7 ms·

Smart jerks aren't worth it

42 points by TonyAlicea10 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago
Still would rather deal with a smart jerk than a dumb jerk, the latter of which seems far more prevalent.
- commandlinefan 2y ago
  Both "smart" and "jerk" are _very_ subjective. OP takes a stab at providing a definition, but it's not a very useful definition, since it could apply to anybody that OP doesn't like.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  I'd rather deal with smart jerks than nice dolts any day. But maybe my experience with jerks is too limited. I've known few, but they were smart. And smartness is my most significant factor in how much I like a person, even if they're being a jerk to me. :p
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
f1shy 2y ago
Real geniuses are typically humble: Dirac, Einstein, Von Neumann…
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  Who would you consider to be not real geniuses? Elon musk? Steve Jobs? John Carmack? What makes one a genius "real"?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ngetchell 2y ago
    I'm not familiar with Carmack but the other two are marketers. Clever but certainly not geniuses.
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      You should read their biographies, both by Walter Isaacson, I don't know how you can read those books and not see that they are more than just marketers. Isaacson also wrote the definitive biographies for Einstein and Benjamin Franklin, among many other historical figures. Also "Masters of Doom" describes Carmack's career and idk about the word genius, but he is undeniably one of those engineers who's just 10x better than the average engineer.
  - eikenberry 2y ago
    I've never heard that Carmack was a jerk. Or were you just throwing out other people that some might consider smart at random?
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      Read Masters of Doom, which details the story of Carmack's career. He is not described as easy to get along with.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Where did you get your info from? Where did you see me call Carmack a jerk? Carmack was known to be very difficult to work with by his peers. Tearing down walls and putting his desk in the hallway to surveil people when they came and went at id software while working on Quake. Steve Jobs did even more crazy shit. It seems geniuses, or brilliant successful people are very difficult to work with by those wo don't share the same vision and goals and are just looking for a chill 9-5.
      - eikenberry 2y ago
        Sorry, I misread. I thought you were putting up examples of possible geniuses who weren't humble and given the other examples are famous jerks, I thought you were calling Carmack one by association.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Newton was famously not very easy to get along with. Same with Milton.
dallinbentley 2y ago
jerks can slow you down drastically. worked with someone who was a genius, but couldnt move in a direction until he proved everyone wrong. it felt like every decision took hours to move on. even low impact ones.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  I think most of us have been interviewed by such people. You know, the ones who grill you endlessly with obscure trivia trying to find that gotcha that proves they're smarter than the candidate, at which point I'm begging to be rejected because I don't want to work with such people.
  - chrsig 2y ago
    > I'm begging to be rejected because I don't want to work with such people. ...you do know you can reject the position, correct? You're not obligated to take the job once the interviewing process has started.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
      You're not even obligated to finish the interview!
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        I’ll vouch that walking out on an interview is one of the best feelings in the world. I’m didn’t raise my voice or curse or anything like that. I just said “this isn’t a good fit. Thank you for your time”, got up, and left.
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      You know that was an emotional response/thought, right? Not a literal one.
tantaman 2y ago
That video though...
- default-kramer 2y ago
  Absolutely nailed the tone of mandatory corporate training.
avazhi 2y ago
Sometimes they are. Nuance is hard, right?
pwdisswordfishz 2y ago
> It is also true that great things have been accomplished by well-functioning cohesive teams of people who respected each other. That, however, isn't seen as fodder for great storytelling (who wants to watch or read about a team getting along). Why, Star Trek is basically that. Or at least used to be.
- TonyAlicea10 2y ago
  This is true, in fact I thought about that when writing this post! But I think the Roddenberry's "no conflict" has been out of favor in storytelling for quite a while now. Star Trek is the exception. And not all Star Trek followed it.
- Tade0 2y ago
  That's the part that stood out to me as the most fantastic. So many persons displaying enviable teamwork and professionalism. Science fiction!
- ben_w 2y ago
  I think this axis is also why I prefer Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds to Enterprise, Discovery, and Picard. The former, even when they have conflicts, it's something they're sad about; the latter, it feels like they enjoy jabbing each other.
curtisblaine 2y ago
I agree with everything, but can't help noticing that this kind of take becomes immediately invalid when the jerks in question are (or says they are) neurodivergent. How much does autism play into being a "genius jerk"? Should a special exception be made in that case?
- TonyAlicea10 2y ago
