
Our No Asshole Rule - yarapavan
http://www.adventur.es/adventures-blog/2014/12/22/no-asshole-rule
======
DanielBMarkham
Upvoting this because it's worthy of discussion, but in my mind a little off-
base.

Ever work in a big, dysfunctional environment? I have. My job is to help teams
work better, so I get a chance to work in startups, BigCorps, government IT
shops -- pretty much everything.

As a rule, large dysfunctional environments are full of people who are
extremely polite to each other. You have to be: when you've got a thousand
people, you can't walk around ticking people off. People don't survive like
that.

But those are the worst places to work. Even worse than the out-of-control,
balls-to-the-wall startups. Why? Because hidden apathy is rampant. People will
smile, help out, be polite -- even applaud new ideas. But nothing changes. The
organization has eliminated assholes to the point where _no difficult
conversations take place_.

Don't go there.

Ever see a high-performing team? Got news for you. Sometimes people say things
they shouldn't. They're incivil -- but not on purpose. It's just that they
care deeply about what they're doing and you're not always able to express
criticism in the most fluffy way possible.

A better way is to go with fierce opinions, lightly held. People have
difficult conversations, sometimes with invective and emotion, but from a
standpoint of caring for each other and the work. Once they've made their case
with as much vigor as they like, they're amenable to change.

So it's not assholes. Everybody is an asshole. It's part of being human. It's
manipulative people -- weasels -- whether they use bullying or "facilitation"
to manipulate. People who don't have a clear and simple mission that everybody
knows and agrees with are poison to any organization.

One business self-help guy put it this way: intent counts more than technique.
You can be a _bit_ rough around the edges as long as you mean well and are
flexible. What you can't do is use aggression to force people to your will.
But there are plenty other tricks besides aggression to do this, and they're
all bad.

~~~
cmdkeen
It's also worth pointing to Tuckman's "forming, storming, norming and
performing" stages of group development. The example you describe is an
institutional level of norming.

During the performing stage, which many teams never actually reach, teams can
exhibit arse like to outsiders. They have become a unit that fully understands
each other, knows how to raise objections efficiently (often read as rude by
outsiders), and doesn't want anything to break up the amazing experience that
is being part of that team. Adding a new team member into the mix will upset
the balance and push the team back to previous stages.

------
drzaiusapelord
> We have no tolerance for dishonest, manipulative, belittling, or egocentric
> individuals

This seems code for "I don't want an egocentric person here with more
confidence than me." Honestly, it depends on the role. I want my guy who
handles negotiations to be a tough character. I want my lawyer to be fearless.
I want my security guards to be unafraid to assert themselves if they see
something.

This is what both this guy and Paul Graham get wrong: there simply is no "one
good personality" for businesses. We need a mix of personalities to get things
done effectively, or at all. Yeah my coders and sysadmins should probably be
INTJ's, but I don't want an INTJ sales guy.

I also think there's folly in being ultra-sensitive and ultra-politically
correct with hiring. So what if someone has more confidence than you? Is it
such a threat to your company and well-being? I think this idea of a young
company being a nerf-game nerdfest of humble geeks all "being nice" is
asinine. These companies get eaten up by tough guys who just can out-compete
them. Niceness comes with a lot of limits and in the long run, can't compete.
Look at how quickly Google has given up its 'no evil' mantra, for example, or
how Bill Gates had to transform from 1980s geek hero to 1990s hated Bill
Gates. It was a limiting philosophy, especially when you have shareholders.

~~~
vosper
> This seems code for "I don't want an egocentric person here with more
> confidence than me."

I think this is entirely your projection on the article; I didn't read it that
way at all. I've worked with confident, effective people (including sales
people) who possess none of the negative attributes the article talks about,
and are all-around nice people to be with.

~~~
jarcane
One of the nicest men I've ever met was my father's estate lawyer.

He could certainly be hard and firm when he needed to be, but perhaps because
he _was_ so nice when he didn't, he really didn't have to leverage much more
than a flat tone when that hardness was needed.

------
uniformlyrandom
I wonder how they determine if someone is an asshole. Sounds like a perfect
opportunity to fire anyone. Because this line:

> We have no tolerance for dishonest, manipulative, belittling, or egocentric
> individuals

, made me think that this blog post was written by an asshole.

