I was recently hired by a law firm in downtown Salt Lake City. It was a new and rather eye-opening experience for me. Up to now, I haven’t been exposed to “real world” business quite like that which I’m involved in now, working directly with high profile litigators in an intense, fast paced and, at times, emotionally testing environment. Working for, and alongside, such successful attorneys has exposed me personally to their personalities, characteristics and habits, which, in turn, has taught me quite a bit about which behaviors and traits are most effective in reaching a desirable level of success in what can be a competitive, risky and cut-throat world.
For years people have said, “nice guys finish last,” because they’re the ones who tend to get stuck at lower professional ranks after letting the “big dogs” and big personalities walk all over them. But, while I do think that the arrogant office “asshole” is more likely than the “yes-man” to climb the ladder, at least in the short-term, I think the best and most reliable way to reach success is to find a balance between the two. You have to know when to step aside, give credit where it’s due, agree with your boss, encourage colleagues, and know when it’s time to stand up and bare your fangs.
Obviously having a pushover run a company is a recipe for disaster. People often fall under the misconception that allowing a narcissistic CEO to take the lead is a better alternative, maybe because of the belief that he’ll never back down in a fight, and he’ll do anything to make and keep the company successful. But that’s just as much a problem as working under the softy. The stereotypical selfish CEO will never be willing to compromise, adapt, and think seriously and rationally about the well-being of clients and employees, and, therefore, according to the article, “Why It Pays To Be A Jerk,” by Jerry Useem, in the lastest edition of The Atlantic, tend “to lead their companies down the toilet.” Additionally, such personalities, once they’ve reached the top, end up losing their, and their company’s success because, for example, employees may fear their boss’s wrath. Such a fear prevents necessary communication and things are likely to get out of hand. Thus, success will falter and diminish in the long-run.
In the same article, Useem brings up the terms “givers” and “takers” to describe types of people in the professional market. While people believe it is the takers who hold the positions of power and end up successful in the long-run, it is actually, according to Useem, the disagreeable givers, or those who are “willing to use thorny behavior to further the well-being and success of others,” who are able to reach, and stay at the top. Useem argues that the most constructive professional exchanges occur when “you challenge ideas, but not the people who expound them,” which is how disagreeable givers operate. They’re tough, but it’s rarely personal. They press for success for the greater good and best interest of their business and those they work with.