The Real Competitive Edge? Kindness.

“Survival of the fittest.” That phrase still echoes through boardrooms, employment decisions, and performance reviews. In corporate speak, ‘survival of the fittest’ often gets twisted into ‘survival of the strongest’ — as if success naturally favors the sharpest elbows or the toughest skin.

But in all my years in the professional world—working with thousands of people and dozens of managers—I can tell you this: the leaders who made the most significant impact on me weren’t the loudest or the hardest driving. They were the ones who led with empathy. The ones who were generous with their time, patient in challenging moments, and genuinely friendly in how they showed up every day.

And more often than not, they were also the most successful.

The science backs this up. Researchers Dr. Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods have shown that in nature—and in life—the real advantage isn’t brute strength. It’s friendliness. Their work explores how friendliness helped dogs evolve from wolves, how it reshaped foxes over generations, and how it may have been the X-factor that helped modern humans outlast their ancient hominid cousins.

The implications go far beyond biology. They raise a big question for today’s leaders: If friendliness helped our species survive, why do so many organizations still treat it like a liability?

The Science of Friendliness

The idea of “survival of the friendliest” isn’t just feel-good thinking—it’s rooted in evolutionary science.

Researchers Dr. Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods of Duke University and authors of Survival of the Friendliest¹ have studied how friendliness became a critical survival trait across species. One of their most compelling examples is how dogs evolved from wolves.

Roughly 20,000 years ago, certain wolves began to show more tolerance toward humans. These weren’t the fiercest or most dominant animals—they were the ones that could read our gestures, respond to our tone, and connect with us. Over generations, those wolves became dogs, one of the most successful species on the planet, primarily because of their ability to cooperate with humans.

But Hare and Woods didn’t stop there. In a famous experiment started by Russian geneticist Dmitry Belyaev in 1959, researchers selectively bred the friendliest foxes in Siberia. Over decades, these foxes didn’t just become tamer—they physically changed. Their faces got shorter, their tails curlier, and their behavior more social. The same pattern of evolution through friendliness, not force, reappeared.

And humans followed a similar path.

Our species didn’t survive because we were the biggest or strongest. We shared the planet with at least four other hominid species with large brains, cultural tools, and complex communication. But only we survived. Why? Hare and Woods propose that our ability to cooperate across groups, to build trust, and to connect—even with strangers—gave us the edge.

Modern humans even carry the physical markers of this evolutionary friendliness: smaller brow ridges, shorter faces, and the white part of the eye (the sclera), which makes our gaze easier to read. According to Hare, our white sclera is the human equivalent of a dog’s wagging tail.

We are, quite literally, built to be friendly.

What This Means for Organizations

So, what does all this have to do with leadership, team dynamics, or company culture? A lot more than you might think.

If friendliness helped dogs thrive, reshaped foxes, and gave modern humans the edge over our ancient relatives, it’s worth asking: why do so many organizations still reward behaviors rooted in dominance instead of connection?

The most successful people I’ve worked with aren’t the ones who dominated the room; they’re the ones who made everyone else better in it.

In many workplaces, toughness is still treated as a leadership default. Assertiveness is equated with competence. Competition is baked into everything from sales incentives to performance reviews. And friendliness? Too often, it’s dismissed as “soft.”

But when we prioritize dominance over cooperation, we shut down the very dynamics that make high-performing teams work. Communication suffers. Trust erodes. Silos form. People stop sharing ideas and start protecting their turf.

In an organizational setting, this plays out in familiar ways:

• Departments guarding information like it’s a power source.
• Blame culture when things go wrong.
• Burnout from constant internal competition.

Even in well-meaning companies, this defensive posture can take hold when leadership defaults to pressure over trust or when collaboration is seen as optional instead of essential.

The lesson? If you want people to work smarter, faster, and with more creativity—you have to create a culture where friendliness isn’t a liability; it’s a leadership advantage.

The Advantage of Friendliness in Teams

Let’s be clear: friendliness doesn’t mean avoiding accountability or lowering the bar. It means creating an environment where people feel safe contributing, supported when they take risks, and recognized when they lift others.

And that kind of environment consistently outperforms the “tough it out” alternative.

High-trust organizations have 286% higher total returns to shareholders than low-trust organizations.

In high-trust cultures, employees are more engaged, productive, and less likely to burn out. A WTW study surveying over 12,000 workers found that high-trust organizations delivered a total return to shareholders  286% higher than their low-trust peers. ²

When you build a team that values connection and psychological safety, you unlock things that force alone can’t deliver:

• Better communication. People speak up, not just when they’re told to, but when it matters.
• Faster problem-solving. Teams collaborate instead of competing.
• Resilience. When things go sideways, people support each other. They don’t scatter.
• Innovation. Creativity thrives in environments where ideas aren’t shot down out of fear.

The best leaders know this. They don’t confuse loudness for clarity or forcefulness for vision. They listen. They support. They create space for people to grow. Because in every industry, from real estate to healthcare to tech, success is built on relationships. And relationships, at their core, are built on trust.

In a world where change is constant, and complexity is the norm, friendliness isn’t fluff. It keeps people aligned, engaged, and able to move forward together.

Lead Smarter: Friendliness as a Strategy

So what can leaders and organizations do with all of this?

First, rethink what strength looks like. In today’s world, emotional intelligence, collaboration, and trust-building aren’t nice-to-haves; they’re strategic advantages. The science and workplace results are clear: teams rooted in friendliness perform better, last longer, and adapt faster.

Here are a few ways to lead with that in mind:

• Model Empathy: People take their cues from leadership. When leaders show vulnerability, curiosity, and patience, others do too.
• Reward Collaboration: Celebrate cross-team wins. Don’t just spotlight the lone achiever. Highlight the glue.
• Create Safety: Make it easy for people to speak up, ask for help, and challenge ideas without fear of punishment.
• Put Relationships First: Whether it’s onboarding, performance reviews, or conflict resolution, prioritize human connection.
• Stay Curious: Kindness isn’t static—it’s active. Seek feedback, check in regularly, and look for moments to build bridges.

After four decades of working with teams, one truth has held up across industries, organizational charts, and eras: The most successful people I’ve worked with aren’t the ones who dominated the room—they’re the ones who made everyone else better in it.

So maybe it’s time we stopped measuring strength by volume and started measuring it by the quality of connection. Because in business, as in evolution, it’s not the toughest who wins. It’s the friendliest who go furthest.

1. Hare, B., & Woods, V. (2020). Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity. Random House.
2. Watson Wyatt (2002) Study on trust in organizations. (Often cited in works such as ‘The Speed of Trust’ by Stephen M.R. Covey and articles like ‘The Business Case For Trust,’ Chief Executive magazine).