3 ms·

Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. Letting brilliant

Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. Letting brilliant jerks ruin it for others is a management problem, not a brilliant jerk problem. However, professionalism is a two way street. Bobs and Alices that make professional salaries can be expected to improve, though the professionals that work with them should make some concessions. One major problem with corporations / labor / the modern world is that the demands on employees are extremely high. It makes sense - people want to work in good jobs and corporations are paying for the labor and the corporations have to make money so they have incentives to hire the best people for the jobs. Professional standards are very high - I'd say that most professionals in America are in the top 20%-30% of multiple skill sets - communication, leadership, self-directedness, tolerance for b.s, along with any domain specific skills. We don't have an environment that most people can succeed in. And solving it would be good for people who struggle with some things or people who don't want to focus their life around professional accountability/development. The right question to ask isn't "is bob valuable" but more like "how can build a company in that gets a single parent to manage Bob"?

edw519 9y ago
Letting brilliant jerks ruin it for others is a management problem, not a brilliant jerk problem. Great comment of an instance. The class: "Letting <anything> ruin it for others is a management problem, not an <anything> problem." I have rarely run into the "brilliant jerk" problem. I have almost always run into the "incompetent manager" problem. "Incompetent Managers in Engineering". Now there's an article I'd really like to read.
- watwut 9y ago
  There are people, including highly skilled, who are not jerks and are not destroying anything to others. There are even people who are not jerks despite management itself being evil. Management has part of blame, but jerk is responsible for his own behavior. Jerk is responsible for what strategies he choose to look brilliant. (And people with autism don't count as jerks unless they are. Most of them are willing to stop behavior when explained what the issue is directly.)
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    You're right that productive people are productive despite being jerks, not because they're jerks. And sure, cast as much judgement on jerks as you feel is proper. But most people are pretty set in their ways. Everyone who yells at cashiers when they're 40 has done so before, they've probably faced some consequences for their actions and the behavior persists so either you need to be more persuasive than the totality of their lived experience or you can adjust your sails. If we can accept people who miss work for sick kids, we can accept jerks. But we don't have to accept either. Everything is subservient to money. You can simply pay for excellent people, but some corporations need to compete elsewhere. I wouldn't pay a jerk as much as a team player (all other things equal), but for the right price I'd put up with the headaches. That's the right call for me, it's not the right call for others. What's important is that corporations and managers get creative about making things work for people.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I find the comparison of being a jerk to your co-workers, and someone taking time off (to which they are entitled in companies that have sick leave) to care for their sick child to be false equivalence to the point of absurdity. Further, why should I tolerate someone who is making my work life that much unpleasant? I can easily get a job somewhere else.
      - alexanderstears 9y ago
        If the person has a kid that's sick as often as the jerk is a jerk (read - a majority of the time), you won't be so thrilled about picking up their slack. There are people who have chronicly sick kids and you have to believe that it affects their productivity / affects them every single day. And the situations aren't perfectly analogous with respect to the intention behind leaving work for a sick kid, or being a jerk. But the effect is the same and they can use the same solution: accommodations. Now, you shouldn't tolerate someone making your life worse and if you change jobs to improve your life, more power to you. But I humbly argue that management could solve your problem so you changing jobs is an issue of bad management, not a bad coworker.
btilly 9y ago
Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. I strongly disagree. The benefits of having a brilliant jerk mostly accrues to the team he is on. The costs are felt throughout the company. Therefore the hiring manager is motivated to hire and try to manage the jerk, and has an incentive to avoid truly accepting how damaging this productive employee is. That said, there are times that it actually is worth hiring a brilliant jerk. But the decision should be made at least one level of management above the problem employee, and both the employee and the manager should be managed. Even so don't be shocked if, as happened in one case that I know of, the brilliant jerk stole source code and ran a copycat site out of the Ukraine.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  You're right. The person managing the jerk should have 'skin in the game' with everyone the jerk interacts with or else the manager can (and will) game the system. I once managed someone with a terrible reputation (because I got a great rate on him) and made sure I was his only conduit to anyone else. After a few weeks of the arrangement, it became easier for me to work with him - he appreciated the arrangement and was very productive. At the end of the day, he wasn't a bad/evil person. He just didn't get along with people, he didn't have much patience, and he was profoundly disagreeable and situations that work for most people didn't work for him. Ultimately, I was able to find an accommodation for him and get him to contribute to the company. It's a shame that we think of 'accommodations' as outside the scope of regular businesses or as something for defective people but the reality in most functioning workplaces is that we're all accommodated and we should all accommodate others. The single mom on my team isn't defective, but we need to change the arrangement a bit away from convention to make sure she can put in her best work.