  In the post I referenced that I wasn't trying to say that communication differences mean someone is a jerk. Intentional, obnoxious, aggressive and choosing not to change even though they are aware of it is how I define a 'jerk' here. If someone has a challenge in awareness or their communication style is related to neurodivergence, then I think it becomes a determination of the team as far as what guardrails, training, awareness, tolerance, etc. are needed.
  - curtisblaine 2y ago
    But maybe "jerk-ism" in general can be defined as a challenge in evaluating the emotional response of others? Isn't low emotional intelligence itself a neurodivergence or at least, in most cases, a consequence of a broader neurodivergence?
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  In theory it would be the role of management to create the conditions for a ND individual to do their best work and not be difficult to work with. However, like everything else, skill levels in that department vary widely and are profoundly hard to evaluate. I know for myself (moderately ADHD), I become more of a jerk when I'm not getting the supports that I need, and I know the answer is to simply remove myself from those situations when it's a repeated occurrence. But usually there are other factors at play, such as me having become personally invested in the success of a project.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > How much does autism play into being a "genius jerk"? Should a special exception be made in that case? The OP defines smart jerk in a way that would rule out most people with ASD - by their definition, a "smart jerk" is aware their behavior is obnoxious and aggressive. Usually people on the spectrum are not aware of their own behavior's effects on others, and usually attempt to correct the behavior when they learn about it, so I would think this is not a very big factor. Low emotional intelligence seems a far likelier culprit, and personality disorders.
Aeolun 2y ago
You present it as if there’s only two options. What about the 75% of dumb nonfunctional teams? It’s great that they get along, but they don’t accomplish much, if anything.
- SebFender 2y ago
  Touché.
commandlinefan 2y ago
There's a meme-style picture of Reed Hastings (Netflix CEO) with the caption: "Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high" that I've seen shared and re-shared on my LinkedIn feed for years. Every time I've seen it shared, it was shared by a plain-old, regular jerk.
- jrs235 2y ago
  Wait. Does this mean you're a plain-old, regular jerk?
  - commandlinefan 2y ago
    No, please re-read.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  As an American kid, the rule with farts was "he who smelt it dealt it," so you never ever wanted to be the first person to say someone farted or everyone would blame you. But as adults, we forget this lesson and openly call one another jerks, toxic, Nazis, etc. The adult behavior is just as childish but less wise.
pram 2y ago
tbh I’ve had more trouble with managers who think they’re software architects than any developer “genius” That’s abuse of authority AND dunning-kruger
ergonaught 2y ago
Or, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule
ttoinou 2y ago
If most interactions leave you feeling emotionally exhausted, dismissed, belittled, or angry, you may be dealing with toxic behavior on your team. Or you’re that kind of person who’s hiding its stupidity behind being nice with others and doesn’t produce anything of value. You are often responsible for the feelings you have. A well-functioning, cohesive, happy team can come up with novel solutions, better implementations, and well-reviewed code. That would deserve another myth-busting article… No team is happy and productive The fact that they are inconsiderate of others does not make them more logical. One doesn’t always know what triggers others. It could be anything. A better solution is to strengthen yourself mentally, to be less impacted emotionally by others.
- jamiek88 2y ago
  Wow. There’s my RDA % of irony consumed!
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > No team is happy and productive I have at least two counterexamples in my personal experience.
complaintdept 2y ago
I had an oldtimer boss that fired assholes without hesitation. The reason was that once upon time he had a fantastic one-of-a-kind worker, but he was real shithead that brought the whole team down. It got so bad he was left with the one asshole and a bunch of incompetent workers who would only put up with him because they couldn't get a job anywhere else. Everybody else who was worth half a shit walked off (several mid-shift) because of this guy dragging everyone down. Boss realized what he'd let happen one day, fired the asshole, got most of his old workers back, and he ended up getting a lot more work done with them than he ever had. I've always kept that lesson in mind since and it's never led me astray. Companies that put up with those personalities just aren't worth it.
chrsig 2y ago
> Since that education is sorely lacking, I made a course. It's called Team Dynamics and Soft Skills for Developers. I put my 25 years of dev, management, tech education, and interpersonal communication training into it. I think you and your team will find it useful. There's the pitch. Most of the time people aren't trying to be jerks. They're just not having a need met. They may or may not know about the need, or may or may not be working to address it. It may be something that you're responsible for that you're not acknowledging. Don't underestimate how far a little humility, open ears, and boundary setting might get you. Writing the person off as a jerk just makes the problem worse. Not to say you're responsible for anyone elses bad behavior, but it's also not ok to pin all the problems of team dynamics on one person. Having a emotionally healthy productive team is a lot of work, and it's a group effort.
