good reason if we rejected them, or to make sure we refined them into the best we could do. But what I communicated was a stream of seemingly hostile arguments, because I did not realise that he needed acknowledgment that the idea was worthwhile and good; to me that was implicit: It was why I found it worthwhile talking about it. So often, the difference between coming across as an opinionated jerk and a nice guy who stands up for his opinions is down to making people feel like you appreciate their input and listen carefully, and that you are negotiating a solution with them rather than just hammering through your own viewpoints, even if the end point ends up being essentially the same. > negotiations with what he wanted. Everyone in the company highly respects him for it and everyone is better off because of it. People love a strong negotiator, because a negotiation gives people a feeling of stake in the outcome. Someone who is recognisably a strong negotiator is often admired even when you come up against them and know logically you're getting a worse deal than you could have, because a good negotiation is about making the other side feel like it's a genuine give and take, and that you are being listened to (hopefully it is true as well...). It comes naturally to people. My son often tries to negotiate his bedtime, and we try to accommodate that as much as possible, because we know from experience that when we negotiate from a starting point we set, he ends up going to bed earlier than he otherwise would, and does so happily and without protest, seemingly triumphant because he put in effort on it and got us to yield a bit on our starting position. When we negotiate a time, he'll even remind us when it is time to get him ready for bed, if we don't notice the time.

peteretep 12y ago

My boss is a former M&A guy, and very very financially focussed but: I have a lot of trust in him, because I know that he will always delegate to "doing the right thing" over a quick buck. That's saved him a lot of money in working with me when it's come to bonus, salary, or work-related negotiations.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Sounds very American; like the server in a resteraunt being overly nice, making those of us who aren't used to the wallmart greeter style uncomfortable. Cut the bull; I would rather people be more honest than be more nice (and if they are trying too hard, it's easy to tell). It's amazing how a bit of bluntness automatically influences me and how much niceness projection makes me sick.

namenotrequired 12y ago
Being nice doesn't mean being dishonest. It means treating people well.
matwood 12y ago
So you and I are in a meeting and you throw out an idea. Would you rather me a) call you a fucking idiot without even thinking through what you said and move on or b) explain why I don't agree with your idea and let you clarify? Even if the idea had zero merit, it is still in my long term interest to talk it through with you if I want you fully engaged on the team. The idea could be a teaching moment or even lead to an idea that works. In the end it is not about being overly nice, but being respectful.
- sejje 12y ago
  That's a ridiculous way to make a point. Being blunt and calling someone a "fucking idiot" are not the same thing.
  - matwood 12y ago
    You're right that I was projecting my personal experiences. The people who I have worked with who called themselves blunt and honest were the same people who never defended an idea and instead resorted to calling everyone else idiots. Saying you are blunt is often a way to sound superior or right when being rude to someone. Very few problems are as straight forward as 1+1=2, which is easy to state bluntly. Most problems though are more nuanced than that, and I have personally found that people who like to think themselves superior to others like to hide behind words like honest and blunt.

smegmalife 12y ago

Funny how often conventional wisdom is wrong, and "not being nice" is no different. When you look at the great companies, they were always focused on relationships and generally doing the right thing. Being nice is good not only from a business standpoint, but a personal standpoint as well.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

phatboyslim 12y ago

There appear to be a number of anecdotes in the book Hatching Twitter where Fred Wilson is painted as the bad guy. I wonder how much of this was for the book, or how possibly I am misinterpreting it.

