7 ms·

"in other words : his technical brilliance, in my own opinion, was a far larger boon than the problems stemming from having to deal with his knife-like personal

"in other words : his technical brilliance, in my own opinion, was a far larger boon than the problems stemming from having to deal with his knife-like personality." One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization. The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run. It also turns out you can be effective at dealing with people and still be brilliant, and it usually doesn't take a lot more than spending more energy in being self aware and trying to see the perspectives of others.

endtime 8y ago
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. Wouldn't Steve Jobs be a counterexample to this? And possibly Bill Gates?
- DannyBee 8y ago
  No, actually (at least, IMHO). Jobs organization failed more than once due to him? Remember that Apple (etc) have been troubled at many times through their history with him at the helm :) Gates also eventually left in part because he was doing more harm than good (and has tried to turn himself into a more reasonable person it seems). Compare that to the organization that MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole? I'm certainly not going to claim you can't make a successful company or organization by being a brilliant asshole. I'm only claiming it eventually catches up with you, and over time, ends up a net negative for the organization.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - DKnoll 8y ago
    Suggesting the largest philanthropic donor in history (Bill Gates at 27 billion USD) is an asshole ('MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole') seems like an oversimplification.
    - isatty2 8y ago
      I don't have the time to find the comment now, but being the largest philanthropic donor does NOT infact make up for being an asshole or the amount of damage microsoft has done to the computing industry. Am I downplaying his donations? Not at all. It's just that doing a good thing does not cancel out the bad.
      - DKnoll 8y ago
        Doing a good thing doesn't cancel out the bad, but I don't think it's fair to anonymously call people assholes on the Internet when they are actively trying, and succeeding, at doing good in the world. Especially when their sins are immaterial things like whatever damage you think MS did to the computer industry.
  - endtime 8y ago
    So you think Steve Jobs was a net negative to Apple? They'd be better off if e.g. he'd never come back to run it?
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      No, as I said, i think it eventually would have caught up with them and ended up a net negative compared to not being an asshole. It did in the past, why would it not in the future? To give an example: Elon clearly drives tesla in it's current position. Do you think at some point he will not be a clear net negative to the organization? (It's also interesting to me that essentially the only counterexamples people have tried to raise are CEO's - i'm curious if this means people believe what i say is true for lower levels but not founders/ceos/etc, or what)
- Walkman 8y ago
  Steve Jobs might have been an even bigger asshole.
  - rimliu 8y ago
    Not bigger than people commenting on his personality without meeting him once.
    - shard972 8y ago
      Well he was a vegan....
    - endtime 8y ago
      We all have justified beliefs about things we haven't personally observed. E.g. I didn't see the moon landing but I believe it happened.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    The fact that he disowned his own daughter is a whole new level of asshole. I can’t even imagine how she must have felt.
Alex3917 8y ago
> The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run. If Linux gets measurably worse after this, then would you support sending Linus to a second therapist to make him more of an asshole again?
- namarie 8y ago
  Why is your first instinct to think he will get worse?
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    If Linux gets worse, not if Linus gets worse.
    - namarie 8y ago
      Ooops, my bad.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    I don't think it will, but if people are claiming it will get better then that should be treated as a falsifiable belief rather than as a truthclaim.
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      Sure, but every study i've ever read currently backs it. If you are aware of any that say "very smart assholes make organizations better in the long run" or even "very smart assholes don't meaningfully hurt them in the long run", i'd actually love to see it! (I hold the position i do precisely because it's backed by research, not just my own random thoughts and experiences)
      - Alex3917 8y ago
        Organizations are different than products though. The organization could easily function better, but the product could be worse. As someone once said, "If the person who made your computer wasn't an asshole, it probably wouldn't even turn on."
rstuart4133 8y ago
It depends on how you define arsehole I guess. When it comes to how well an organisation works I've found there are only two things that matter. The first is how good the people there are at their jobs. (If most people are competent, there has been some pretty ruthless pruning going on which is not pleasant when it happens.) The second is what people are working for - which is to say themselves or the firm. My definition of an "arsehole" is someone who fights to get themselves up the corporate ladder, treating the exercise as a zero sum game. So if they see someone above them occupying a desirable spot, they will back stab, white ant them in an effort to dislodge them from the spot so they can take it. All this has very little to do with their demeanour. Some people are good at communicating. Some are bloody hopeless. It's nice to deal with people that area really good at handling others of course, but you can't be an expert at everything and if someone is really good at a particular thing it's often because they have a passion for it, focusing a great deal of their time on it. If that area happens to be technical that means they have spent effort on it rather than most other on learning how to interact with others. Sadly, people who devote most of their efforts at shaking the corporate tree do others fall off it are usually very good at interacting with others. Being effective at manipulating others sort of requires it. The worse of them, psychopaths, are well known for their superficial charm. Time cures most things and in the end smart people learn the easiest path through life despite their obsession with other things. When it comes to interacting with others, that means learning to use words that engender cooperation rather than conflict. It appears Linus has reached this point. That he did is testament to just how good he is. Most of us can learn these things by watching our superiors over time. (If these people are good at their job, they will both be very good a getting people to work together and instilling it others.) Linus didn't have a corporate ethos he could learn from. He's had to invent it himself. So we end up at the curious juncture were some introvert who spends all their time playing with things rather than people is likely to be a good asset to the organisation and if given time (decades) will learn how to interact well with others to. A psychopath on the other hand who is focused on human interactions and is really good at it, but if the firm is to survive should be excised at the earliest opportunity.
Natsu 8y ago
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization. I dunno, Steve Jobs sure managed for a long time. I think they quite often end up being a net negative for the people who work there, but I don't think it necessarily hurts the organization (though maybe it should sometimes).
hueving 8y ago
>One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. That's why Linux usage and contributions have collapsed over the last 30 years.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
shard972 8y ago
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. Like Apple?
Pimpus 8y ago
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. All successful organizations? Really? Definitely not hyperbole. Even here it's clear that Linus hasn't been a net negative, not even close. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Personally I take the anti-jerk sentiment with a grain of salt. People like you were probably just manhandled by one like ten years ago and still haven't let it go.