- TonyAlicea10 2y ago
  100% agreed. Talking about "needs met" is actually a fundamental part of the course I produced (I did put a link to it, but at the end because I really do think this is a problem in general. Also, I think education for devs on the topic is lacking.) Humility and boundaries 100% agreed too. There is "team" in "team dynamics". It is absolutely a group effort. I will say, though, it's a group effort that can be greatly impacted by just one individual.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  It all boils down to name calling and not giving people time of the day it seems.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  To a point. Some jerks are just misunderstood and need a little TLC. Some people are just bastards, though. I don't get paid enough to be their therapist and "fix" them.
  - tayo42 2y ago
    I wonder about this. What's the appropriate line for a manager is a business environment to give feedback about. I don't think random middle managers have the skills to like you said be a therapist, but there is some psychological aspect to keeping a group of people running smoothly.
1970-01-01 2y ago
Linux would not be stable if Linus wasn't a constant jerk about code quality. Microsoft would not be an empire if Bill Gates played nice with IBM. Steve Jobs was considered to be a massive jerk, yet Apple is one of the most successful tech companies in existence. The list continues with Zuck and Musk. All of the above are confirmed jerks, yet they are also incredibly successful at business.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  All of the above would have been even more blindingly successful if they hadn't been jerks. You can be insistent, you can be stubborn, and you can be sure you're right all without being a prick about it. This is still a bug, not a feature. These people all handicapped themselves from even greater success.
  - ttoinou 2y ago
    Then please explain to us how you can achieve the same goals while spending ton of time taking care of others' people feelings. I don't think it works so easily
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      And here we go with the toxic false dichotomy that you have to "spend a ton of time taking care of others' people feelings" to just . . . not be a jerk. It takes literally no time at all to just not be a jerk.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        It takes some time, some effort, and some thought, especially if that is your current default way of interacting with people. Not a ton, though. But not zero, either.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  I don't believe that anyone has ever said that jerks can't be successful. But it's not a necessary condition, either. The world has far more unsuccessful jerks than successful ones.
cen4 2y ago
Cipolla Matrix can help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg
kstrauser 2y ago
I can and have rejected candidates who seemed qualified but were significantly unpleasant to interview. I don't mean they weren't super happy cheerful and outgoing during a stressful situation. That's a lot to ask for and plenty of awesome people get a little quiet and clammed up during interviews. I mean, they made sarcastic remarks about other people, or spoke condescendingly to me or other interviewers, or reacted nastily to feedback. That kind of thing. If I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week interacting with someone, I'm not going to hire a brilliant jerk. I don't care if they're great at their job. If I'm going go spend most of our time together wanting to scream at them, I don't want any part of it. No thanks. Life's too short to spend it around jerks.
olgeni 2y ago
In the IT world the jerk is always some dev, never a "scrum master”, some HR dude, or some project manager. Did anybody notice? :D
- Hasu 2y ago
  And they're always saying things like, "We should have unit tests" or "We should have an automated deployment pipeline" or "We should use version control" and they're SO MEAN to everyone who doesn't want to waste time on that crap.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  When I meet a brilliant scrum master or PM, I'll let you know whether or not they can be jerks, too.
- artyom 2y ago
  Or the CEO
twunde 2y ago
One issue I've found with cultures that emphasize no jerks is that the pendulum can swing too far that way to the point where its difficult or impossible to provide critical feedback. Not to say that you need to be a jerk to have difficult conversations, they can and should be done with empathy.
artyom 2y ago
Not being a genius has no correlation with not being a jerk, either. I'd take a genius jerk vs. any regular dude, the conversation may be unpleasant but at least interesting.
hnthrow289570 2y ago
It would be nice if they had other employment arrangements. Like being a solo developer with oversight. It is still true that some projects do not need an entire team and could be handled alone. The smart jerk is not smart if they can't do a project alone.
drewcoo 2y ago
Why do I only hear about problems like this in elite professions where the workers expect to be pampered?
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I worked with some of the top people in the world, in my field. Some of them were generous, self-effacing, humble, and a joy to work with. Others ... not so much. One thing that they all had in common, though, was not suffering fools. Sometimes, they would yell and cuss, other times, they would just never work with you again. I generally preferred the first. I won't do it to others, because that's not my style, but I would get a dressing-down, followed by "Don't let it happen again." I'd still be in the Circle. I haven't been ejected from the game. If they just transfer me out, I'm down for the count. I have found, that, if we want to be top of the game, then we need to work with those that are already there. We have to take the risk that we will be rejected, or told that we're not doing a good enough job. We should definitely not expect participation trophies. In fact, it's likely that we may not get a huge amount of positive feedback. Pretty darwinian, but that which does not kill you, makes you stronger. I feel that a lot of the lessons that I learned, also helped me to be a better leader and mentor. Some of those lessons, were on what not to do.
