The article mentioned various theories to explain this unexpected correlation.  For example, people who are willing to apologize have good “people skills” and so are more likely to move up in an organization.  Also, talented people are more secure in their position and so won’t mind showing a possible sign of weakness by admitting error.

However, these types of theories take the person’s abilities as an independent given.  The one exception was the theory offered by Peter Shaw, who suggested that these people are “willing to learn from their mistakes.”  I think this is something that people often overlook.  A person’s attitude and character (to use a quaint word) are very relevant to his or her job performance.  It’s no accident that Michael Jordan and James Brown were considered some of the “hardest working men” in their respective careers.  Sure, they had gene-given abilities, but so did plenty of other competitors.  What made them the best was their hard work and desire to be the best.

By the same token, the type of person who admits when he’s wrong is the type of person who will really master a subject or task; he won’t reach a decent level of competence and then assume he has it all figured out.  I can remember in grad school that the really smart professors were the ones who would ask polite questions of clarification at seminars.  In contrast, it was the mediocre intellectuals who would try to stump the guest lecturer with a real “zinger” that didn’t really advance the presentation.  Again, I don’t think this was a coincidence:  The people who asked good but fair questions were there to learn from the speaker, whereas the hostile questioners were there to prove how smart they were to the other people in the audience.

Old-fashioned virtues go hand in hand with superior abilities, and are thus typically rewarded in a market economy with higher salaries.  And if I offended any mediocre graduate professors out there, please accept my humble apology.