4 ms·

Based on the article and the loyalty shown by openai employees, he appears to be the "difficult to manage" type, rather than the "difficult to work for" type.

Based on the article and the loyalty shown by openai employees, he appears to be the "difficult to manage" type, rather than the "difficult to work for" type. That's not necessarily a bad thing in employees. I was once told that it is easier to round off the corners of a cube than to develop corners on a sphere.

rsynnott 3y ago
IME one almost always implies the other.
- lobsterthief 3y ago
  Not in my experience, at all. Working beneath someone who’s difficult to work for can make your every day at work terrible. Working with someone who’s hard to work with is much more maintainable since you’re more in control of the interactions and can effect change by working with people higher in the org.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Oh, I mean that if someone’s a bad subordinate or peer they’ll probably also be a bad boss, or vice versa. I’d agree that a bad boss tends to be a worse thing to have than the other too.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
  But not as a truism. It's possible to manipulate well enough that people above and below you both believe you are working in their interest, but it's quite hard. Great for job security if you can pull it off.
- 1123581321 3y ago
  I haven’t seen that. Some of my favorite coworkers and managers have been people who were hard to manage. It’s because they have strong principles and they prioritize good relations with their peers and subordinates over being promotable. I understand you are probably talking about people who uniformly act like jerks but I haven’t found them to be as common.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  Not my experience at all. Someone who pushes back on their boss to get the team they manage what they need is exactly that type of person.
Jensson 3y ago
From this story sounds more like "difficult to not work for".
- hatenberg 3y ago
  Or you know, he personifies paper millions everyone thought they had in the bank
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 3y ago

IME one almost always implies the other.

lobsterthief 3y ago
Not in my experience, at all. Working beneath someone who’s difficult to work for can make your every day at work terrible. Working with someone who’s hard to work with is much more maintainable since you’re more in control of the interactions and can effect change by working with people higher in the org.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Oh, I mean that if someone’s a bad subordinate or peer they’ll probably also be a bad boss, or vice versa. I’d agree that a bad boss tends to be a worse thing to have than the other too.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
But not as a truism. It's possible to manipulate well enough that people above and below you both believe you are working in their interest, but it's quite hard. Great for job security if you can pull it off.
1123581321 3y ago
I haven’t seen that. Some of my favorite coworkers and managers have been people who were hard to manage. It’s because they have strong principles and they prioritize good relations with their peers and subordinates over being promotable. I understand you are probably talking about people who uniformly act like jerks but I haven’t found them to be as common.
marcinzm 3y ago
Not my experience at all. Someone who pushes back on their boss to get the team they manage what they need is exactly that type of person.

Jensson 3y ago

From this story sounds more like "difficult to not work for".

hatenberg 3y ago
Or you know, he personifies paper millions everyone thought they had in the bank

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]