SebFender 2y ago
Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison...
sibeliuss 2y ago
This is tricky! We've got someone who some might classify as a jerk on our team, but in so many regards this comes down to how they interact on slack. Every effort to improve slack comms has failed here, but enough of the team has worked with them for long enough to know that they're actually kind. However, we often have to warn new team members, or those who work in distant parts of the company that rarely interact. They are so valuable though; its a hard trade off.
thrwwyfrobvrsns 2y ago
Agreed. Yet~ >Let's define the term "jerk" here as someone who is both intentionally, and obnoxiously aggressive. Aggressive in their enforcement of their own opinions and dismissive of others'. Obnoxious in the frequency of unnecessary negative interactions with them. Intentional in that they understand their behavior is aggressive, and choose not to adjust it. Intent is impossible to prove (or so I've been told). He uses the implicit heuristic of, "They keep doing it." However, it (obnoxiously aggressive behavior) is in the eye of the beholder (or, often, in the appearance of the accused). What is "frequent" and "unnecessary"? By who's metric? What's the line between "opinionated" and "browbeater"? Does it shift depending on the identity of the individual? (Yes.) >Ultimately, you know you're dealing with someone who is acting like a jerk by how you feel after interacting with them. This criteria is just asking to be abused by people who hold prejudice. Some people are irrational or traumatized, and it's okay to sympathize with their take on an individual while also understanding that they're not being reasonable. Likewise, it's possible for a charismatic and energetic individual's behavior to be deleterious; coworkers don't necessarily walk away feeling overtly attacked, but their tendency to self-police to the bully's desire might be raised. Such jerks often also zero-in on "fair targets", leaving them as the only people to feel abused, while everyone else rationalises their treatment as deserved. IME, the best way to root out actual jerks is to focus on people with power (by however mechanism, they are able to get people to do what they want them to do, more so than those people are able to get them to do things) who are quick (within one or two negative interactions) to blackball others (maintains a sh*t list, ghosts, verbally harasses, particularly in a way that isolates the target).
satisfice 2y ago
This is article is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "Long string isn't worth it" and then proceeding to complain about how hard it is to work when someone ties you up with string, or leaves 5000 yards of tangled string in the kitchen. We've all been there, right? For every such article you could write one called "Short String Isn't Worth It." Obviously, depending on your context, working with difficult people is necessary and worth it. Sometimes it may not be worth it to you, but it's worth it to other people. Lots of people at Apple did not want Steve Jobs to return, after he left. But lots of people did, and he arguably made everyone there (whom he didn't fire) a whole lot of money. Was it worth it or not? Depends how you feel about things. Articles like this can be better written when the author reminds himself to focus on the elements and forces, rather than reifying and polarizing the topic into a garish stereotype. The point of an article like this ought to be to help people examine themselves and their situation so as to reconcile themselves to it or to take productive action. Pitchforks and torches aren't helpful.
Tade0 2y ago
My experience is that smart jerks are actually a sign of having a hierarchy of jerks going all the way to the C-levels. For every smart jerk there's a manager who endorses that person and who also has a manager who in turn either has the same attitude or "lets them cook" as long as KPIs are fulfilled. People will generally downplay toxic behaviour if they exhibit it themselves. Not saying that's always the case, but in my experience it's much more common than management being intimidated enough by the jerk to not want to touch them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dave1999x 2y ago
Jerks label people. Instead focus on behaviours, I've seen frustrated people raising genuine problems labelled as a jerk. For example, is the guy who picks up on issues in code reviews the one who is a jerk?
- TonyAlicea10 2y ago
  No, not necessarily. I’m referring to consistent behaviors across a wide range of circumstances and contexts.
vcxbx 2y ago
[dead]
sgammon 2y ago
Difficult geniuses often evolve into great people. We all learn our lessons in different orders, and humility and empathy for the frustrations of genius can have a powerful effect. Genius is a blessing, yes, but it is often a burden. "Genius" implies bright talents but may imply deficits, too. Either way, this person didn't necessarily ask for that, and may struggle to express their ideas in a way which isn't combative. Genius in one area (say, programming) does not always follow in another (emotional regulation). We should be humane with people as they grow. Indeed, the single best aspect of the mind is that it can change when it wants to.

