But in the context of the article, I suspect that the most important definition of "nice" is probably "pays me for executive coaching".
The term isn't defined because "I am nice" is an axiom, "I can do what I need to get what I want" is the desired conclusion, and the article provides some motivated reasoning for getting from A to B.
But the OP (or McClelland who is cited in the OP) is more about power as an end in itself. That’s something very different, and IMHO very detrimental.
Sri Lanka banned fertiliser the other month, in a tea-snorted-through-the-nose decision. Bad time to be poor in Sri Lanka. If sane people don't try to keep control, that is the sort of decision making that happens.
IDK why people find it hard to imagine something worse than losing your savings, seems pretty easy and history is ripe with examples.
Over the time, I have found myself more willing to fight over my "slice" of power in the workplace, making my demands assertively and showing that I know my value without traces of regret or false humility. That is something I have had to work on a lot, it makes me uncomfortable; but I understand that I "deserve" some power. If I am doing things right I cam claim my state for influence and being heard. I think this aligns with your point on being responsible with yourself and not just being a bystander.
On the other hand, there are other spheres in which I do not expect such power beforehand, so I'm not usually ready to draw my weapons. This may be a social encounter with barely-known people, friends, or even family. There are power fights there too, but somehow they feel different. Maybe I'm not as convinced of how I deserved such power, or maybe I'm not willing to do the effort anymore and I just want to fulfill my affiliation urge.
Occasionally you get someone with real creativity, but mostly you just get assholes. And they are ultimately responsible for the mediocrity of most organisations. They make noisy but poor decisions for personal reasons, and resist any change that inconveniences their personal ambitions and self-image.
I've been reading a history of Commodore, and at one point Jack Tramiel effectively destroys the brand by refusing to do a deal with a national computer distributor. He threw away the chance to compete with Apple and IBM because he refused to go into a partnership that threatened his aggressive one-up narcissism.
It's a persistent pattern. The story of Tramiel's companies is one of perma-drama, with constant swings between boom and bust. He was good at growing the pie up to a point, but not good at sharing to make the pie even bigger.
It’s a pretty straightforward values distinction.
When confronted with a situation where you have to choose, do you choose the exercise of power over being liked, or do you choose being liked over exercising power? In his formulation nice people tend to choose the latter.
> If you do want to be a bystander, you still have a responsibility to make sure that power goes to people with a grow-the-pie mindset...
If wealth always goes upwards, one fine day people will reach for their pitchforks and those who are on the other side of the wealth destructors will loose everything.
It's an equilibrium we should aim at, neither wealth destruction nor up flow to the already powerful
There are no advantages to avoiding power. One of the big lessons in politics is people will sometimes roll in and mess up your life and it never mattered how much of a threat you were. Avoiding power struggles doesn't let people avoid the consequences. Similarly, avoiding struggles is also bad. If you can't resist someone taking your power, then you don't have any. It is nuanced and it is important to be selective in which battles to fight but there will always be some.
If you do want to be a bystander, you still have a responsibility to make sure that power goes to people with a grow-the-pie mindset and not people who only understand wealth destruction or wealth transfer. If wealth-destroyers gain power, you won't be spared.