I voted 'no' only because the MAJORITY of my employers don't support jerks over nice guys, but if there had been a place for a qualifier, I would have said, "It depends." Has no one been watching the national economic news for the last year??
Whether nice guys finish last depends on the corporate environment for corporate employees and the sales strategies and company policy for commission-based sales reps." In my Fortune 500 bank, it was survival of the most ruthless and high reward for those who knowingly screwed both customers and collegaues alike to maximimize short-term profit. Integrity toward clients was penalized, i.e. "You could have squeezed more out of them. They don't know the law. If they have a dime left, you failed." It was the same in a billion-dollar family-owned business. If you doubt it and think this is just sour grapes on my part or a limited experience, just remember Enron, Tyco, AIG, WorldCom, Lehmann Brothers, Goldman Sachs, . . . the list is endless. How anybody can look at the banking and mortgage industry and tell me that nice guys always finish first is beyond me. The nice guys got fired or at least neutralized, while those who threw their clients' money around with world-class arrogance and nastiness grew rich.