~~~
noxryan
This is what they claim:

"There are two almost sure-fire ways to understand someone’s perspective. The
first is to eat with them. How do they treat the wait staff? Are they
demanding, or easily agitated? What happens when things aren’t perfect? The
other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose
in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the
asshole acid test."

~~~
jameshart
And if your meal with them also reveals that the person asks the waiter
whether the meat is Halal, or that their significant other is the same sex as
them, then you had better have a better argument than 'I just didn't like the
way they treated the waitstaff' or 'I don't like their SO' to justify not
hiring them...

~~~
Torgo
This is a an unworkable viewpoint because it has no limiting principle. What
if a person comes in for a job interview and is wearing a turban because
they're a sikh? Should you put up a screen between you and the interviewer?
Give them a voice changer so that you can't tell if they're a woman or a man.
Use an interpreter so that regional dialects or accents cannot be detected.
Ban pork products from your cafeteria in case a candidate comes in. This is
not a winnable strategy. At some point you have to acknowledge that assholes
can take advantage of anything.

Incidentally, I do think that taking people out for drinks to evaluate their
character is a lousy practice but simply because many people don't drink for
many reasons. Not because someone might secretly find out you're a religious
minority.

~~~
jameshart
It means you need to use defensible candidate screening practices that clearly
relate to assessing the candidate's fitness for the role. Asking to meet their
current squeeze or taking them out to lunch to evaluate how they treat the
waitstaff are not easily defensible. Asking them questions in an interview
room about how they have previously performed in similar roles is.

------
Raphmedia
A no asshole rule is bullshit. What you want is a no bully rule.

Being harsh is alright. The people are respect the most are those that have
the balls to come up to me and say "your idea is rubbish, your point of view
is stupid". Yes, this guy is an asshole. But he is a good one.

What you want to avoid is the bullies. The ones that will insult you for no
reason. Belittle people to feel better. Those are the ones that are dangerous
for a team.

Everybody is an asshole from the point of view of someone else.

~~~
shanusmagnus
I know it's kind of popular in hacker culture to claim that you can't possibly
disagree or critique without being a total dick, a la Linus, but it just isn't
true. It's an excuse and nothing more. If you're in surgery or under fire in a
foxhole or are storming into a burning building then perhaps you don't have
mental attention to modulate your tone of voice. Otherwise, act like a
professional adult. It's not that hard.

------
wolfgke
But what about employees that aren't assholes per se (in the sense that they
are evil or egocentric), but just socially awkward?

To give one example: A intellectually brillant employee wants to explain some
complicated programming or math concepts so that the other people at the
company can become better - a very noble plan. But because of their social
inaptness this is considered to be rude and arrogant by the other team
members.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
When dealing with engineers it's very important to remember a few things:

    
    
       Engineers are all basically high-functioning
       autistics who have no idea how normal people
       do stuff.
       Cory Doctorow
    

A milder form of this is frequently called Asperger's syndrome.[1] Sorry for
the extended quote, but its from the Harvard Medical School family health
guide, so hopefully there is at least some scientific consensus behind it:

    
    
       Despite normal and sometimes superior intelligence,
       people with Asperger’s have difficulty understanding
       social conventions and reading social cues. As a
       result, they often seem tactless or rude, and making
       friends can be hard for them. They may be unable to
       take hints, keep secrets, or understand metaphor,
       irony, and humor. The meaning of gestures, tone of
       voice, and facial expressions are a mystery to them,
       and their own body language and expressions may be
       inappropriate or hard to interpret. They stand too
       close, talk too loudly, and don’t make eye contact. 
    

Having said all that, in my experience engineers are often very coachable and
can be taught social skills. The quintessential stereotype for this character
is the scientist Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory.

[1]
[http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0305a.shtml](http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0305a.shtml)

~~~
cooper12
Please don't stereotype groups of people, regardless of how consistent your
observations of them have been.

It's pretty damning to a group to automatically assign them to autism or
asperger's syndrome, both of which are medical disorders only properly
diagnosed by doctors. It's like automatically treating the elderly like they
have Alzheimer's. It also ignores that there can be (and are) great variations
within groups, and applying a label on them can have reverberating
consequences in policy.

I'm sure you and Cory Doctorow have good intentions, so please don't take this
as an affront against you. I'm just tired of people (especially the media)
generating ridiculous stereotyped images of people. Good examples of these are
the socially inept "nerd" Sheldon Cooper that you mentioned, the misunderstood
genius that helps the heroes save the world in movies, and reclusive haunted
writers. While I'm sure people of each type actually do exist, we should't
treat people any differently unless we have a valid reason, and even then we
should try to understand them as an individual.

I understand that I might have taken your comment a bit out of context, so I
apologize for that.

------
mrottenkolber
"Asshole" is not a class of people, it's an insult. That being said I'd rather
deal with a rough-edged person than listen to crap like this. If you write
something down, please make sure its intellectually valuable and reflected and
not just a random polemic load of crap that could have been generated by a
half-arsed algorithm.

We live in a world where algorithmic natural language generation is a real
thing. I can only strongly suggest that now is the time to start communicating
in an intelligent fashion because being able to express a philosophically
sound thought is the only thing that distinguishes you from a machine nowadays
really.

