4 ms·
I've seen this at two shops now, verbatim (indicating that the phrase is cut-n-pasted from some management self-help book). In both cases, it translated into,
by StevePerkins 10y ago
I've seen this at two shops now, verbatim (indicating that the phrase is cut-n-pasted from some management self-help book).
In both cases, it translated into, "The assholes who have the most seniority or the ear of executives are 'team players'. The team players who do not have those things are 'assholes'".
It's just a verbal tool and political weapon for bullies to encourage sycophants... and for me is more of a red flag than a recruiting tool at this point.
- draw_down 10y agoYes, precisely. It irks me how this concept is always stated so matter-of-factly, like they just discovered some objective fact of the universe and you're an idiot if you're not on board. "No assholes! Like, duh!" All I can think is, let me guess: when you get rid of perks and don't promote people that should be promoted, and generally treat employees like cattle, you're not being an asshole. But if someone is not prim and proper about disagreeing with you on some issue they are an asshole. Also, I had to laugh at this absolute ridiculous gem of a sentence: > Almost everyone, including jerks, agree that a workplace free from assholes is attractive. So, is that "jerks" as distinct from "assholes", or... ? The liberal employment of the word "asshole" gives the impression that this is direct, simple talk, that there is no wiggle room here. But the rub is always in who gets to decide who is an asshole and who isn't.
- bogomipz 10y agoDoes this mean that they still hire jerks just not assholes? Also what's the cut off point between jerk and asshole?