There are many factors that contribute to being good to your job, or I think more accurately, being perceived as being good at your job. Impossible deadlines, unrealistic client expectations, bad organizational policies and procedures... the list goes on. I'd argue that being nice to people is always your choice, whereas being perceived as competent is not always up to you.
Measuring performance is also not entirely straightforward and objective as we want it to be, and the two axes may blend into each other when it comes time for reviews. In a peer review scenario, that nice colleague gets a boost.
There are also varying degrees and types of incompetence. If someone is willing to learn, that's a lot different than someone who is knowingly slacking off and relying on others to pick up the slack. I'd argue that the latter is not exactly "nice" behavior.
Measuring performance is also not entirely straightforward and objective as we want it to be, and the two axes may blend into each other when it comes time for reviews. In a peer review scenario, that nice colleague gets a boost.
There are also varying degrees and types of incompetence. If someone is willing to learn, that's a lot different than someone who is knowingly slacking off and relying on others to pick up the slack. I'd argue that the latter is not exactly "nice" behavior.