~~~
jameshart
I strongly suspect you are a Markov chain.

------
thornygreb
I was not an asshole when the company hired me...the company turned me into an
asshole!

~~~
crazyjayd
I know the feeling. I work with a real asshole, and that in turn has turned me
into a asshole. I have to fight it on a daily basis, and it makes me really
hate coming into work. I just try to stay positive.

------
whiskeySix
This did not pass my bullshit test... does that make me an asshole?

~~~
lordbusiness
This is what I call a 'content free' article.

Yes, it's nice to wax lyrical about zero-tolerance of baddies, and we can all
rally behind such a idea, but the practical side of how to implement this
without some egotistical maniac deciding whimsically who is an asshole isn't
viable, and if they _do_ think they have achieved such a utopia, I'll bet
dollars to donuts that they are deluding themselves. Case in point, this
article is intolerant. Intolerant people are in actual fact, assholes.

Also, as Michael Palin once said regarding the early days of scoring Monty
Python work, paraphrased, 'if you won't do anything out of principle then
sooner or later you're left with nothing but".

------
unimportant
Meeting a potential employees significant other? I would like to see the
person that agrees with that. :D

In the end its a managers ability of good people judgement to keep problematic
personalities out, in combination with probation periods.

Unfortunately sometimes some of them slip through and are even rewarded with
promotions (happened in two of my previous jobs), even though all colleagues
hate them, by employing the good ol sucking upwards, kicking downwards
strategy.

------
kyberias
It sounds to me they don't like some people for whatever the reason, tag them
assholes and refuse to "tolerate" them. I've always wondered whether the
criteria for an asshole is the same for each intolerant individual.

~~~
WalterSear
Sounds pretty assholeish to me.

------
BinaryIdiot
> Adventur.es takes a proactive, zero tolerance approach to assholes.

Oh good another zero tolerance policy to be abused. That's forward thinking...

Look I don't like assholes as much as the next guy / gal (I mean asshole is an
insult so that's a no-brainer) but this post is just smack with the egocentric
quality they are against and just sounds naive.

------
cubano
Isn't it at least sort of true that one person's asshole could be another's
best friend?

Plus, we all have bad days...of course you shouldn't interview on one of those
but it could happen.

What if the person has no significant other at the time..does that
automatically make them an asshole?

------
onion2k
There's quite a good book called "Assholes: A Theory"[1] that explores why
some people are so hard to get along with, and more importantly why we _need_
people like that. Assholes are quite often a catalyst to change, both in the
sense mentioned in the article that they make you want to walk away from some
things, and in the sense that working with them can force changes to the
status quo in things that otherwise things will fail if they stayed as they
were.

[1]
[http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Assholes.html?id=GCqXH...](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Assholes.html?id=GCqXH6WQdVMC&redir_esc=y)

------
euphemize
For those who read till the end:

    
    
      The other test is to meet their significant other. What qualities did they choose in the person with whom has the most influence over them? We call these the “asshole acid test.
    

I like the idea, and would love to meet every candidate's SO, but I can't
imagine how this would work out well, practically speaking. I'm also thinking
in reverse - what if my SO's prospective employer requested to meet me -
knowingly that the hiring chances will depend on how they read my
personality...I'm not sure it's a great thing to put people through.

~~~
crazyjayd
I would imagine they have a big dinner, with drinks etc. Invite all
significant others (Candidates and Employers) to make it a kind of "fun"
thing. I would be super proud to have my future employers meet my SO. Also,
she's a really solid sounding board, and she could point out that the
employers are actually "assholes".

------
fenomas
It's bizarre how this article seems to suggest that "asshole" is some kind of
objective quality, rather than just a label we use for people we don't like.