42 points by TonyAlicea10 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

Still would rather deal with a smart jerk than a dumb jerk, the latter of which seems far more prevalent.

commandlinefan 2y ago
Both "smart" and "jerk" are _very_ subjective. OP takes a stab at providing a definition, but it's not a very useful definition, since it could apply to anybody that OP doesn't like.
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
I'd rather deal with smart jerks than nice dolts any day. But maybe my experience with jerks is too limited. I've known few, but they were smart. And smartness is my most significant factor in how much I like a person, even if they're being a jerk to me. :p

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

f1shy 2y ago

Real geniuses are typically humble: Dirac, Einstein, Von Neumann…

Rinzler89 2y ago
Who would you consider to be not real geniuses? Elon musk? Steve Jobs? John Carmack? What makes one a genius "real"?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ngetchell 2y ago
  I'm not familiar with Carmack but the other two are marketers. Clever but certainly not geniuses.
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    You should read their biographies, both by Walter Isaacson, I don't know how you can read those books and not see that they are more than just marketers. Isaacson also wrote the definitive biographies for Einstein and Benjamin Franklin, among many other historical figures. Also "Masters of Doom" describes Carmack's career and idk about the word genius, but he is undeniably one of those engineers who's just 10x better than the average engineer.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  I've never heard that Carmack was a jerk. Or were you just throwing out other people that some might consider smart at random?
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    Read Masters of Doom, which details the story of Carmack's career. He is not described as easy to get along with.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    Where did you get your info from? Where did you see me call Carmack a jerk? Carmack was known to be very difficult to work with by his peers. Tearing down walls and putting his desk in the hallway to surveil people when they came and went at id software while working on Quake. Steve Jobs did even more crazy shit. It seems geniuses, or brilliant successful people are very difficult to work with by those wo don't share the same vision and goals and are just looking for a chill 9-5.
    - eikenberry 2y ago
      Sorry, I misread. I thought you were putting up examples of possible geniuses who weren't humble and given the other examples are famous jerks, I thought you were calling Carmack one by association.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
IncreasePosts 2y ago
Newton was famously not very easy to get along with. Same with Milton.

dallinbentley 2y ago

jerks can slow you down drastically. worked with someone who was a genius, but couldnt move in a direction until he proved everyone wrong. it felt like every decision took hours to move on. even low impact ones.

Rinzler89 2y ago
I think most of us have been interviewed by such people. You know, the ones who grill you endlessly with obscure trivia trying to find that gotcha that proves they're smarter than the candidate, at which point I'm begging to be rejected because I don't want to work with such people.
- chrsig 2y ago
  > I'm begging to be rejected because I don't want to work with such people. ...you do know you can reject the position, correct? You're not obligated to take the job once the interviewing process has started.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
    You're not even obligated to finish the interview!
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      I’ll vouch that walking out on an interview is one of the best feelings in the world. I’m didn’t raise my voice or curse or anything like that. I just said “this isn’t a good fit. Thank you for your time”, got up, and left.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    You know that was an emotional response/thought, right? Not a literal one.

tantaman 2y ago

That video though...

default-kramer 2y ago
Absolutely nailed the tone of mandatory corporate training.

avazhi 2y ago

Sometimes they are. Nuance is hard, right?

pwdisswordfishz 2y ago

> It is also true that great things have been accomplished by well-functioning cohesive teams of people who respected each other. That, however, isn't seen as fodder for great storytelling (who wants to watch or read about a team getting along). Why, Star Trek is basically that. Or at least used to be.

TonyAlicea10 2y ago
This is true, in fact I thought about that when writing this post! But I think the Roddenberry's "no conflict" has been out of favor in storytelling for quite a while now. Star Trek is the exception. And not all Star Trek followed it.
Tade0 2y ago
That's the part that stood out to me as the most fantastic. So many persons displaying enviable teamwork and professionalism. Science fiction!
ben_w 2y ago
I think this axis is also why I prefer Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds to Enterprise, Discovery, and Picard. The former, even when they have conflicts, it's something they're sad about; the latter, it feels like they enjoy jabbing each other.

curtisblaine 2y ago

I agree with everything, but can't help noticing that this kind of take becomes immediately invalid when the jerks in question are (or says they are) neurodivergent. How much does autism play into being a "genius jerk"? Should a special exception be made in that case?

