6 ms·

Academic Assholes and the Circle of Niceness (2013)

71 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

truelson 11y ago
I do want to point out in addition to Bob Sutton's research, there's Adam Grant's research he writes about in "Give and Take." One of the main takeaways, yes there are a LOT of jerks at the top, and nice people at the bottom, but there are some really pretty amazingly nice people at the top as well, and a large portion of the book is citing studies as to why certain nice people are doormats, and certain nice people can make it past all the "takers." Bob Sutton and Adam Grant's work complement each other nicely.
mazsa 11y ago
Original with 300+ comments: http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/ http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/
- dang 11y ago
  Thanks—changed from http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/ http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/.
bertr4nd 11y ago
"If asshole behaviour is a route to power, those who already have positions of power in the hierarchy and are widely acknowledged to be clever, have less reason to use it." I've noticed this a lot in my academic career. The nicest people to talk to at computer architecture conferences are usually those with Eckert-Mauchly awards.
- jakejake 11y ago
  I suspect that there's also a phase of life factor too. People tend to chill out when they get older. Especially those that are successful enough to where they have a comfortable life. Generally you start getting awards and such when your career is pretty well established.
detry 11y ago
I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. rude, dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile behavior) is not the source of the benefits but are often seen together. "Assholes" don't care what other people think and they don't seek validation from them. As a corollary they don't tone down their opinions nor do they mind confrontation. Since they express their opinions with confidence, they seem smarter. Assholes can take advantage of people, since most people want to please others to some degree. There are also people who don't try please people, but don't engage in the anti-social behavior assholes do. It's not the Nice vs the Assholes. In my opinion too much niceness can be a hindrance. Taking delicate care that you express your opinions in a way that doesn't upset or offend anybody is great for that warm good-feel between everybody but doesn't pave the way for real progress. People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Likewise they should learn to give straight-up, even harsh critique.
- bjt 11y ago
  There is a pretty well documented bias that people tend to think that negative people are smarter than positive ones. I think the critical/dismissive breed of assholes are playing into that. I agree with the author that if left unchecked, this can result in a toxic culture. http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402
- marcus_holmes 11y ago
  I disagree. There is no correlation between "real progress" and "not upsetting people". There is clear, documented evidence that toxic teams and cultures are less productive than teams with high diversity that listen to each other and are safe to express opinions in. I would link it but you're probably not going to read it or listen to anyone else's opinions so you can google it yourself. It's Tragedy of Commons stuff: there are marginal benefits to the individual of behaving like an asshole, but the group suffers.
  - jdc 11y ago
    I would be interested in reading said documented evidence.
Pxtl 11y ago
It seems fairly obvious that this problem is not exclusive to the academic world by any stretch.
jonpress 11y ago
Being an asshole isn't that effective. Not as effective as being a scheming, manipulative backstabber.
vfclists 11y ago
In the kernel development environment this is known as the Linus factor.
jupiter90000 11y ago
I couldn't help but think, although the article is focused on academia, that doesn't mean these issues don't exist in industry or even other groups of people (families, friend groups, etc). I don't necessarily think the answer is always 'niceness,' although on some level everyone is deserving of respect, in my opinion. However, I also respect myself enough to leave situations that are not healthy for me (sometimes that is easy to do, sometimes not). I could imagine in academia it could get especially tricky, if one was in a tenured position, working towards an career in academia, several years into a PhD program, etc and essentially facing a decision to possibly lose an opportunity for some academia goal or to continue to work with some dysfunctional person or group until the goal has been met (finishing degree, getting tenure, not giving up a hard-won tenured position). I mean, there are problems in industry too I guess, but the nature of the academia career track seems to make 'just leaving the dysfunctional situation' a much more meaningful decision, that could essentially end one's academic career or reduce its trajectory. If I don't like the dynamics at a company outside academia, it is relatively straightforward to find a new company to work at with minimal consequences (in fact, the move could help my career).
- marklgr 11y ago
  This could be like specializing in a technology used professionally by a couple of shops only, with many prominent individuals already working there. If a somewhat abusive culture develops over time, how much would you be willing to put up with it, or even embrace it, knowing that resigning could mean never working with that hard-learned technology again?
randomsearch 11y ago
Academia is particularly political. I've worked in industry and seen a lot of politics there too, but in academia the problem is much worse. I think that this article is just examining one consequence of the politics in academia, which is that people sometimes come across as assholes. The article doesn't get to the root cause of the problem. For a while now, I've been trying to understand why there is so much political behaviour in academia, as I really don't like it and I'm not interested in participating. Recently, I found the answer perfectly summarised in this essay by Ben Horowitz: http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_company http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_co... Ben also explains how to solve this problem, and I couldn't agree more. This essay is included in his book, "The Hard Thing about Hard Things," which gets a lot of mentions on here and is definitely worth a read.
- arethuza 11y ago
  What put me off academic research was essentially the utter lack of "genuine" teamwork - when a lot of interactions with a colleague become negotiations about whether your name goes on their paper and if so in what place it all becomes a bit tedious. That might have been the lab I was in - while everyone was nice there was a distinct weird cutthroat element to it that I haven't encountered anywhere else. Edit: I should correct that - this was in the UK so everyone appeared nice, I know there was a bit of back stabbing from on high directed at anyone who looked likely to be too successful.
