Re:Why It Pays to Be a Jerk
by WalterSear on Sunday May 31, 2015 @05:58PM
(#9635731)
> I believe Jobs and Patton would have been just as successful if they had not been. But their legacies are (maybe forever) tarnished because of it.
Except the research doesn't support this opinion.
Re:Why It Pays to Be a Jerk
by marcus_holmes on Sunday May 31, 2015 @08:21PM
(#9636176)
well according to the article it does; both "givers" and "assholes" have a u-shaped distribution curve: they tend to do either very well or very badly. Jobs and Patton could have been givers with the same results, or even better. And the article even points out that Jobs had significantly reduced his asshole tendencies during the more successful part of his career.
"Being nice" doesn't get you anywhere, but that's not the same as being a giver.
what research? there's hardly anything in the article to suggest that it exceeds the quality of a 2AM red bull fueld college paper written by a student.
Re:Why It Pays to Be a Jerk
by sliverstorm on Sunday May 31, 2015 @11:57PM
(#9636735)
I think it's funny we think we can pick-and-choose. "If only Patton had been just as great but less of an asshole". What if that was an important part of making him the great leader he was? Traditionally negative traits can sometimes contribute to effective leadership.
the slapping incidents were an example to Eisenhower, Marshall, and other leaders of Patton's brashness and impulsiveness
His most successful and famous campaigns can be described as brash and impulsive!
Still does not pay to be an asshole though. If you want to call them assholes - I believe Jobs and Patton would have been just as successful if they had not been. But their legacies are (maybe forever) tarnished because of it.
Patton could have just as easily not gotten the chance to stage his magnificent campaign across Europe - just because of an "asshole" move. It wasn't worth it. Proves that people do still care about how others are treated.