5 ms·

The best line I heard "we don't hire a$$$holes". That's a check-mate statement. I think to myself what if I don't get selected :-( . I did get selected only to

The best line I heard "we don't hire a$$$holes". That's a check-mate statement. I think to myself what if I don't get selected :-( . I did get selected only to realise they hired people down the line whom I'd consider rectal orifices. Can't catch a break really...

whatever_dude 10y ago
The "No assholes" rule should really be the #1 rule when hiring. I've heard a lot of complaints from friends and family in the tech industry over the years, as I've had my own issues. While details vary, it always comes down to the acting up of one obvious asshole or another. It infects the whole team/company/project. In the long run, a team of average but positively motivated people more often than not beats a team with an asshole in it, even if he/she is a rockstar/guru/ninja/jedi/whatever. And their lives won't be miserable in the process.
- jjuel 10y ago
  The problem is an "asshole" is subjective. I might find someone to be an asshole that someone else might not think is an asshole.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    In any group of people sometimes there are going to be people who don't get along for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily make that person an asshole. An asshole is who someone who makes like miserable for most people they interact with. Or they make life miserable for a whole group of people (e.g. someone who is shitty to subordinates, treats women poorly, etc.).
  - whatever_dude 10y ago
    At least from my limited sample, more often than not the assholes are considered to be assholes by everyone else. "Well, everyone thinks he/she's an asshole, but he/she does the job, or has been in the company for a long time, or knows someone in the executive team". That's where the problems lie, when everyone the person is an asshole but no one can do anything about it.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  So there's no interest at all in lighting up the assholes? Pity; its great sport. What, you think you'll be fired?
  - stillworks 10y ago
    The biggest ones tend to reek real bad and most of the time all you have is a matchstick to light them up. Most of them big'uns come from the "network above".
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      It's not to be done lightly. But there are times...
leroy_masochist 10y ago
"We don't hire assholes!" ... "Our company is founded on an engineering mindset in which the best ideas always win and people are encouraged to candidly speak their minds!"
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Those... are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a culture in which people are not shut down for saying "This course of action sucks because X" without there being a lot of profanity and other between-the-lines nastiness in that previous sentence. Of course, some people find being told "no" to be asshole move. 🤷 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - leroy_masochist 10y ago
    Yeah, that's the problem. I agree with you 100% in theory, but unfortunately the definition of "asshole" is highly subjective. So, you get a lot of, "what do you mean I'm an asshole, I provided plenty of empirically sound reasons why your idea sucks, it has nothing to do with you personally"
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    It is entirely possible. However, assholes will do it because they find they can have control over things. And still others, like myself, will do it despite not really wanting to. I find it's extremely easy to "shut down" things in a discussion like that, and make other people not want to speak, even though I don't want to. It's much more difficult to take a bit of time, rethink how I'm going to say something, and try to phrase it in a way that still encourages people to talk about ideas.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Serious question: At what point does it become the problem of the person to integrate vs the problem of the group to accommodate? We've heard many stories of how it only takes one asshole on a team to ruin the team. However, assholery takes many forms. It includes the perpetually acerbic who's impossible to work with, but it also includes the perpetually offended who derails conversations into pointless tone arguments and recursive meta-discussion unless you walk on metaphorical eggshells when speaking to them. Lots of talk about the former, little to none about the latter. I'd wager that if you're running a team whose purpose is to accomplish a set goal, the latter is necessarily more destructive than the former from a sheer time commitment standpoint, and that's before discussing the "meta is murder"[1] principle. Then again, I'm speaking from the standpoint of a group outsider. If you have a culture that demands civility above all else (up to and including logic and correctness), that group is probably okay with how they work, and would rightly judge poorly anyone who wouldn't conform to that culture. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/meta-is-murder/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/meta-is-murder/

whatever_dude 10y ago

The "No assholes" rule should really be the #1 rule when hiring. I've heard a lot of complaints from friends and family in the tech industry over the years, as I've had my own issues. While details vary, it always comes down to the acting up of one obvious asshole or another. It infects the whole team/company/project. In the long run, a team of average but positively motivated people more often than not beats a team with an asshole in it, even if he/she is a rockstar/guru/ninja/jedi/whatever. And their lives won't be miserable in the process.

jjuel 10y ago
The problem is an "asshole" is subjective. I might find someone to be an asshole that someone else might not think is an asshole.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  In any group of people sometimes there are going to be people who don't get along for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily make that person an asshole. An asshole is who someone who makes like miserable for most people they interact with. Or they make life miserable for a whole group of people (e.g. someone who is shitty to subordinates, treats women poorly, etc.).
- whatever_dude 10y ago
  At least from my limited sample, more often than not the assholes are considered to be assholes by everyone else. "Well, everyone thinks he/she's an asshole, but he/she does the job, or has been in the company for a long time, or knows someone in the executive team". That's where the problems lie, when everyone the person is an asshole but no one can do anything about it.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
So there's no interest at all in lighting up the assholes? Pity; its great sport. What, you think you'll be fired?
- stillworks 10y ago
  The biggest ones tend to reek real bad and most of the time all you have is a matchstick to light them up. Most of them big'uns come from the "network above".
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    It's not to be done lightly. But there are times...

leroy_masochist 10y ago

"We don't hire assholes!" ... "Our company is founded on an engineering mindset in which the best ideas always win and people are encouraged to candidly speak their minds!"

Karunamon 10y ago
Those... are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a culture in which people are not shut down for saying "This course of action sucks because X" without there being a lot of profanity and other between-the-lines nastiness in that previous sentence. Of course, some people find being told "no" to be asshole move. 🤷 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  Yeah, that's the problem. I agree with you 100% in theory, but unfortunately the definition of "asshole" is highly subjective. So, you get a lot of, "what do you mean I'm an asshole, I provided plenty of empirically sound reasons why your idea sucks, it has nothing to do with you personally"
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It is entirely possible. However, assholes will do it because they find they can have control over things. And still others, like myself, will do it despite not really wanting to. I find it's extremely easy to "shut down" things in a discussion like that, and make other people not want to speak, even though I don't want to. It's much more difficult to take a bit of time, rethink how I'm going to say something, and try to phrase it in a way that still encourages people to talk about ideas.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Serious question: At what point does it become the problem of the person to integrate vs the problem of the group to accommodate? We've heard many stories of how it only takes one asshole on a team to ruin the team. However, assholery takes many forms. It includes the perpetually acerbic who's impossible to work with, but it also includes the perpetually offended who derails conversations into pointless tone arguments and recursive meta-discussion unless you walk on metaphorical eggshells when speaking to them. Lots of talk about the former, little to none about the latter. I'd wager that if you're running a team whose purpose is to accomplish a set goal, the latter is necessarily more destructive than the former from a sheer time commitment standpoint, and that's before discussing the "meta is murder"[1] principle. Then again, I'm speaking from the standpoint of a group outsider. If you have a culture that demands civility above all else (up to and including logic and correctness), that group is probably okay with how they work, and would rightly judge poorly anyone who wouldn't conform to that culture. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/meta-is-murder/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/meta-is-murder/