TonyAlicea10 2y ago
In the post I referenced that I wasn't trying to say that communication differences mean someone is a jerk. Intentional, obnoxious, aggressive and choosing not to change even though they are aware of it is how I define a 'jerk' here. If someone has a challenge in awareness or their communication style is related to neurodivergence, then I think it becomes a determination of the team as far as what guardrails, training, awareness, tolerance, etc. are needed.
- curtisblaine 2y ago
  But maybe "jerk-ism" in general can be defined as a challenge in evaluating the emotional response of others? Isn't low emotional intelligence itself a neurodivergence or at least, in most cases, a consequence of a broader neurodivergence?
mikepurvis 2y ago
In theory it would be the role of management to create the conditions for a ND individual to do their best work and not be difficult to work with. However, like everything else, skill levels in that department vary widely and are profoundly hard to evaluate. I know for myself (moderately ADHD), I become more of a jerk when I'm not getting the supports that I need, and I know the answer is to simply remove myself from those situations when it's a repeated occurrence. But usually there are other factors at play, such as me having become personally invested in the success of a project.
JohnMakin 2y ago
> How much does autism play into being a "genius jerk"? Should a special exception be made in that case? The OP defines smart jerk in a way that would rule out most people with ASD - by their definition, a "smart jerk" is aware their behavior is obnoxious and aggressive. Usually people on the spectrum are not aware of their own behavior's effects on others, and usually attempt to correct the behavior when they learn about it, so I would think this is not a very big factor. Low emotional intelligence seems a far likelier culprit, and personality disorders.

Aeolun 2y ago

You present it as if there’s only two options. What about the 75% of dumb nonfunctional teams? It’s great that they get along, but they don’t accomplish much, if anything.

SebFender 2y ago
Touché.

commandlinefan 2y ago

There's a meme-style picture of Reed Hastings (Netflix CEO) with the caption: "Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high" that I've seen shared and re-shared on my LinkedIn feed for years. Every time I've seen it shared, it was shared by a plain-old, regular jerk.

jrs235 2y ago
Wait. Does this mean you're a plain-old, regular jerk?
- commandlinefan 2y ago
  No, please re-read.
drewcoo 2y ago
As an American kid, the rule with farts was "he who smelt it dealt it," so you never ever wanted to be the first person to say someone farted or everyone would blame you. But as adults, we forget this lesson and openly call one another jerks, toxic, Nazis, etc. The adult behavior is just as childish but less wise.

pram 2y ago

tbh I’ve had more trouble with managers who think they’re software architects than any developer “genius” That’s abuse of authority AND dunning-kruger

ergonaught 2y ago

Or, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule

ttoinou 2y ago

If most interactions leave you feeling emotionally exhausted, dismissed, belittled, or angry, you may be dealing with toxic behavior on your team. Or you’re that kind of person who’s hiding its stupidity behind being nice with others and doesn’t produce anything of value. You are often responsible for the feelings you have. A well-functioning, cohesive, happy team can come up with novel solutions, better implementations, and well-reviewed code. That would deserve another myth-busting article… No team is happy and productive The fact that they are inconsiderate of others does not make them more logical. One doesn’t always know what triggers others. It could be anything. A better solution is to strengthen yourself mentally, to be less impacted emotionally by others.

jamiek88 2y ago
Wow. There’s my RDA % of irony consumed!
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> No team is happy and productive I have at least two counterexamples in my personal experience.

complaintdept 2y ago

I had an oldtimer boss that fired assholes without hesitation. The reason was that once upon time he had a fantastic one-of-a-kind worker, but he was real shithead that brought the whole team down. It got so bad he was left with the one asshole and a bunch of incompetent workers who would only put up with him because they couldn't get a job anywhere else. Everybody else who was worth half a shit walked off (several mid-shift) because of this guy dragging everyone down. Boss realized what he'd let happen one day, fired the asshole, got most of his old workers back, and he ended up getting a lot more work done with them than he ever had. I've always kept that lesson in mind since and it's never led me astray. Companies that put up with those personalities just aren't worth it.

chrsig 2y ago

> Since that education is sorely lacking, I made a course. It's called Team Dynamics and Soft Skills for Developers. I put my 25 years of dev, management, tech education, and interpersonal communication training into it. I think you and your team will find it useful. There's the pitch. Most of the time people aren't trying to be jerks. They're just not having a need met. They may or may not know about the need, or may or may not be working to address it. It may be something that you're responsible for that you're not acknowledging. Don't underestimate how far a little humility, open ears, and boundary setting might get you. Writing the person off as a jerk just makes the problem worse. Not to say you're responsible for anyone elses bad behavior, but it's also not ok to pin all the problems of team dynamics on one person. Having a emotionally healthy productive team is a lot of work, and it's a group effort.