  - randomsearch 11y ago
    > the utter lack of "genuine" teamwork I've also seen this, and it is explained by the essay I mentioned. You _do_ get genuine teamwork in academia in the UK, essentially I've had to identify like-minded people who are principally here to do great work rather than further their own career. I've found lots of people like that, and have collaborated with them and found it a very pleasant experience. I've also experience people as you describe, and I generally just stay away from them as much as possible. Life's too short to associate with people like that, leave them to their agenda and get on with doing research.
  - 11y ago
Htsthbjig 11y ago
As an entrepreneur I believe everybody should be an asshole when necessary, and nice when necessary. What happens is that we have "nice people by default" that can't be assholes even if they want, and assholes that could not be nice even if they want. For example, I have managed people controlling machines that could squash a person against the wall if you are not careful, or rip your hand or strangulate you(industrial lathes or mills or motors with your own scarf). I was the manager with less accidents or deaths(none of course) in the company, by far, because every single time I saw someone was doing stupid things that could harm them or someone else I could become an asshole if they don't listen to me the first time I told them. With an industrial press you need to press two buttons at the same time at the side for the press to go down. If you leave people alone, they will put wood sticks on them so they could be faster and earn more. People don't want naturally to wear masks or put safety goggles because they believe they are in control, and they are 99.5% percent of the time, but this 0.5% could change your life for bad forever. When you do what you should most people will consider you an asshole, because they don't see what you can see. I had several people thank me years after managing them!! and telling me something like: "Thank you for doing X. At the time I though your response was excessive, but now that I have seen what happened to coworker Y(lost a limb, the eye or whatever) I could see how important it was what you tell us to do." Being nice has its limits, death or important stuff like environmental waste or corruption are some of them. I have seen nice people not denounce corruption when they saw it because of fear of facing the corrupt. Yes men that always smile.
- davidgrenier 11y ago
  This statement makes the unfortunate assumption that people will change their behaviour following your treating them poorly (or worse punishing them). It would be on you to substantiate that claim and no, your anectodal experience doesn't provide valid evidence. For evidence of otherwise I recommend reading Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman. It's a great read regardless of this issue.
- cruise02 11y ago
  That's all fine and good in an environment where people can actually come to physical harm, but this article is about academia. I think we need to stop excusing asshole behavior in academia and IT.
vlehto 11y ago
>The budding asshole has learned, perhaps subconsciously, that other people interrupt them less if they use stronger language. But there should be some underlying reason why stronger language warrants more airtime. I have another hypothesis why assholes seem smart. Sometimes I catch some error that people around me spread. But I can't quite articulate it at first. Then it reappears and becomes somekind of norm. At this point I get frustrated. Then something happens which to me shows how fucked up things have gone. I finally articulate what I felt was wrong. Also all that bottled up frustration surfaces. This is probably when I appear most "smart", because well thought out stuff goes public suddenly. It has actually nothing to do with how smart I actually am. It's just that certain assholiness and talking smart stuff happens at the same time. Extrapolate and people who are assholes all the time seem inherently smart. We are herd animals. Teams competing with teams is usually perceived as empowering. Individuals competing with individuals is usually perceived as grueling. Assholes are not the problem, they are a symptom.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
I truly don't understand this article, or the comments on it: Jerks step on, belittle or otherwise sabotage their academic colleagues. The most common method is by criticising their opinions in public, at a conference or in a seminar and by trash talking them in private. Criticizing their opinions in public? How is this being a "jerk"? This is what academia is supposed to be all about - you publish, others criticize, you repair or you accept that you were wrong. That's how we approach truth. Trash talking in private might be jerky behavior, though given the prior statement the author might just mean "I think XXX's theory is incorrect because of [reason]" rather than "XXX has sex with goats, plagiarizes his students and forges all his data". Most theories are just wrong. The point of academia is not to be a polite mutual admiration society providing easy and stable work for people who loved college, it's to get closer to truth. The comments provide better examples of jerky behavior. For example, a female professor called the "IR Hulk" was privately supportive of someone's work, but then she publicly ambushed them with criticisms she presumably did not share in private. I also don't even know what to make of comments like this: Academia in general is very hostile to forms of communalization and cooperation and champions the rational individual (read: male)... The issue of favoring those who provide valid rational criticism is "indeed feminist one"? Can someone steelman this for me?
- Rexxar 11y ago
  >> ... by criticising their opinions in public, at >> a conference or in a seminar ... > > How is this being a "jerk"? This is what academia is > supposed to be all about - you publish, others > criticize Criticizing people's results and conclusions in an argumented way in an article is perfectly "academical". Asking them question after their presentation is OK too. Criticizing them harshly in public when they presents their work and asking them to answer immediately to your objections is maybe not the best way to approach truth.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I'm not sure why. If you don't raise the question immediately, other viewers might be misled by the flawed presentation. Once you stand in front of your colleagues and present something, you should be really sure you are right. Look, I've attempted to publish things that were wrong. I fully understand the negative emotions associated with having your work evaporate in front of your eyes. But it's a necessary part of the search for truth.

