
No Brilliant Jerks - maxgt
https://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2020/05/no_brilliant_jerks_how_to_deal.html
======
hirundo
I have a problem with Nassim Taleb. On the one hand I think he has been a
colossal jerk to many good people who don't deserve it. On the other hand he
keeps dropping pearls of wisdom that I value highly.

If I were an employer I wouldn't want an employee with his level of toxicity
laying waste to morale. But it could be exactly that kind of employee who
could make the company profitable with the power of one brain.

So I'd go with a default policy of no brilliant jerks, but be willing to
override it for some values of brilliant and jerk.

~~~
kaybe
If the jerk is brilliant enough maybe you can buffer it somehow and include it
in the structures, eg a dedicated jerk handler etc.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That is what is called a 10x people manager, and they are even more rare than
10x engineers. Not to mention they tend to get promoted too quickly to stay in
jerk handling roles for very long.

------
keenmaster
Edited [1]: Ironically, one sign of brilliance is the ability to hold two
seemingly contradictory ideas in your head. I think many people who interacted
with Steve Jobs would classify him as a jerk. However, if Apple was more
inclined towards mitigating his jerky behavior, it might not be where it is
today.

Reality is complicated. You don't get at the truth by finding the absolutist
statement that is correct most of the time. You have to conduct a more
holistic analysis than that. What causes this person to be a jerk? Has the
very behavior that caused them to be a jerk also led to the founding of this
company? Would they lose their passion if we tried to cage them like a pet
bird? If so, how critical is their passion to this company? What if they're
absolutely, 100% right about something and they're being a "jerk" because they
are trying to communicate precisely how much they think they're right and how
wrong everyone else is? How right have they been in the past?

On top of asking the right questions, you need to do a first principles
analysis. What drives this company to be profitable in a competitive context?
Why do we want to reduce tension in this company? Is it because that tension
is bad for profit? Are you sure?

[1]: I removed the following from the top of my comment: "There are "No"
brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based on?" because a
below commenter is right that it doesn't really fit the primary meaning of the
headline. My core point remains pretty much the same though.

~~~
minitech
> There are "No" brilliant jerks? Absolutely none? What evidence is that based
> on?

"No" here is used in the sense of "no pets", "no solicitors", "no outside food
or drink beyond this point"

~~~
keenmaster
If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their
brilliance. A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would
lead to "if they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way.
They would be more brilliant if we replaced their non-brilliant side with our
brilliant behavioral prescriptions."

~~~
minitech
> If you don't want brilliant jerks, you are inherently negating their
> brilliance.

??¹

> A simple chain of logic, extrapolating from that headline, would lead to "if
> they truly were all around brilliant, they wouldn't act that way.

???²

¹ Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t “negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks
are available.

² Er, no.

~~~
keenmaster
I'm not defending being a jerk. Personally, I try to be kind in all my
interpersonal interactions. However, some people are just a package deal. Call
it what you want, high IQ and low EQ or whatever, but you can't just accept
one part of them and try to get rid of the rest.

Also, with regards to this comment: "Valuing non-jerkiness more isn’t
“negating brilliance”. Brilliant non-jerks are available."

Sure, there's no shortage of brilliant non-jerks, but sometimes the most
brilliant person for a given company in a given context (by an order of
magnitude) is a jerk. You have to apply first principles, systems thinking to
determine whether they're right for the company or not, and whether mitigating
their jerky behavior is bad for the company or not. I don't totally disagree
with the article. Sometimes the measures they recommend are well-advised, and
sometimes they would be misguided. I'm cautioning about the latter because
it's such a common human instinct to try to cast out or sheer the black sheep.
On the margins, group harmony is overrated.