TonyAlicea10 2y ago
100% agreed. Talking about "needs met" is actually a fundamental part of the course I produced (I did put a link to it, but at the end because I really do think this is a problem in general. Also, I think education for devs on the topic is lacking.) Humility and boundaries 100% agreed too. There is "team" in "team dynamics". It is absolutely a group effort. I will say, though, it's a group effort that can be greatly impacted by just one individual.
loa_in_ 2y ago
It all boils down to name calling and not giving people time of the day it seems.
kstrauser 2y ago
To a point. Some jerks are just misunderstood and need a little TLC. Some people are just bastards, though. I don't get paid enough to be their therapist and "fix" them.
- tayo42 2y ago
  I wonder about this. What's the appropriate line for a manager is a business environment to give feedback about. I don't think random middle managers have the skills to like you said be a therapist, but there is some psychological aspect to keeping a group of people running smoothly.

1970-01-01 2y ago

Linux would not be stable if Linus wasn't a constant jerk about code quality. Microsoft would not be an empire if Bill Gates played nice with IBM. Steve Jobs was considered to be a massive jerk, yet Apple is one of the most successful tech companies in existence. The list continues with Zuck and Musk. All of the above are confirmed jerks, yet they are also incredibly successful at business.

psunavy03 2y ago
All of the above would have been even more blindingly successful if they hadn't been jerks. You can be insistent, you can be stubborn, and you can be sure you're right all without being a prick about it. This is still a bug, not a feature. These people all handicapped themselves from even greater success.
- ttoinou 2y ago
  Then please explain to us how you can achieve the same goals while spending ton of time taking care of others' people feelings. I don't think it works so easily
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    And here we go with the toxic false dichotomy that you have to "spend a ton of time taking care of others' people feelings" to just . . . not be a jerk. It takes literally no time at all to just not be a jerk.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      It takes some time, some effort, and some thought, especially if that is your current default way of interacting with people. Not a ton, though. But not zero, either.
HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
I don't believe that anyone has ever said that jerks can't be successful. But it's not a necessary condition, either. The world has far more unsuccessful jerks than successful ones.

cen4 2y ago

Cipolla Matrix can help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cipolla-matrix.svg

kstrauser 2y ago

I can and have rejected candidates who seemed qualified but were significantly unpleasant to interview. I don't mean they weren't super happy cheerful and outgoing during a stressful situation. That's a lot to ask for and plenty of awesome people get a little quiet and clammed up during interviews. I mean, they made sarcastic remarks about other people, or spoke condescendingly to me or other interviewers, or reacted nastily to feedback. That kind of thing. If I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week interacting with someone, I'm not going to hire a brilliant jerk. I don't care if they're great at their job. If I'm going go spend most of our time together wanting to scream at them, I don't want any part of it. No thanks. Life's too short to spend it around jerks.

olgeni 2y ago

In the IT world the jerk is always some dev, never a "scrum master”, some HR dude, or some project manager. Did anybody notice? :D

Hasu 2y ago
And they're always saying things like, "We should have unit tests" or "We should have an automated deployment pipeline" or "We should use version control" and they're SO MEAN to everyone who doesn't want to waste time on that crap.
drewcoo 2y ago
When I meet a brilliant scrum master or PM, I'll let you know whether or not they can be jerks, too.
artyom 2y ago
Or the CEO

twunde 2y ago

One issue I've found with cultures that emphasize no jerks is that the pendulum can swing too far that way to the point where its difficult or impossible to provide critical feedback. Not to say that you need to be a jerk to have difficult conversations, they can and should be done with empathy.

artyom 2y ago

Not being a genius has no correlation with not being a jerk, either. I'd take a genius jerk vs. any regular dude, the conversation may be unpleasant but at least interesting.

hnthrow289570 2y ago

It would be nice if they had other employment arrangements. Like being a solo developer with oversight. It is still true that some projects do not need an entire team and could be handled alone. The smart jerk is not smart if they can't do a project alone.

drewcoo 2y ago

Why do I only hear about problems like this in elite professions where the workers expect to be pampered?

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

I worked with some of the top people in the world, in my field. Some of them were generous, self-effacing, humble, and a joy to work with. Others ... not so much. One thing that they all had in common, though, was not suffering fools. Sometimes, they would yell and cuss, other times, they would just never work with you again. I generally preferred the first. I won't do it to others, because that's not my style, but I would get a dressing-down, followed by "Don't let it happen again." I'd still be in the Circle. I haven't been ejected from the game. If they just transfer me out, I'm down for the count. I have found, that, if we want to be top of the game, then we need to work with those that are already there. We have to take the risk that we will be rejected, or told that we're not doing a good enough job. We should definitely not expect participation trophies. In fact, it's likely that we may not get a huge amount of positive feedback. Pretty darwinian, but that which does not kill you, makes you stronger. I feel that a lot of the lessons that I learned, also helped me to be a better leader and mentor. Some of those lessons, were on what not to do.

