Isn't this just a vulgar, shallow rephrasing of solid, old-fashioned management principles that have been around forever? Everyone knows that there are difficu

Isn't this just a vulgar, shallow rephrasing of solid, old-fashioned management principles that have been around forever? Everyone knows that there are difficult personalities out there. You have to look at what every candidate brings to the table: skills, experience, creativity, communication, etc. It's usually a mixed bag. Some people are brilliantly creative but very difficult to get along with in an office environment, and others are extremely smooth and diplomatic but unproductive. I've run into both kinds, though most people tend to be somewhere in between. For a start-up situation, it seems to me you want to hire more from networking than from cold-call applications. When a new hire is 25% of the work force, he or she is going to have a huge impact on the culture and productivity of the team and it's very helpful to have met and interacted with them already. When a new hire is 1/1000 of the work force, they're going to have less of an impact unless they're C-level, so you can afford to cold-hire based on established procedures. I don't see much value in statements like "A-holes usually are not very introspective". It seems this person has a very specific image of what an undesirable team member would be like, probably based on his own brief experience in the working world. After a couple of decades of working experience, I find it hard to generalize what an "a-hole" would be. It's all over the spectrum, from good hard working team players to borderline or sociopathic personalities whom you feel like strangling. I guess the bottom line is, leave your ego at the door while interviewing, try to see the value in each person, figure out what they bring to the table, and maybe get them in for a day or two to interact with the team and see if the chemistry is OK.