~~~
snovv_crash
It doesn't matter if they're the best by an order of magnitude if their
jerkiness demotivates 10 other people. And I doubt that 'order of magnitude'
statement.

~~~
keenmaster
A lot of people consider Elon Musk to be a jerk, and it would be a huge shame
if he’s removed from his company. In most contexts what you said is 100%
correct.

------
JMTQp8lwXL
I sometimes wonder if I might be a jerk. I regularly ponder this topic, and
think of ways I can mitigate. I've delivered an increased amount of business
value (not by being "brilliant", but rather, just pragmatic)-- and that
required making some breaking changes. Engineers in other parts of the
organization who use the same software are of course inconvenienced by this.
I've put a lot of effort into minimizing where the changes are breaking, but
it seems impossible to appease my colleagues. Was breaking the psychological
safety of inter-team communication worth it, if it means the business can meet
its goals more quickly and effectively?

~~~
crimsonalucard1
I think you touched upon a good topic.

I feel Jerks tend to be people with little empathy for peoples feelings and
high affinity for reality and the truth at the expense of everyones emotions.

While most people don't officially define a "Jerk" with the definition above,
I feel that the personalities most people perceive as Jerks fit the definition
above perfectly.

It's just people are unable to see past the "lack of empathy." They are unable
to see that the while some actions lack empathy, they are also in line with
truth and reality.

That is the ultimate question... What kind of company do you want to build or
work for. Do you want a company full of yes men and people who respect others?
Do you want a company where people lack respect and lay the god awful truth on
the table? Or do you want something in between?

I feel to get something in between you need a few Jerks within the
organization.

~~~
dhimes
I think I can add to your observation: The difference between a good leader
and a jerk can come down to _ego_. A good leader may have to make a decision
despite hurting feelings and enduring bad emotions, but will make the decision
based on the right path even if they suffer too. Jerks will make decisions
that upset _others_ but will go to the mat to defend their own feelings and
emotions.

For jerks, it's not "anything to make this happen." It's "anything to make
_me_ happen."

------
BiteCode_dev
Not directly related to the content of the article, but...

There are jerks everywhere, and there always will be. Like diseases, tornadoes
and mosquitoes, they are part of life.

I think our energy is better spent creating an env that empowers nice people
and encourage them to defend themselves. An env that calls out bad behavior.

It's way more durable.

~~~
akudha
Society has mostly tolerated jerks - Bill Gates was a jerk during his
Microsoft days, Steve Jobs too, etc. Hollywood has a long list of jerks,
bordering on criminal level behavior. Somehow they were (are) tolerated by
society, many people even believe one needs to be a jerk at certain levels to
succeed.

If a junior person on a team is a jerk, he'll be called out quickly vs a boss
who is a jerk. Like everything in life, one can get away with a lot of bad
behavior if they are high up in the food chain.

~~~
Mirioron
I think society tolerates jerks because they feel that the jerk creates more
value than they take away.

~~~
tspiteri
Yeah, and then there are some jerks that think that by throwing a hissy fit in
a meeting they're the next Steve Jobs. Well, they're not. Jerks.

------
christiansakai
We have stupid jerks everywhere. I'd rather take brilliant jerks.

~~~
joana035
And given a mob's agenda, anyone can become a jerk.

Humans are weird.

~~~
christiansakai
We are flawed.

------
crimsonalucard1
>“Often the board does not act sufficiently suspicious. Only a small
percentage of directors are good at pushing back. They tend to trust the CEO
too much”

It's not about trust. It's about politics. They may not actually trust the CEO
but to keep their position and good standing they have to pretend to trust the
CEO.

------
momokoko
You could also flip this around and say “No weak willed overly sensitive
people”

Most people are fine with jerks. Just like most people aren’t jerks. It’s when
the minority group “jerks” intersects with minority group “wimps” that
problems show up.

And I would say both groups are equally toxic to company culture.

~~~
alexpetralia
> _Most people are fine with jerks_

If this was the case, would they really be jerks?

~~~
momokoko
Yes. Most people are fine with jerks.

I’ve worked with plenty of jerks and it doesn’t really bother me. I, like most
well adjusted people, say “that person is just a jerk, whatever” and move on
with my day.

Wimps grind the entire company to a halt because we all need to focus on their
wellbeing 24/7 because they can’t do that.

It’s not to say wimps are bad. It’s just that wimps can kill a company culture
just like jerks do. And more often than not, it’s the combination of the two
that really causes most of the trouble.