SebFender 2y ago

Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison...

sibeliuss 2y ago

This is tricky! We've got someone who some might classify as a jerk on our team, but in so many regards this comes down to how they interact on slack. Every effort to improve slack comms has failed here, but enough of the team has worked with them for long enough to know that they're actually kind. However, we often have to warn new team members, or those who work in distant parts of the company that rarely interact. They are so valuable though; its a hard trade off.

thrwwyfrobvrsns 2y ago

Agreed. Yet~ >Let's define the term "jerk" here as someone who is both intentionally, and obnoxiously aggressive. Aggressive in their enforcement of their own opinions and dismissive of others'. Obnoxious in the frequency of unnecessary negative interactions with them. Intentional in that they understand their behavior is aggressive, and choose not to adjust it. Intent is impossible to prove (or so I've been told). He uses the implicit heuristic of, "They keep doing it." However, it (obnoxiously aggressive behavior) is in the eye of the beholder (or, often, in the appearance of the accused). What is "frequent" and "unnecessary"? By who's metric? What's the line between "opinionated" and "browbeater"? Does it shift depending on the identity of the individual? (Yes.) >Ultimately, you know you're dealing with someone who is acting like a jerk by how you feel after interacting with them. This criteria is just asking to be abused by people who hold prejudice. Some people are irrational or traumatized, and it's okay to sympathize with their take on an individual while also understanding that they're not being reasonable. Likewise, it's possible for a charismatic and energetic individual's behavior to be deleterious; coworkers don't necessarily walk away feeling overtly attacked, but their tendency to self-police to the bully's desire might be raised. Such jerks often also zero-in on "fair targets", leaving them as the only people to feel abused, while everyone else rationalises their treatment as deserved. IME, the best way to root out actual jerks is to focus on people with power (by however mechanism, they are able to get people to do what they want them to do, more so than those people are able to get them to do things) who are quick (within one or two negative interactions) to blackball others (maintains a sh*t list, ghosts, verbally harasses, particularly in a way that isolates the target).

satisfice 2y ago

This is article is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "Long string isn't worth it" and then proceeding to complain about how hard it is to work when someone ties you up with string, or leaves 5000 yards of tangled string in the kitchen. We've all been there, right? For every such article you could write one called "Short String Isn't Worth It." Obviously, depending on your context, working with difficult people is necessary and worth it. Sometimes it may not be worth it to you, but it's worth it to other people. Lots of people at Apple did not want Steve Jobs to return, after he left. But lots of people did, and he arguably made everyone there (whom he didn't fire) a whole lot of money. Was it worth it or not? Depends how you feel about things. Articles like this can be better written when the author reminds himself to focus on the elements and forces, rather than reifying and polarizing the topic into a garish stereotype. The point of an article like this ought to be to help people examine themselves and their situation so as to reconcile themselves to it or to take productive action. Pitchforks and torches aren't helpful.

Tade0 2y ago

My experience is that smart jerks are actually a sign of having a hierarchy of jerks going all the way to the C-levels. For every smart jerk there's a manager who endorses that person and who also has a manager who in turn either has the same attitude or "lets them cook" as long as KPIs are fulfilled. People will generally downplay toxic behaviour if they exhibit it themselves. Not saying that's always the case, but in my experience it's much more common than management being intimidated enough by the jerk to not want to touch them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dave1999x 2y ago

Jerks label people. Instead focus on behaviours, I've seen frustrated people raising genuine problems labelled as a jerk. For example, is the guy who picks up on issues in code reviews the one who is a jerk?

TonyAlicea10 2y ago
No, not necessarily. I’m referring to consistent behaviors across a wide range of circumstances and contexts.

vcxbx 2y ago

[dead]

sgammon 2y ago

Difficult geniuses often evolve into great people. We all learn our lessons in different orders, and humility and empathy for the frustrations of genius can have a powerful effect. Genius is a blessing, yes, but it is often a burden. "Genius" implies bright talents but may imply deficits, too. Either way, this person didn't necessarily ask for that, and may struggle to express their ideas in a way which isn't combative. Genius in one area (say, programming) does not always follow in another (emotional regulation). We should be humane with people as they grow. Indeed, the single best aspect of the mind is that it can change when it wants to.