71 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

I do want to point out in addition to Bob Sutton's research, there's Adam Grant's research he writes about in "Give and Take." One of the main takeaways, yes there are a LOT of jerks at the top, and nice people at the bottom, but there are some really pretty amazingly nice people at the top as well, and a large portion of the book is citing studies as to why certain nice people are doormats, and certain nice people can make it past all the "takers." Bob Sutton and Adam Grant's work complement each other nicely.

mazsa 11y ago

Original with 300+ comments: http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/ http://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/

dang 11y ago
Thanks—changed from http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/ http://sasconfidential.com/2015/11/09/niceness/.

bertr4nd 11y ago

"If asshole behaviour is a route to power, those who already have positions of power in the hierarchy and are widely acknowledged to be clever, have less reason to use it." I've noticed this a lot in my academic career. The nicest people to talk to at computer architecture conferences are usually those with Eckert-Mauchly awards.

jakejake 11y ago
I suspect that there's also a phase of life factor too. People tend to chill out when they get older. Especially those that are successful enough to where they have a comfortable life. Generally you start getting awards and such when your career is pretty well established.

detry 11y ago

I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. rude, dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile behavior) is not the source of the benefits but are often seen together. "Assholes" don't care what other people think and they don't seek validation from them. As a corollary they don't tone down their opinions nor do they mind confrontation. Since they express their opinions with confidence, they seem smarter. Assholes can take advantage of people, since most people want to please others to some degree. There are also people who don't try please people, but don't engage in the anti-social behavior assholes do. It's not the Nice vs the Assholes. In my opinion too much niceness can be a hindrance. Taking delicate care that you express your opinions in a way that doesn't upset or offend anybody is great for that warm good-feel between everybody but doesn't pave the way for real progress. People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Likewise they should learn to give straight-up, even harsh critique.

bjt 11y ago
There is a pretty well documented bias that people tend to think that negative people are smarter than positive ones. I think the critical/dismissive breed of assholes are playing into that. I agree with the author that if left unchecked, this can result in a toxic culture. http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402
marcus_holmes 11y ago
I disagree. There is no correlation between "real progress" and "not upsetting people". There is clear, documented evidence that toxic teams and cultures are less productive than teams with high diversity that listen to each other and are safe to express opinions in. I would link it but you're probably not going to read it or listen to anyone else's opinions so you can google it yourself. It's Tragedy of Commons stuff: there are marginal benefits to the individual of behaving like an asshole, but the group suffers.
- jdc 11y ago
  I would be interested in reading said documented evidence.