Nothing is more damaging to a company than an over performing jerk and an
underperforming wimp on the same team.

------
finnthehuman
Every leader you love or hate is a jerk. You only call the ones you hate
"jerks".

If there was an accurate adjective for Steve Jobs, even those who adored him
would acknowledge that "jerk" is too kind of a descriptor. But he held onto
more goodwill than this article's sacrificial lambs of Musk, Kalanick,
Neumann, and Winterkorn.

This "no brilliant jerks" reminds me a bit of the anti-bully sentiment. Real
bullies are popular, socially calibrated and powerful. The condemnation of
"bullies" is for leaping hate on social failures with the temerity to lash out
at their betters.

------
csours
There's a point where a Jerk becomes Toxic; you shouldn't have people that are
trending towards toxic. It's obvious when a person gets to the toxic stage,
but you have to put up barriers before that stage, otherwise bad behavior will
escalate to the point of toxicity.

------
chris_wot
I don’t see why the adjective is less than the noun. We need more brilliance
and less arsehole.

------
blast
This article and site are so bland that they kind of make the case for the
opposite.

------
valachio
The world is run and shaped by "jerks".

Whether you like it or not. If we look past 21st century culture and look back
upon history...

\- Caesar (killed/enslaved 1 million+ gauls)

\- Augustus (killed anyone who posed a political threat, killed a lot in
general)

\- Genghis Khan (killed... well, he killed a lot)

\- Napoleon (got hundreds of thousands of people from every European nation
killed)

\- The list goes on.

Name one famous historical figure who had power of some sort who didn't do
anything "jerk-like".

The problem with the "jerk" definition is that the author nor most people have
ever been in a position of great power. He does not understand how difficult
and stressful it is to be the CEO of a big company or a top political leader.

I believe that in a position of great power, the power holder is forced to do
some "jerk-like" things. You gotta make harsh decisions.

E.g. if Augustus didn't kill off all his political opponents (including
Caesar's supposed only biological son), it is likely Rome will be thrown into
more civil war.

Every guy has a "jerk" inside of them, and when put into a stressful
situation, they are capable of using it.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Name one famous historical figure who had power of some sort who didn't do
> anything "jerk-like".

That’s a straw man. Everyone is a jerk sometimes.

There have been great people who changed the world without a predominantly
jerky reputation. I don’t find much evidence Einstein was considered one, for
example.

His letter to Marie Curie is a good read.
[https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/04/19/einstein-curie-
lett...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/04/19/einstein-curie-letter/)

------
draw_down
The only thing that matters is who determines what a “jerk” is. The same
behavior may be excused in one person and condemned in another.

It’s one thing to write this, but quite another to actually rein in a CEO with
a ton of clout and success at their back (Adam Neumann 2020 is not the same as
Adam Neumann 2018). Hand waving “oh well you have to curate the culture” isn’t
enough.

~~~
luckylion
Unrelated to the content of the comment, but since this comment was
immediately dead (saw it at "0 minutes ago"): what's with the new moderation
technique of just marking comments of some users as dead from the moment they
post?

I've seen this more and more recently. Is that a new approach to shadow
banning? Is that automatically applied when multiple comments are flagged by
some amount of people? Are the affected users aware, or is that hidden from
them while they're logged in?

~~~
DanBC
> what's with the new moderation technique of just marking comments of some
> users as dead from the moment they post?

That's not new, and most of those people have been told that they were banned.

People can vouch for individual comments (click the timestamp, click the vouch
link) to undead them. If you think a person is being unfairly moderated I
guess you can email the mods to let them know.