GuiA 12y ago
I have not read the book myself. I do have a former coworker who was fairly involved in the early days Twitter, who told me the book definitely was a biased account of events. I would not blindly trust it.

michaelochurch 12y ago

I worked at a company once that conflated mean-spirited policies with "just business". The result was a downfall that was entirely preventable. Vacation and sick leave were combined ("PTO") which meant that you had to take a vacation day if you got sick. The result of this was that people came into work when ill and everyone was less productive. Very little ever got done in the winter, because it was just one constant office-wide cold. (I had so many colds, that season, that I saw a doctor to find out if something was wrong with my immune system.) Open-plan offices are another penny-wise, pound-foolish institution. They're not used because they're "collaborative" or "hip" but because they're cheap, and they're cheap because they're shitty. The result, however, is high turnover, increased sick load, distraction and antagonism. There's also an overwhelming amount of evidence that open-plan offices hurt the best employees the most, which means you're losing off the top. That's not where you want to lose. The killer was when it bought (cough rescued) another company and installed the acquired company's upper management. The new regime's first move was to kill the acquiring company's R&D team-- not because it wasn't doing useful work (it was) but because "their side" (the acquiring company) didn't have an R&D team. So a high-performing R&D team that had already built some powerful stuff (and was 6-9 months away from solving an existential-risk fraud problem) was shut down. Those guys over there have too much freedom! They're in danger of actually saving the company! Shut them down, now! Of course, the health benefits were shit, which meant that days of work time were lost to haggling with insurance companies and hospitals about bills. Whatever pennies are saved by having a crappy health plan is lost when employees have to haggle on their own behalf to get health care. Sometimes, cost cutting is the right way to go, but that's rare and usually in a well-understood existential crisis. As in, "this company won't be around in two years unless we're really tight, and here's how we plan to make it up". I can't respect companies that play against their employees. If you have a crappy health plan, a bad PTO policy, closed allocation, stack ranking, and a bad office space, then you're not playing to win. Instead, you're in the business of competing against your employees, when you should be in the business of excelling at something, and of winning in the market. You only get to pick one, in the long term, in this world. Unfortunately, for the individual executive, the "be a dick" strategy often works. Most "tech" startups are scams: companies not built to last, but just to be sold to some "greater fool" before it falls to pieces on account of its own sloppy constitution. The individuals who build these crap companies generally get to cash out (or, at least, move on to cushy venture capital jobs) before that happens and, when it does, they can plausibly (if falsely) blame their successors.

digitalengineer 12y ago

I have noticed certain people seem to think 'being nice' equals 'dumb' and 'unexperienced'. Most people are so used to others claiming everything; their time, their concepts, designs,… they think just because you're not an asshole, you're a push-over.

dsirijus 12y ago

"We know that some of the most successful entrepreneurs in tech have been difficult individuals who did what they had to do to get ahead.", "We know that a lot of investors, VCs included, will do what is required to make a buck.", "It's conventional wisdom that being nice is a bad idea", followed by a singular anecdotal data point arguing otherwise. I'd posit that it depends on the actual business domain. Some are cutthroat and being nice is gonna be a world of pain for you. I'm not doing dry flower arrangements myself, so I wouldn't know. But in my domain (games) being nice bit me on my ass as much as being mean (if that's even an antonym to nice) did. So, in conclusion, it's a perpetual dilemma, not one-size-fit-all. EDIT: The whole article is a bit disingenuous imho. Title might as well be paraphrased as "Be nice or I'm gonna be mean". Another food for thought - etymology of nice is from Latin nescius, meaning ignorant.

jczhang 12y ago
I like to think the article means to say: be nice and fair, including to yourself.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

lgmspb 12y ago

I think it is important to either be nice to everyone or to be an asshole to everyone. As simple as that

rayiner 12y ago

Here's the thing about being not nice: you can usually get away with it if you're really exceptional, but if you ever misstep, nobody will want to help you out, and some may gleefully put the screws to you. Just in the last couple of years, a couple of acquaintances that had a reputation for being not nice have stumbled career-wise, and unsurprisingly no one was there to lend a hand. Honestly, I was shocked how little time it took to catch up to them.

