3 ms·

Nice usually means you are a pushover and will go out of your way to make other people happy. Wow. Maybe I'm just cynical, but nice, to me, means being fair,

by e40 12y ago

Nice usually means you are a pushover and will go out of your way to make other people happy. Wow. Maybe I'm just cynical, but nice, to me, means being fair, and generally employing The Golden Rule. I've been at forks in the road many times in my business career. I always took the fork that allowed me to sleep, which meant I applied The Golden Rule. I have employees that have worked for me for 20+ years and they seem to like me. I have no doubt that if I were a dick I could be more successful, but the cost of that would be too great for me.

ams6110 12y ago
So let's say you're at this fork in the road: On the left is a [edit: ethicial, i.e. not based on insider info, or other motivations that most people would think of as "cheating"] choice that you think will lead to more success for your business and more certainty of keeping your employees employed and maybe even hiring more. As a consequence, your competitors may lose some business and have to lay off some employees. On the right is a choice that you think will not benefit your business, maybe this choice is just doing nothing, carrying on as before. Your competitors are unharmed, nobody is laid off, but maybe your business will not be able to hire anyone new this year. Which choice "applies the golden rule." If this scenario isn't representative of what you are talking about, I apoligize; I am not trying to find any fault in what you are saying, just trying to clarify what you mean by what "allows you to sleep."
- e40 12y ago
  Your question is too vague to apply the rule. Let me give a concrete example: I had a business relationship (he was an investor in my company) with Henry Burkhardt III [1]. He was, by anyone's definition, a serial entrepreneur. Very rich. Very successful. The following example comes from watching him. The setup: you and other shareholders control the board. Do you: 1) use your position to dramatically dilute less powerful founders and employees, or 2) be fair and keep their relative percentages commensurate with their contribution and value? Henry famously did #2 repeatedly. I don't have the stomach for it, so I've chosen #2. If my company is acquired, it will mean quite a lot less for me (and some other people). Is that stupid? Henry would've said yes. To give you an idea of his ethics, see [2]. And, let me be clear: the people that Henry diluted were key to his success, it's just that he didn't need them anymore. Once the invention was made or code was written, their importance could be minimized without doing harm to the business. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Burkhardt_III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Burkhardt_III [2] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr14895.txt https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr14895.txt
  - allengeorge 12y ago
    Did you mean he did #1 or #2?
    - e40 12y ago
      Sorry. #1. For some reason, I can't edit it. Guess too much time went by.
paulhauggis 12y ago
The problem isn't you, it's human nature. I've worked for many companies, large and small, and it's the same. You can be the nice person, but eventually someone will come along and use politics against you (or give you unfair work loads, etc). You also won't get nearly as many raises (because nice people generally don't ask for raises), which means less for yourself and your family. I run a few meetup groups. I was out of the country for a few months during the summer and the co-organizer (who is very nice) ran one of the groups. More aggressive people basically took over the group and nearly ruined it. It's human nature. When you are nice, a more aggressive person will try to control you, your actions, or your situation because they see it as a weakness. If this doesn't happen, it's by pure luck. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about being unethical. I'm just saying that fair and nice are mutually exclusive over any given amount of time. The reason is because someone will disagree with you at some point and perceive you as an "asshole" and sometimes you need to be an asshole to not get trampled over.
- e40 12y ago
  * I'm just saying that fair and nice are mutually exclusive over any given amount of time.* My experience tells me I have to disagree with you. You can be fair and firm. I've had people try and walk over me in the past. I always respond the same way: keep emotion out of it, firmly respond in a logical way to their demand. I tell them "no, you can have/do X" and explain why. The situation where this will not work: trolls. Public figures attract trolls and dealing with them is a completely different matter. But, in a work environment, I've never had a situation that couldn't be handled in a nice but firm way.

by e40 12y ago

ams6110 12y ago

So let's say you're at this fork in the road: On the left is a [edit: ethicial, i.e. not based on insider info, or other motivations that most people would think of as "cheating"] choice that you think will lead to more success for your business and more certainty of keeping your employees employed and maybe even hiring more. As a consequence, your competitors may lose some business and have to lay off some employees. On the right is a choice that you think will not benefit your business, maybe this choice is just doing nothing, carrying on as before. Your competitors are unharmed, nobody is laid off, but maybe your business will not be able to hire anyone new this year. Which choice "applies the golden rule." If this scenario isn't representative of what you are talking about, I apoligize; I am not trying to find any fault in what you are saying, just trying to clarify what you mean by what "allows you to sleep."

e40 12y ago
Your question is too vague to apply the rule. Let me give a concrete example: I had a business relationship (he was an investor in my company) with Henry Burkhardt III [1]. He was, by anyone's definition, a serial entrepreneur. Very rich. Very successful. The following example comes from watching him. The setup: you and other shareholders control the board. Do you: 1) use your position to dramatically dilute less powerful founders and employees, or 2) be fair and keep their relative percentages commensurate with their contribution and value? Henry famously did #2 repeatedly. I don't have the stomach for it, so I've chosen #2. If my company is acquired, it will mean quite a lot less for me (and some other people). Is that stupid? Henry would've said yes. To give you an idea of his ethics, see [2]. And, let me be clear: the people that Henry diluted were key to his success, it's just that he didn't need them anymore. Once the invention was made or code was written, their importance could be minimized without doing harm to the business. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Burkhardt_III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Burkhardt_III [2] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr14895.txt https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr14895.txt
- allengeorge 12y ago
  Did you mean he did #1 or #2?
  - e40 12y ago
    Sorry. #1. For some reason, I can't edit it. Guess too much time went by.

paulhauggis 12y ago

The problem isn't you, it's human nature. I've worked for many companies, large and small, and it's the same. You can be the nice person, but eventually someone will come along and use politics against you (or give you unfair work loads, etc). You also won't get nearly as many raises (because nice people generally don't ask for raises), which means less for yourself and your family. I run a few meetup groups. I was out of the country for a few months during the summer and the co-organizer (who is very nice) ran one of the groups. More aggressive people basically took over the group and nearly ruined it. It's human nature. When you are nice, a more aggressive person will try to control you, your actions, or your situation because they see it as a weakness. If this doesn't happen, it's by pure luck. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about being unethical. I'm just saying that fair and nice are mutually exclusive over any given amount of time. The reason is because someone will disagree with you at some point and perceive you as an "asshole" and sometimes you need to be an asshole to not get trampled over.

e40 12y ago
* I'm just saying that fair and nice are mutually exclusive over any given amount of time.* My experience tells me I have to disagree with you. You can be fair and firm. I've had people try and walk over me in the past. I always respond the same way: keep emotion out of it, firmly respond in a logical way to their demand. I tell them "no, you can have/do X" and explain why. The situation where this will not work: trolls. Public figures attract trolls and dealing with them is a completely different matter. But, in a work environment, I've never had a situation that couldn't be handled in a nice but firm way.