(Steve Correa & Ronald D’Souza )
The world of sports, in particular, and business, in general, often glorifies the overtly aggressive, fiercely competitive, and visibly driven personalities who seem to have an unrelenting desire to win. But this leads to the converse question: Can nice guys finish first? Does having a softer approach mean falling behind, or is there more to winning than meets the eye?
Leadership Styles in Sports
The world of cricket offers rich examples of contrasting leadership styles. Consider the captaincy of Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli, two Indian cricketers who have led the national team with distinctly different approaches. Sharma, known for his calm demeanour and humility, has been open about admitting and learning from his mistakes. Conversely, Kohli is famous for his overt aggression on the field — wearing his emotions on his sleeve and leading with a fierce, unyielding energy.
Similarly, recall the days when Sourav Ganguly captained the Indian cricket team, and we saw a leader who didn’t shy away from aggressive displays of emotion, famously waving his shirt in the air after winning a match at Lord’s in 2002. Rahul Dravid, often seen as Ganguly’s foil, is remembered for his quiet determination. His aggression was not visible in his flamboyant actions but in the intense focus and resilience with the moniker — ‘the wall’ he brought to every game. Matthew Hayden once remarked, “If you want to see real aggression, look into Rahul Dravid’s eyes.” Dravid’s intensity was never about outward display — it was an inner flame that fuelled his performances.
These examples illustrate that winning temperaments aren’t always built on outward aggression. Dravid’s quiet determination, much like Rohit Sharma’s humility, is as effective in driving a team to success as Kohli’s firebrand leadership or Ganguly’s boldness. Both styles can succeed, but they reveal that determination has many faces — some are overt, while others are covert, but both can be equally powerful.
Winning Temperament in Football
The contrast between leadership styles isn’t limited to cricket. In football, consider Harry Kane, now at Bayern Munich, and Robert Lewandowski, who was previously the star striker for the same team. Kane, known as a great team player, is recognized for his ability to work selflessly for the success of the whole squad, distributing assists and helping build attacks. On the other hand, Lewandowski was more of a goal-scoring machine, a player who focused on getting the ball into the net with an unrelenting drive.
While Lewandowski’s role was more direct and individualistic, Kane’s approach has been more holistic, prioritizing the team's overall success. Both players have tasted significant success, and their contrasting styles highlight a key point: winning temperaments are not one-size-fits-all. Some are more outwardly driven, like Lewandowski’s laser-focused goal-scoring ability, while others, like Kane’s, find victory in collective teamwork and quiet resilience.
The Business World
Outside of sports, similar contrasts exist in business leadership. The high-profile personas of CEOs like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk have dominated public perception. Both men are widely seen as visionaries but have also been critiqued for their lack of people skills. Jobs, famously intense and often harsh in his pursuit of perfection, built a brand around relentless innovation. In contrast, Tim Cook, who succeeded Jobs as Apple’s CEO, is often described as a “nice guy.” Under Cook’s leadership, Apple has flourished, with his collaborative and thoughtful approach proving that a softer style can indeed lead to incredible success.
There is often an assumption that “nice guys” lack the necessary edge to succeed at the highest levels. But this overlooks the fact that many of these so-called “nice guys” are quietly shrewd, deeply strategic, and unwavering in their determination to succeed. Cook’s success at Apple is a perfect example. He may not display the aggressive, overtly ambitious persona of Steve Jobs, but his quiet competence and inclusive leadership have arguably taken Apple to new heights.
As Simon Sinek said, “Leadership is not about being in charge. It’s about taking care of those in your charge.” Cook’s leadership exemplifies this philosophy — where success is built on personal ambition and the ability to inspire and nurture the collective drive of the people you lead.
What Makes a Winning Temperament?
The real question is: what traits underpin the success of both styles? Whether overt or covert, a winning temperament is built on? Both “nice guys” and “aggressive guys” share an intense focus on their goals. The difference lies in how this determination is expressed. Where one may channel it into outward displays of emotion, the other may turn it inward, driving themselves forward with silent resolve. Winning often means overcoming setbacks. Whether it’s Dravid batting for hours in tough conditions or Cook navigating Apple through new technological challenges, keeping going in the face of adversity is essential. The best leaders and athletes know how to adapt. They understand when to push harder and when to step back. They know when to shift tactics, whether in a business deal or a cricket match. Overt aggression and covert determination require a flexible mind to read situations and pivot accordingly. Winning temperaments, no matter how they are expressed, share a deep sense of self-belief. Whether it’s Kohli’s assertive leadership or Kane’s quiet assurance, both styles are grounded in an unshakeable confidence in their abilities and vision.
The notion that nice guys finish last is a reductive oversimplification. As we’ve seen in sports and business, “nice guys” are often the most strategic, adaptable, and quietly determined individuals in the room. They may not shout the loudest, but they win through a combination of intellect, resilience, and an ability to inspire others. As Rahul Dravid once said, “You don’t play for revenge; you play for respect and pride.” In the end, nice guys can, and often do, finish first — because being nice doesn’t mean being weak. It means understanding the deeper nuances of leadership and competition. It means having the quiet confidence to know that success is not always about the loudest roar but sometimes about the most patient climb.
This article was also published on Medium on 22nd October: https://medium.com/@stevecorrea.com/overt-or-covert-determination-what-defines-a-winning-temperament-b976e5e8b17e
[1] Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and Author of The Indian Boss at Work, Thinking Global, Acting Indian
[1] Ronald D’Souza has Corporate and Consulting Experience and mentors new start-ups.
Share this post