song 12y ago
That's what I really hope when I think of an employee who screwed me completely over after I gave him a chance and spent a lot of time training him... But from the last news I've heard being a snake has been very successful for him and he's landed a high position in the new company where he works (taking over the guy who hired him). I hope one day it all catches to him but I'm not hopeful.. I just wish the world worked like this.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- DarkTree 12y ago
  It may be likely that if the world did work like that, he wouldn't be such a snake. People are conditioned to think that stepping on other people to get ahead is the only way to be successful. In that sense, I too wish the world worked like that, because then we would have a lot less snakes.
- y4mi 12y ago
  i know i shouldn't judge with this small amount of info, but still... you normally aren't paying an employee in training even close to the normal rate in the profession. which is obviously correct, but makes the argument that the employee screwed the employer by leaving after the the training kinda strange.
  - song 12y ago
    In that case, he left with some of my customers contracts so that was the screwing over part... The training thing is the fact that I spent a lot of time training him hoping to do great things together and eventually making him a partner of my company. Anyway, it's a long story....

ZenPro 12y ago

Almost everybody I have ever learned something truly valuable from was a nice person. I have yet to meet an example of the single-minded-asshole-genius who is actually a success. Most of the truly credible successes I have met are nice people and highly regarded.

logfromblammo 12y ago
While this is mostly based on hearsay, what about Steve Jobs? From all the anecdotal accounts and unsubstantiated rumors I have heard, Steve Jobs was a reasonably intelligent, single-minded asshole, and Steve Wozniak was the super-nice-guy genius.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  Everybody always pulls Steve Jobs out of the bag to try and illustrate the asshole boss paradigm. Steve Jobs also used to burst into tears in the Boardroom sobbing about how unfair the system was. I don't see many management books advocating that approach...bawling your eyes out until your business partners acquiesce. But, if I ever meet a Steve Jobs, a single minded visionary who is seeking to shape the entire paradigm of personal computing... ...I still wouldn't let him talk to me the way Isaacson reports in his book. Fuck Steve Jobs. Plus, when it came down to the wire, Microsoft owned them. Literally.

mcmatterson 12y ago

We also have one of those signs, from when a good friend lived next door to Dr. Bob's workshop (he being the purveyor of those signs). He's an incredible (and incredibly oddball) guy, and a visit to his workshop / junkyard is a great example of the part of New Orleans that most visitors never see.

usingathrowaway 12y ago

I work with a legitimately talented and hard-working Lead Architect who is not nice. He's constantly petty, degrading, and passive-aggressive. He'll interpret whatever you say in whichever way allows him to insult you. His "arch reviews" are provided in a way that makes people feel shitty instead of making them smarter. He doesn't create sharable documents or written guidance. He is, in essence, a borderless micro-manager, who shits on the whole damned engineering team. He's tolerated by the CEO because he shipped the first version of the product quickly, so the CEO thinks he's brilliant. He's tolerated by the CTO because the CTO doesn't realize that his ego and passive-aggressiveness have both swelled as the company has grown. He is the reason that many of our best engineers have left. Every single one of his direct reports has transferred or quit in less than 12 months. He is undermining a great company. At this point, he better hope that we have a great outcome despite his bullshit, because if he doesn't make enough money to retire, he's fucked. Zero of the engineers (and engineering management) would ever work with him, ever again. It's too lousy of an experience. And the really sad thing is that if he was just nice about stuff, he'd be one of our best employees. But he has to be a dick about every single little thing. He has to be snarky. He has to be the smartest guy in the room. On all topics.

anarchitect 12y ago

This reminds me of a piece of advice I heard somewhere, which I keep coming back to – "be someone that people want to work with again".

palebluedot 12y ago

A saying that I heard a long time ago, that really stuck with me (both as a business owner, and from the flipside as a customer): You can shear a sheep many times, but you can skin it only once. If you go in for the kill, and really take advantage of someone in a transaction (i.e, skin the sheep), that will likely signal the end of any (positive) transactions with that person, unless you have a monopoly or other such power. Even if they don't realize what you did at the time, eventually they will, and they will resent it. But by just shearing the sheep, you are creating a sustainable profit / relationship with someone, that will have the potential to be repeat business. This works on the customer side, as well - are you the sort of person that grinds away at every contract and transaction, so that the other side makes (almost) nothing? Well, you are walking the line of skinning that sheep...

