Say what you like about MS's business practices during the 90s, but I think the history shows that a large reason they were able to continue their dominance was because of the unfair and frankly anticompetitive practices that they embraced back then. Bill Gate's willingness to be a jerk was what kept their company on top.
Of course, that was directed productively and outward, not destructively inward.
While there might be a correlation, I don't think you can entirely extrapolate between "ruthless business practices" and "toxic interpersonal interactions". You can have either without the other, and I wouldn't automatically assume that skill at one implies skill at the other.
It's a risky communication strategy, but I wouldn't condemn everyone who uses it.
what kind of person would say that with full vitriolic sincerity to someone they respect? Why say that when you could say, "I strongly disagree for the following reasons..." or something else similarly diplomatic and actually productive?
To: Marc Andreessen
Cc: Mike Homer
From: Ben Horowitz
Subject : Launch— Ben
To: Ben Horowitz
Cc: Mike Homer, Jim Barksdale (CEO), Jim Clark (Chairman)
From: Marc Andreessen
Subject: Re: LaunchNext time do the fucking interview yourself.
Fuck you,
Marc
That kind of bland vocabulary makes one's statements sound like limp static. Corporate dialect is contrived to remove strong (corporate-environment-inappropriate) emotion from your speech. If you're well acquainted with your colleagues, then I'd hope you could express yourself more genuinely. You're probably more relatable than a peppy talking head who never offends anyone.
Emotion is a very powerful signal during discussion. It's a counterpoint to logic; they work together. Rarely does logic by itself win anyone over. Trying to remove "unneeded" (who decides what an unneeded emotion is) emotion is folly. We're not Vulcans.
That is not meritocracy and pretty bad workplace.
Tip-toeing around the issue can make things much worse.
It is much easier to say, "Stop. That's stupid, try again."
Than to try and cherrypick what they've done right, because often times, there isn't anything useful there.
Considering that Gates, Jobs, and Torvalds all have stories where they tell someone what they're doing is stupid, and actually get a decent product out at the end of the day, it doesn't seem like diplomacy is necessary at all.
If you can't say ~why~ it's "stupid," your comment is not useful. And if you do say why it's stupid, those reasons are much more important than the inflammatory adjective "stupid," so just say those instead.
How ironic.
For example, the person who wrote this article, is less of a fit for a cutthroat, decisive, business-minded management position; and might maximize their relative potential (in their current situation and state) by reaching a level that's below any business-minded interactions.(captain of a development team, answers to a manager who isolates them from business/mean/jerkish discussions.)
Edit:grammar
It's also a question of circumstance. Right now, for example, I'm working to mitigate, and eventually to resolve, a morale crisis on my team, which exists for good and cogent reasons that don't merit discussion here. Now is not the time for fire - and fire alone in any case works only when the vision is so powerful that smart, capable people will tolerate being driven painfully hard to achieve it. Without offering something to make that worthwhile, fire can't drive them onward - it can only drive them away.
In any case, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I hope I don't come across as if I were. It's just that I feel like there's a strong reaction in this thread to a bias, whether perceived or actual, on the part of the article author and in the direction of courtesy. So my purpose here is to sound a cautionary note, and attempt to keep visible in the discussion what I regard to be the nuance of the matter.
Especially since a lot of engineers default to brusqueness, which I totally understand while finding often counterproductive. It can work in a collegial setting, among secure peers who share mutual respect, but in any other context it just looks like asshole behavior - and that is exactly what it is.
To understand one's audience, and adjust one's persuasive style to suit, is a fundamental aspect of rhetoric, and given the ubiquity of office politics and the necessity thereof - a topic meriting its own essay, which I will not write on a phone - such understanding and adjustment is important to professional success, as well. I think that's something it is easy for us to overlook, because computers only need to be told and then sworn at, not persuaded.
Also, all else equal, it's both more ethically sound and more useful not to act like an asshole. Leaving a trail of hurt feelings behind you is no way to go through life. Sure, we might excuse it in someone with a vision on par with that of Steve Jobs. But no one here is on par with Steve Jobs.
In more ways than one. When jerks are allowed to be jerks, people who do not want to deal with jerks leave the company. So the jerks bubble up to the top, while otherwise great engineers who don't want to be berated move along to better things.
If you encounter many skilled jerks, consider why that might be, and why in the same environment you don't also encounter skilled people who are fun to work with. In such an environment, the skilled people who are fun to work with can afford to leave, while some of the non-skilled people may not have that option. So, it's natural that within such an environment (company, project, etc), it'll look like a correlation between jerkiness and skill. People then start assuming a causation, and thus contribute to that same cycle.
The opposite environment, with many skilled people who are fun to work with, will tend to reject jerks regardless of skill. I've also noticed that such an environment tends to have a much higher degree of mentorship and collaboration, in addition to being more fun to work in, and boosting energy rather than draining it.
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg and http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-you... .
Often that might be because the viewer is unaware of their own jerkness, and only sees others reciprocating.
Survivorship bias doesn't render this an ineffective argument against the simple "no jerks" policy argued for in the article.
The contention is "(jerk present) → ¬ (success)", aka "¬ (jerk present) ∨ ¬ (success)". A single case of "(jerk present) ∧ (success)" is sufficient to disprove the direct implication.
The contention in the article is not "you can't ever succeed if you have a jerk on the team" or "a jerk will always cause your team to fail". A property doesn't have to be universal to be common enough to be worth writing about.
So no, a single instance of succeeding despite a jerk does not "disprove" anything relevant here.
That's what you replied to with "but survivorship bias!". And the article itself says:
> A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels.
... which is a universal and normative call to action.
If jerks universally led to failure, it would hardly need writing about more than once, as everyone would very quickly have to understand and deal with it. However, because you can sometime succeed in spite of the presence of jerks, that makes it a problem particularly worth writing about.
That's orthogonal to the issue mentioned in the article. For the purposes of "not being a jerk", it doesn't matter if that comes naturally or if you have to devote conscious effort to it; only the resulting behavior matters.
> Brilliant jerks are often to be found at the beating heart of successful software.
Survivorship bias. Strange policies or properties are often found in successful companies/projects, who often write up articles about them as though those policies contributed to their success, never considering the possibility that they succeeded in spite of them. The same goes for jerks: some companies/projects succeed in spite of the jerks in (or running) them.