Pxtl 11y ago

It seems fairly obvious that this problem is not exclusive to the academic world by any stretch.

jonpress 11y ago

Being an asshole isn't that effective. Not as effective as being a scheming, manipulative backstabber.

vfclists 11y ago

In the kernel development environment this is known as the Linus factor.

jupiter90000 11y ago

I couldn't help but think, although the article is focused on academia, that doesn't mean these issues don't exist in industry or even other groups of people (families, friend groups, etc). I don't necessarily think the answer is always 'niceness,' although on some level everyone is deserving of respect, in my opinion. However, I also respect myself enough to leave situations that are not healthy for me (sometimes that is easy to do, sometimes not). I could imagine in academia it could get especially tricky, if one was in a tenured position, working towards an career in academia, several years into a PhD program, etc and essentially facing a decision to possibly lose an opportunity for some academia goal or to continue to work with some dysfunctional person or group until the goal has been met (finishing degree, getting tenure, not giving up a hard-won tenured position). I mean, there are problems in industry too I guess, but the nature of the academia career track seems to make 'just leaving the dysfunctional situation' a much more meaningful decision, that could essentially end one's academic career or reduce its trajectory. If I don't like the dynamics at a company outside academia, it is relatively straightforward to find a new company to work at with minimal consequences (in fact, the move could help my career).

marklgr 11y ago
This could be like specializing in a technology used professionally by a couple of shops only, with many prominent individuals already working there. If a somewhat abusive culture develops over time, how much would you be willing to put up with it, or even embrace it, knowing that resigning could mean never working with that hard-learned technology again?

randomsearch 11y ago

Academia is particularly political. I've worked in industry and seen a lot of politics there too, but in academia the problem is much worse. I think that this article is just examining one consequence of the politics in academia, which is that people sometimes come across as assholes. The article doesn't get to the root cause of the problem. For a while now, I've been trying to understand why there is so much political behaviour in academia, as I really don't like it and I'm not interested in participating. Recently, I found the answer perfectly summarised in this essay by Ben Horowitz: http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_company http://www.bhorowitz.com/how_to_minimize_politics_in_your_co... Ben also explains how to solve this problem, and I couldn't agree more. This essay is included in his book, "The Hard Thing about Hard Things," which gets a lot of mentions on here and is definitely worth a read.

arethuza 11y ago
What put me off academic research was essentially the utter lack of "genuine" teamwork - when a lot of interactions with a colleague become negotiations about whether your name goes on their paper and if so in what place it all becomes a bit tedious. That might have been the lab I was in - while everyone was nice there was a distinct weird cutthroat element to it that I haven't encountered anywhere else. Edit: I should correct that - this was in the UK so everyone appeared nice, I know there was a bit of back stabbing from on high directed at anyone who looked likely to be too successful.
- randomsearch 11y ago
  > the utter lack of "genuine" teamwork I've also seen this, and it is explained by the essay I mentioned. You _do_ get genuine teamwork in academia in the UK, essentially I've had to identify like-minded people who are principally here to do great work rather than further their own career. I've found lots of people like that, and have collaborated with them and found it a very pleasant experience. I've also experience people as you describe, and I generally just stay away from them as much as possible. Life's too short to associate with people like that, leave them to their agenda and get on with doing research.
- 11y ago