dang has spoken about shaddowbanning here (and lots of other posts too)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23253674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23253674)

~~~
luckylion
Thanks, it appears to be the autokilling then and I must have just noticed it
more in the past few days. It seemed weird because there's so much that I
consider normal/harmless (and where much worse is left alive), but the authors
may of course have posted more problematic comments in the past that lead to
the flags.

------
crimsonalucard1
Jerks exist because they've been selected by Natural Selection.

Either the existence of a Jerk helps the Jerk himself survive and propagate
his genes or the existence of a Jerk within a group helps groups that contain
jerks survive.

If you think about it at a very surface level. Everyone hates Jerks so why
does a Jerk even exist at all? Everything a Jerk does will lower his
individual chances of survival by making people hate them. Humans are social
creatures and an anti-social person likely will not survive if the group hates
them.

Group dynamics of humans will ultimately select out Jerks. That is unless the
Jerk has something to offer beyond making everyone hate them.

Obviously Jerks exist in our world, so their continued existence must offer
something beneficial to the group. What would that be?

So imagine this situation. There's a software engineer at a company who's well
liked. He's super nice, friendly, good-looking BUT he's ultimately not a very
good software engineer. His skills are well below average, his boss knows it,
everyone who's worked with him knows it, the only people who don't seem to
know it is he himself and people who haven't directly worked with him. His
skills are so poor that he would be fired if he wasn't so well liked.

Therein lies the problem. His Boss likes him but is unable to be honest with
him about how his skills are so horrible that he'll be fired if everyone knows
about how shitty his skills are. The person is so nice and well liked that not
only is his career getting protected but his feelings are being protected as
well because nobody wants to be a Jerk and hurt those feelings by telling him
the reality.

Then a real Jerk of a person is suddenly assigned to work with this nice guy.
The Jerk immediately sees the problem and reveals the truth to everyone. The
Jerk regularly says things along the lines of: "This guy is useless, he
doesn't know shit, the guy can't even code properly. His code is complete
garbage." The Jerk publicly says these things and reveals to everyone the
reality of the situation.

These are very toxic words that introduce aggression into the workplace.

But the Jerk introduces truth into the workplace. The Jerk was the only person
who tells things like it is at face value. If the Jerk wasn't there, the well
liked person would continue to be in that role and function as a parasite with
the person himself and most of the company oblivious to the reality of the
situation.

The cost of empathy is a mask placed over reality.

If your organization doesn't have Jerks then I almost guarantee that there is
very likely to be huge issues within the organization that are masked by
etiquette. The Jerk is essentially telling the truth and revealing big issues
at great cost to himself. It's almost a form of self sacrifice.

In my my mind the Jerk exists because he benefits the group, but his actions
come at great cost to his individual survival because Jerks aren't well liked.

Additionally I would argue that the term "Jerk" is a misnomer. Someone who is
explicit about the truth should not be called a Jerk, especially when the
truth comes at such a high cost.

The real Jerk is someone who deliberately covers up the truth. A manipulative
person is never called a Jerk. A company without a single Jerk, a company
where people have nearly perfect etiquette and friendly communication is also
a company with a high number of manipulative people and likely deep problems
that aren't discussed.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with an oblivious Jerk than a well
liked manipulator.

------
blfr
We have seen decades of general stagnation compared to decades of new
inventions and growth before that. [Just imagine a bunch of quotes from Peter
Thiel here. You read or heard the argument already.]

Good chunk of it is probably due to our societies getting physically older.
But how much can be attributed to the culture of being nice, getting along,
not rocking the boat, undermining people, etc?

OP ironically even advises to be contrarian to the contrarians. Pretty
ingenious rhetoric.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Innovative companies like DEC, Bell Labs, and Xerox Parc (not so much IBM) ran
on playful maturity, not on jerkish narcissism.

Generally they were not terrible places to work - unlike the kind of startup
that's a playground for dark triad people with emotional handicaps.

The latter are _destructive_. A small minority get shit done, but only some
proportion of the shit that gets done turns out to be truly beneficial. The
rest is just a toxic mess of bullshit, lies, self-aggrandising posturing,
manipulation, and empathy-free exploitation, sometimes with a side order of
overt fraud and criminality.

And there's been a lot more of that in recent decades than in the real-adults-
but-at-play innovation powerhouses of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

~~~
bitwize
And those destructive startups are run by people who seem "nice" in person but
who enact their own sinister agenda, maybe while tricking themselves into
thinking they're doing good.

Being "nice" and being a good person are two different things.