jacquesm 12y ago
That's pretty calculating though. Essentially you're saying 'be nice' because there is money in it. But actually people should just be nice even (or maybe especially) if there is no money in it.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  That's a pretty narrow interpretation of that statement. It could also be simple. If you charge someone so much that they can't sustain their business then you might win but at what price. v.s If you charge someone what they can afford then they will stay in business longer and then you might end up winning in the long run. And that's just one possible interpretation :)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's the 'parasite' model. Don't kill the host :) But you're right, there are more interpretations possible and not all of those are negative.
- bjustin 12y ago
  The topic post explicitly says that there is money in being nice. So there is more reason to be nice than just being a decent person.

jacquesm 12y ago

"nice guys finish last" and other bs is what drives that culture. The fact that some of the idols in the tech industry are definitely not nice (and in fact are revered for that) does not help either. Your reputation is your most hard won capital, spend it wisely.

rthomas6 12y ago

This reminds me of the book "Getting to Yes". If you take a principled stand in negotiations and truly want what is fair, you can separate the issue at hand from the people. In doing so, you can be polite and nice, while not getting steamrolled in negotiation. You can look at negotiations like working together to get to agreement on what is fair and best for both parties, instead of fighting against one another to get as much as you can. It also allows you to say "no" in a non-personal way, because you're only doing what makes sense for your side.

mathattack 12y ago

Being nice is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. It doesn't pay in the short term, but people who are consistently nice to each other help out in the long run. This is why CEOs that are nasty are actually the exception, though some of their lower level attendants can be jerks. If you aren't trustworthy, you lose access to a lot of people and opportunities.

protonfish 12y ago

Everyone is throwing around "nice" like it is a well-defined term and not a fluff word. Let's try to define it a little better. In my experience, there are 3 types of "nice". One is where somebody is subservient to you. Another is when a person is polite and tells you what you want to hear. The other is where somebody is honest and can be counted on to do what they promise. I propose that you cannot be either #1 or #2 and #3. A subservient doormat may seem great, but don't forget that you are not the only person they will grovel to. They will follow the most dominant person, and you can't count on it being you forever. They are cowards that cannot be trusted. #2, pulling no punches, is a two-faced liar. They are the primary suspects for back-stabbing. Being "nice" is used as a tool to gain your trust. #3 can be rude and abrasive. If they are angry with you, they will act angry with you. They will tell you the truth, even if it hurts your feelings. Being rude and being duplicitous are almost always opposites, but both can be described as being "not nice." If I had a beach house, I'd like people to be the #2 type of nice. My goal there would be to relax, so please don't burst my obliviousness bubble. But when I get back to work I'd rather have my allys be #3.

dhimes 12y ago
I believe the conversation is about being like #3, but without being rude and abrasive. It's possible. Being honest and reliable does not excuse rudeness and abrasiveness. In my experience, rudeness and abrasiveness are indicative that the person has not had to/been able to grow up. Perhaps they have extreme talent. Perhaps they have lived a life of extreme focus. Perhaps their moms still look after them. The reason doesn't much matter. #s 1 and 2 are bullshit.
- protonfish 12y ago
  I would argue that the qualities of "rude" and "abrasive" are similar to "offensive" - They are judgements by the observer, not objective qualities of the observed. What is abrasive to one person might be fine for another. If you are the type of person that gets his panties in a bunch when somebody says something you don't like, maybe you are the one who still needs his mommy?

bowlofpetunias 12y ago

I've found that the people that seem the nicest are the worst people to do business with. Niceness is often mistaken for not telling the whole truth. Also, many of those nice people often disappear when the shit hits the fan, because they don't want to be seen bringing bad news. That doesn't fit with the "nice" image they have of themselves. All things being equal I would rather do business with an honest asshole than a nice person I cannot trust. Niceness is overrated. Not screwing people over and being "nice" are two very different things.