Htsthbjig 11y ago

As an entrepreneur I believe everybody should be an asshole when necessary, and nice when necessary. What happens is that we have "nice people by default" that can't be assholes even if they want, and assholes that could not be nice even if they want. For example, I have managed people controlling machines that could squash a person against the wall if you are not careful, or rip your hand or strangulate you(industrial lathes or mills or motors with your own scarf). I was the manager with less accidents or deaths(none of course) in the company, by far, because every single time I saw someone was doing stupid things that could harm them or someone else I could become an asshole if they don't listen to me the first time I told them. With an industrial press you need to press two buttons at the same time at the side for the press to go down. If you leave people alone, they will put wood sticks on them so they could be faster and earn more. People don't want naturally to wear masks or put safety goggles because they believe they are in control, and they are 99.5% percent of the time, but this 0.5% could change your life for bad forever. When you do what you should most people will consider you an asshole, because they don't see what you can see. I had several people thank me years after managing them!! and telling me something like: "Thank you for doing X. At the time I though your response was excessive, but now that I have seen what happened to coworker Y(lost a limb, the eye or whatever) I could see how important it was what you tell us to do." Being nice has its limits, death or important stuff like environmental waste or corruption are some of them. I have seen nice people not denounce corruption when they saw it because of fear of facing the corrupt. Yes men that always smile.

davidgrenier 11y ago
This statement makes the unfortunate assumption that people will change their behaviour following your treating them poorly (or worse punishing them). It would be on you to substantiate that claim and no, your anectodal experience doesn't provide valid evidence. For evidence of otherwise I recommend reading Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman. It's a great read regardless of this issue.
cruise02 11y ago
That's all fine and good in an environment where people can actually come to physical harm, but this article is about academia. I think we need to stop excusing asshole behavior in academia and IT.

vlehto 11y ago

>The budding asshole has learned, perhaps subconsciously, that other people interrupt them less if they use stronger language. But there should be some underlying reason why stronger language warrants more airtime. I have another hypothesis why assholes seem smart. Sometimes I catch some error that people around me spread. But I can't quite articulate it at first. Then it reappears and becomes somekind of norm. At this point I get frustrated. Then something happens which to me shows how fucked up things have gone. I finally articulate what I felt was wrong. Also all that bottled up frustration surfaces. This is probably when I appear most "smart", because well thought out stuff goes public suddenly. It has actually nothing to do with how smart I actually am. It's just that certain assholiness and talking smart stuff happens at the same time. Extrapolate and people who are assholes all the time seem inherently smart. We are herd animals. Teams competing with teams is usually perceived as empowering. Individuals competing with individuals is usually perceived as grueling. Assholes are not the problem, they are a symptom.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I truly don't understand this article, or the comments on it: Jerks step on, belittle or otherwise sabotage their academic colleagues. The most common method is by criticising their opinions in public, at a conference or in a seminar and by trash talking them in private. Criticizing their opinions in public? How is this being a "jerk"? This is what academia is supposed to be all about - you publish, others criticize, you repair or you accept that you were wrong. That's how we approach truth. Trash talking in private might be jerky behavior, though given the prior statement the author might just mean "I think XXX's theory is incorrect because of [reason]" rather than "XXX has sex with goats, plagiarizes his students and forges all his data". Most theories are just wrong. The point of academia is not to be a polite mutual admiration society providing easy and stable work for people who loved college, it's to get closer to truth. The comments provide better examples of jerky behavior. For example, a female professor called the "IR Hulk" was privately supportive of someone's work, but then she publicly ambushed them with criticisms she presumably did not share in private. I also don't even know what to make of comments like this: Academia in general is very hostile to forms of communalization and cooperation and champions the rational individual (read: male)... The issue of favoring those who provide valid rational criticism is "indeed feminist one"? Can someone steelman this for me?

Rexxar 11y ago
>> ... by criticising their opinions in public, at >> a conference or in a seminar ... > > How is this being a "jerk"? This is what academia is > supposed to be all about - you publish, others > criticize Criticizing people's results and conclusions in an argumented way in an article is perfectly "academical". Asking them question after their presentation is OK too. Criticizing them harshly in public when they presents their work and asking them to answer immediately to your objections is maybe not the best way to approach truth.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'm not sure why. If you don't raise the question immediately, other viewers might be misled by the flawed presentation. Once you stand in front of your colleagues and present something, you should be really sure you are right. Look, I've attempted to publish things that were wrong. I fully understand the negative emotions associated with having your work evaporate in front of your eyes. But it's a necessary part of the search for truth.