endtime 8y ago

> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. Wouldn't Steve Jobs be a counterexample to this? And possibly Bill Gates?

DannyBee 8y ago
No, actually (at least, IMHO). Jobs organization failed more than once due to him? Remember that Apple (etc) have been troubled at many times through their history with him at the helm :) Gates also eventually left in part because he was doing more harm than good (and has tried to turn himself into a more reasonable person it seems). Compare that to the organization that MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole? I'm certainly not going to claim you can't make a successful company or organization by being a brilliant asshole. I'm only claiming it eventually catches up with you, and over time, ends up a net negative for the organization.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DKnoll 8y ago
  Suggesting the largest philanthropic donor in history (Bill Gates at 27 billion USD) is an asshole ('MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole') seems like an oversimplification.
  - isatty2 8y ago
    I don't have the time to find the comment now, but being the largest philanthropic donor does NOT infact make up for being an asshole or the amount of damage microsoft has done to the computing industry. Am I downplaying his donations? Not at all. It's just that doing a good thing does not cancel out the bad.
    - DKnoll 8y ago
      Doing a good thing doesn't cancel out the bad, but I don't think it's fair to anonymously call people assholes on the Internet when they are actively trying, and succeeding, at doing good in the world. Especially when their sins are immaterial things like whatever damage you think MS did to the computer industry.
- endtime 8y ago
  So you think Steve Jobs was a net negative to Apple? They'd be better off if e.g. he'd never come back to run it?
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    No, as I said, i think it eventually would have caught up with them and ended up a net negative compared to not being an asshole. It did in the past, why would it not in the future? To give an example: Elon clearly drives tesla in it's current position. Do you think at some point he will not be a clear net negative to the organization? (It's also interesting to me that essentially the only counterexamples people have tried to raise are CEO's - i'm curious if this means people believe what i say is true for lower levels but not founders/ceos/etc, or what)
Walkman 8y ago
Steve Jobs might have been an even bigger asshole.
- rimliu 8y ago
  Not bigger than people commenting on his personality without meeting him once.
  - shard972 8y ago
    Well he was a vegan....
  - endtime 8y ago
    We all have justified beliefs about things we haven't personally observed. E.g. I didn't see the moon landing but I believe it happened.
- nojvek 8y ago
  The fact that he disowned his own daughter is a whole new level of asshole. I can’t even imagine how she must have felt.

