51–60 of 108 posts
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.
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…
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, bu…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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 :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 :)
But you're right, there are more interpretations possible and not all of those are negative.
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…
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.
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…
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.
Naturally character is better highlighted by what you do that has no tangible reward, and done in the dark, where you think no one will see it. And being nice, and compassionate, and charitable are things that should be done because it is the right thing to do, regardless of reward.
The quote is in the same vein as the original article; the general thrust of the article is that being nice pays dividends, which could be interpreted as being calculating as well, I suppose.
But I don't think that is the intent. I think the intent is the same as my comment - to just highlight the benefits and renewable nature inherent in being nice, not saying that is the reason to be nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is not my intent at all, and I certainly don't think of it as calculating. I think you are conflating a quote highlighting a benefit of being nice (or really, the dangerous of being ruthless), with describing the moral reason to be nice. Naturally character is better highlighted by what you do that has no tangible reward, and done in the dark, where you think no one will see it. And being nice, and compassionate…