candybar 12y ago

Being nice is easy. Being good is hard. What's missing here is that powerful people are almost always transacting on behalf of many others who are not present at the bargaining table. By being nice, they may be trading other people's money for personal goodwill that they get to keep for themselves. This is "being nice" in some ways, but this isn't good for society and may be highly unethical. Would you want government regulators to be nice to the industry people they are regulating because in the long run they benefit from having good relationship with industry leaders? Would you want hedge fund managers who's managing your money to be nice to banks, that is, overpay for services, because fees come out of your pocket while they can monetize the relationship in the future? Would you want college admissions officers to be nice to their friends with college-bound kids? When you're applying for internships, would you want the hiring managers to be nice to all their church friends who may need something to do during the summer? People in powerful positions being nice to personal acquaintances at the expense of strangers is a huge problem and the root of all corruption. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be nice - being ethical and balancing the interests of all parties involved is an extremely tricky proposition but I'm surprised at the amount of agreement here, because so much of what people complain about around here often comes down to other people being nice to one another at your expense. Edit: I'm especially surprised that a VC would make such a comment because it's an industry where being nice for the sake of relationship can be highly unethical. You're always working with other people's money and whether as an investor or a board member, you're often responsible for making decisions that benefit people you represent even if it involves some kind of hit to your "nice" reputation. At the top level of management, big decisions are rarely easy and always have winners and losers. Edit2: As another example, the recent non-poaching deal between SV companies was probably rationalized as "let's be nice to one another" while those that didn't participate were seen as not being nice or being too cutthroat. Niceness between natural competitors can quickly lead to a collusive agreement. Edit3: I'm not advising any specific course of action, simply noting that the advice as given is far too vague and can often lead to rationalization of highly unethical activities. I'm sure Steve Jobs thought Google trying to recruit Apple employees was "Google screwing over Apple" and the consequent no-poach agreement is partners being nice to one another. Edit4: Dreamweapon, I didn't downvote you (don't have the power anyway) but regulators work with executives, directors and employees who are people. Regulators have strong incentives to cultivate relationships with people in the industry so that they can transition into the private sector. Likewise, hedge fund managers aren't trying to be nice to the banks - they are being nice to specific salespeople, brokers and bankers because they can expect favors in return. Also favoritism to people you know is being nice to people you know - the gist of what's being advocated here is be nice to people you know, because relationship.

jimmyjohnson12 12y ago

One of the biggest companies in the world invited us the little guy innovator to demo our new technology. They were down right NASTY and mean. I say this not because they didn't buy us out, but because we spent our money to fly to the valley to demo our tech only to learn they blocked our tech from working and said things like, you better run the race is on. They also baited us with money and opportunity if we told them how our tech worked. We took the bait and they kicked us out! Not sure why they had to be such jerks!?!

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I find this an interesting counter to the Diplomacy post (Alpha Nerd Game) yesterday. I wonder if the same rules apply in Fred's world.

adamzerner 12y ago

This post makes a claim, and provides minimal/no support for it. Really, the support is because it's a trustworthy source. But still, there's a lot more value in truly understanding the reasoning behind it.

SyneRyder 12y ago

Possibly related: last week on This Week In Startups, the interview with Yossi Vardi discussed his philosophy of only investing in "nice" people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozcfDoC-srM#t=14m37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozcfDoC-srM#t=14m37s And later that week, during the interview with Gil Penchina, Jason mentions the benefits of being nice, after being screwed over by someone who shut him out of a deal and took advantage of a founder by offering them a term sheet & telling them not to shop it around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=30m49s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=30m49s (more specific comments here) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=37m57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flX3NEb5bf0#t=37m57s Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it's curious to see so much discussion of "nice" at the moment.

sbhere 12y ago

> It’s not the fastest way to make a buck. It takes time. But it is way more sustainable than screwing people over. Being nice != not(screwing people over) Big difference.

JVIDEL 12y ago

Being nice in business is easy, it's the not-being-a-backstabing-jerk part that most people don't seem to get.