Alex3917 8y ago

> The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run. If Linux gets measurably worse after this, then would you support sending Linus to a second therapist to make him more of an asshole again?

namarie 8y ago
Why is your first instinct to think he will get worse?
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  If Linux gets worse, not if Linus gets worse.
  - namarie 8y ago
    Ooops, my bad.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  I don't think it will, but if people are claiming it will get better then that should be treated as a falsifiable belief rather than as a truthclaim.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    Sure, but every study i've ever read currently backs it. If you are aware of any that say "very smart assholes make organizations better in the long run" or even "very smart assholes don't meaningfully hurt them in the long run", i'd actually love to see it! (I hold the position i do precisely because it's backed by research, not just my own random thoughts and experiences)
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      Organizations are different than products though. The organization could easily function better, but the product could be worse. As someone once said, "If the person who made your computer wasn't an asshole, it probably wouldn't even turn on."

rstuart4133 8y ago

It depends on how you define arsehole I guess. When it comes to how well an organisation works I've found there are only two things that matter. The first is how good the people there are at their jobs. (If most people are competent, there has been some pretty ruthless pruning going on which is not pleasant when it happens.) The second is what people are working for - which is to say themselves or the firm. My definition of an "arsehole" is someone who fights to get themselves up the corporate ladder, treating the exercise as a zero sum game. So if they see someone above them occupying a desirable spot, they will back stab, white ant them in an effort to dislodge them from the spot so they can take it. All this has very little to do with their demeanour. Some people are good at communicating. Some are bloody hopeless. It's nice to deal with people that area really good at handling others of course, but you can't be an expert at everything and if someone is really good at a particular thing it's often because they have a passion for it, focusing a great deal of their time on it. If that area happens to be technical that means they have spent effort on it rather than most other on learning how to interact with others. Sadly, people who devote most of their efforts at shaking the corporate tree do others fall off it are usually very good at interacting with others. Being effective at manipulating others sort of requires it. The worse of them, psychopaths, are well known for their superficial charm. Time cures most things and in the end smart people learn the easiest path through life despite their obsession with other things. When it comes to interacting with others, that means learning to use words that engender cooperation rather than conflict. It appears Linus has reached this point. That he did is testament to just how good he is. Most of us can learn these things by watching our superiors over time. (If these people are good at their job, they will both be very good a getting people to work together and instilling it others.) Linus didn't have a corporate ethos he could learn from. He's had to invent it himself. So we end up at the curious juncture were some introvert who spends all their time playing with things rather than people is likely to be a good asset to the organisation and if given time (decades) will learn how to interact well with others to. A psychopath on the other hand who is focused on human interactions and is really good at it, but if the firm is to survive should be excised at the earliest opportunity.

Natsu 8y ago

> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization. I dunno, Steve Jobs sure managed for a long time. I think they quite often end up being a net negative for the people who work there, but I don't think it necessarily hurts the organization (though maybe it should sometimes).

hueving 8y ago

>One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. That's why Linux usage and contributions have collapsed over the last 30 years.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

shard972 8y ago

> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. Like Apple?

Pimpus 8y ago

> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. All successful organizations? Really? Definitely not hyperbole. Even here it's clear that Linus hasn't been a net negative, not even close. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Personally I take the anti-jerk sentiment with a grain of salt. People like you were probably just manhandled by one like ten years ago and still haven't let it go.