edw519 9y ago

Letting brilliant jerks ruin it for others is a management problem, not a brilliant jerk problem. Great comment of an instance. The class: "Letting <anything> ruin it for others is a management problem, not an <anything> problem." I have rarely run into the "brilliant jerk" problem. I have almost always run into the "incompetent manager" problem. "Incompetent Managers in Engineering". Now there's an article I'd really like to read.

watwut 9y ago
There are people, including highly skilled, who are not jerks and are not destroying anything to others. There are even people who are not jerks despite management itself being evil. Management has part of blame, but jerk is responsible for his own behavior. Jerk is responsible for what strategies he choose to look brilliant. (And people with autism don't count as jerks unless they are. Most of them are willing to stop behavior when explained what the issue is directly.)
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  You're right that productive people are productive despite being jerks, not because they're jerks. And sure, cast as much judgement on jerks as you feel is proper. But most people are pretty set in their ways. Everyone who yells at cashiers when they're 40 has done so before, they've probably faced some consequences for their actions and the behavior persists so either you need to be more persuasive than the totality of their lived experience or you can adjust your sails. If we can accept people who miss work for sick kids, we can accept jerks. But we don't have to accept either. Everything is subservient to money. You can simply pay for excellent people, but some corporations need to compete elsewhere. I wouldn't pay a jerk as much as a team player (all other things equal), but for the right price I'd put up with the headaches. That's the right call for me, it's not the right call for others. What's important is that corporations and managers get creative about making things work for people.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I find the comparison of being a jerk to your co-workers, and someone taking time off (to which they are entitled in companies that have sick leave) to care for their sick child to be false equivalence to the point of absurdity. Further, why should I tolerate someone who is making my work life that much unpleasant? I can easily get a job somewhere else.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      If the person has a kid that's sick as often as the jerk is a jerk (read - a majority of the time), you won't be so thrilled about picking up their slack. There are people who have chronicly sick kids and you have to believe that it affects their productivity / affects them every single day. And the situations aren't perfectly analogous with respect to the intention behind leaving work for a sick kid, or being a jerk. But the effect is the same and they can use the same solution: accommodations. Now, you shouldn't tolerate someone making your life worse and if you change jobs to improve your life, more power to you. But I humbly argue that management could solve your problem so you changing jobs is an issue of bad management, not a bad coworker.

btilly 9y ago

Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. I strongly disagree. The benefits of having a brilliant jerk mostly accrues to the team he is on. The costs are felt throughout the company. Therefore the hiring manager is motivated to hire and try to manage the jerk, and has an incentive to avoid truly accepting how damaging this productive employee is. That said, there are times that it actually is worth hiring a brilliant jerk. But the decision should be made at least one level of management above the problem employee, and both the employee and the manager should be managed. Even so don't be shocked if, as happened in one case that I know of, the brilliant jerk stole source code and ran a copycat site out of the Ukraine.

alexanderstears 9y ago
You're right. The person managing the jerk should have 'skin in the game' with everyone the jerk interacts with or else the manager can (and will) game the system. I once managed someone with a terrible reputation (because I got a great rate on him) and made sure I was his only conduit to anyone else. After a few weeks of the arrangement, it became easier for me to work with him - he appreciated the arrangement and was very productive. At the end of the day, he wasn't a bad/evil person. He just didn't get along with people, he didn't have much patience, and he was profoundly disagreeable and situations that work for most people didn't work for him. Ultimately, I was able to find an accommodation for him and get him to contribute to the company. It's a shame that we think of 'accommodations' as outside the scope of regular businesses or as something for defective people but the reality in most functioning workplaces is that we're all accommodated and we should all accommodate others. The single mom on my team isn't defective, but we need to change the arrangement a bit away from convention to make sure she can put in her best work.