Harvard Business School: Talented assholes are more trouble than they're worth

But … but … I’ve always admired my managers and … and … and they’ve always encouraged me to work remotely …

13 Likes

There’s a reason you’re here on this blog, with the rest of us telecommuters.

7 Likes

It’s not cultivated in the modern corporate world, unfortunately…
A bigger issue I’d argue is that there has been an ever-widening gap between the levels, really split into two.
Most managers (those that have direct hire, non management staff) and the people that report to them have goals that clash directly with director level and above goals - in that the staff doing the work and their boss are task masters and/or problem solvers.
Those above them are only about racing to the bottom to do as much as possible for as little as possible in an extremely short-sited fashion.
If an IT manager sees an issue and says - “in the long run, this is going to be a security problem” for instance, someone will likely run it through a filter that is in direct opposition to what actually makes sense…
Until it BECOMES a problem, then it’s a firedrill, and they are the heroes because they directed everyone to fix the issue.

2 Likes

I have managed to find myself a job surrounded by techies and academics with generally poor instincts for making a buck.

I am blessed with very little contact with the more ruthless business creatures of the world. It means I am not rich, but nor am I driven to alcoholism.

8 Likes

It is better to have 2 average workers than one asshole superstar… so long as those average workers can actually do the job. Unfortunately - often, they can’t, and the reason the superstar is an asshole is because they can be - there’s nobody else who can do the job.

Sadly - the so-called “toxic” superstars are usually not actually toxic; they are people, like you or I, and they have their own stresses and insecurities and problems. Rather than ostracize them - why not find out why they are acting like a jerk? A good manager doesn’t throw out damaged goods, at least not immediately - dig a bit, turn that diamond in the rough into a real superstar… or your competitors will. That’s not to say you tolerate them disrupting things; but if you are dumb enough to drop them into a team of average joes, they didn’t fail - you did. Special needs sometimes require special handling.

I would trade 1 total asshole who knew what they hell they were doing and were responsible for a whole team of “we can’t do it until you give us a documented SOP” any day of the damn week.

4 Likes

What are the other 4 rules?

1 Like

I know, right? Left us hanging. I bet that’s rule #2. Always leave em hanging. Rule number 3: there is no three. Rule number 4: wash after flushing. 5. Do not talk about the rules, except maaaaaaaaybe number 1.

5 Likes
  1. i’ve hurt myself more by worrying too much than i have ever hurt myself by not worrying enough. (don’t borrow trouble)
  2. don’t say something you can’t easily take back.
  3. give more consideration to the ones who truly care about you than the ones who don’t.
  4. talent and a kind word will get you farther than talent alone.
  5. it’s never too late to have a happy childhood.
5 Likes

5 i learned in 1986.
4 i learned in 1988
3 i learned in 1989
2 i learned in 1990
1 i learned in 1992

hard lessons, all of them, but learned well.

2 Likes

I agree. The paper doesn’t even use the word “asshole.”

Someone can be a raging, despised asshole without even coming close to committing a “fireable” offense, putting the company at risk of a lawsuit, or assaulting a coworker.

Since this is an academic “paper”, the authors have to use actual measurable data and that translates to termination records and pre-employment screening.

Although some of the traits, such as self-centeredness, measured in pre-employment screening do associate with what we subjectively experience from assholes, such tests can’t really filter out assholes because it is a highly nebulous judgement.

Thanks!

I would argue with you about #5. I think it’s important to try to get past an unhappy childhood, but at some point you have to look forward instead of spending any more time trying to fix the past.

And #4 doesn’t work around sociopaths or narcissists. It’s the right thing to do, but don’t assume greater rewards for it.

Meanwhile, #3 was perfectly timed, since I read it right while making exactly that sort of decision with regard to family!

The way I think of #2 is the Sufi quote: Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates: is it true? Is it fair? Is it kind?

And finally, #1 might be true for some, but that’s going to be a personal match, not universal. If you’re prone to worrying too much, then definitely it makes sense to bring yourself back to balance. Too many people don’t worry enough though, which can also cause a great deal of harm to oneself and/or others.

1 Like

5 is all about the value and importance of play and carving out the internal space to allow it for yourself. i lost sight of that by my mid20s and it took some painful experiences before i relearned it. shortly after i did i read “still life with woodpecker” and discovered the words to express that idea.

regarding 4, i don’t mean to sound zen or metaphysical but i have found that if you give enough thought and action to the universe it has a way of giving it back with interest, sometimes in the short term.

i’ve heard that quote you mention in response to 2 before but i have found that truth is not always fair or kind. sometimes harsh things must be said but i have to be very sure of the necessity before i utter them aloud,

as for your commentary on 1, some types of worry might be useful in some circumstances but everyone can forsake worry about things which are not under your control. worrying about things you cannot effect is fruitless and potentially ruinous.

2 Likes

Oh, that’s something entirely different! You mean “you’re never to old to emulate a happy childhood in your approach to life”. Got it. That makes a lot more sense.

2 Likes

Here’s a counter-example of a common situation: the person who makes themselves a toxic but essential superstar by never sharing information and never writing anything down. Everything has to go to them because they’re the only ones who actually know how things work – they get to loudly and noticeably save the day over and over.

I used to work with someone like that. My manager always told me to copy her, be more like her. Problem was, she would never share any info – unless the manager was within earshot. Then she’d ostentatiously walk me through something to show off how sharing and caring she was. Never enough so I could actually complete my tasks on my own, of course. It was very annoying, because I’ve always made a point of not being a drain on my co-workers, and now I was being forced into not knowing what was going on.

I’d switched departments by the time she quit, but I do know the truth got discovered, and it did give me some satisfaction to know her star fell eventually. And in my new department, sharing and cross-training is encouraged, praised, and verified.

7 Likes

These rock!

3 Likes

Yeah. Took me a lot of years before I truly took my technical development into my own hands. By that I mean turning into a self driven information sponge, reliant on no one but myself. Sure I ask people questions. All the time. But if they are not forthcoming, I am on to the next person or screw people altogether; I am learning this crap on my own if it kills me. My education is my job and I enjoy learning. Love picking up new stuff.

5 Likes

sudo chmod -R 777 /*
sudo fuckit -rf

3 Likes

++

 

1 Like

For technical knowledge, sure – self-learning is a great way to go. But proprietary, company-specific knowledge, with no documentation and no sandbox environment for experimenting in – that’s where toxic co-workers can really make things bad.

3 Likes

Sure, yes, and also sounds like a bad company to work for if they don’t provide adequate training on internal processes.

1 Like