I'd say anyone who has "rid their company of assholes" has simply fired the
people they dislike (while retaining people that somebody, somewhere, thinks
are assholes). To imagine otherwise would require a much more rigorous
definition of "asshole" than is evident in the article (it sounds like they've
basically gone with "I know it when I see it").

------
serve_yay
Well-intentioned of course, but I think people need to be vigilant against
this sort of thing ossifying into something less savory. Or in other words, it
is possible to be an asshole about being anti-asshole. I keep seeing that word
more and more in these discussions, and I noticed the phrase "no tolerance" is
used very heavily here. See how zero-tilerance worked for our schools.

------
tempodox
I see why adventur.es see the need to do something like this, but like all
methodologies, this recipe is liable to being hacked, cargo-culted, and used
as a weapon for assholes, believe it or not. There is no hope of measuring and
comparing objective data. I suspect, this is a far too simple answer to a real
problem. It was surely meant well, but it will end up producing worse.

(Edit: Typo)

------
jfoutz
I wonder if this is more about homogeneous cultural norms. If you respond to
criticism the similarly to the way I do, I can predict how to provide
effective criticism.

In a small team, i think the conventional wisdom is spot on - hire a really
good cultural fit, even in favor of technical chops.

In a larger organization you're inevitably going to have a wider distribution
of values simply because there are more people. At a some point the
organization needs to figure out how to get people to play nice together. The
larger the organization, the more tolerance for variance is required. I guess
if you're doing something really cool or are willing to pay a lot that can be
mitigated just because you'll have a larger pool of candidates.

Of course, you can't really figure out how people respond to stress until
they're stressed, which happens way way after they are hired. It's probably a
better heuristic to figure out how the organization can cope with wide
variance norms, rather than trying to pick people that act like me.

------
grandalf
Some people are too nice and others are too mean.

In the middle are people who can hold themselves and others accountable and
whose behavior cultivates a culture of respect and teamwork.

In my opinion, assholes are people whose behavior (intentional or not) shuts
down creativity and collaboration.

The key thing to understand is that companies learn as a team how to get the
desired results. This means people need to be able to communicate, to trust
their coworkers, to feel comfortable putting themselves out there, etc.
Success is made up of thousands of small interactions.

Assholes are people who get in the way of healthy team functioning by
bullying, trying to be right all the time, intimidating others, etc.

Some assholes are smart and have something to offer, but it should be weighed
against the cascade of downsides as well.

------
Corrector2
What checks are there to ensure that those enforcing the rule are (1)doing it
correctly, (2) not themselves a-holes?

And, assuming it's possible to implement this rule, how do you prevent
exploitation, and hence, extinction?

------
overgard
So there's this term I love that has sort of fallen out of use recently, but
it's useful in this conversation:

"grinfucker"

IE, the kind of person that is socially extremely polite and gracious, but
fucks you over in subtle ways.

I totally agree with the spirit of this article, but I think they've defined
"asshole" as "caustic person". I think the most corrosive people are actually
the grinfuckers -- the people that will smile at you one day and stab you in
the back the next. I like caustic people! They might be difficult in the
moment, but at least they're honest.

------
CapitalistCartr
Good article overall. Requiring to meet the "significant other" is illegal in
the Untied States. Marital status is taboo. I find a person's driving tells
the most about their personality.

------
alkonaut
Having a meal with someone is a great test to see if someone is an asshole. Of
course, very few will be such huge assholes that it shows up at the first
meal.

A better approach is to just keep a lookout when you scan their online profile
(which you _should_ ). Everyone will have some posts on
Twitter/HN/FB/Reddit/Disqus that they aren't proud of, but the assholes will
be immediately visible.

Having no visible trail on the Internet could be a sign that you are privact
concious but I'd go so far as to say it's a liability these days.

------
josephlord
Sounds a bit constipated to me.

To be serious it depends greatly on the definition of asshole. If it means
that racist, sexist, other discriminatory behaviour and general mean or
vindictive behaviour is not tolerated that is good. It does need to be careful
that it doesn't prevent disagreement and dissent when they are appropriate.
Really not keen on interviewing and judging on partners either. The question
of how they treat people of perceived lower status (waiting staff) is probably
valuable on the other hand.

------
ryandvm
Given that a number of the typical "asshole" traits fall under various
psychiatric diagnoses like Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Histrionic
Personality Disorder, I'm kind of surprised that we don't see more lawsuits
over firing people like that.

Not that I'm advocating that _every_single_person_ fall into a protected
class, but I do believe that most people's personalities are inherent. I
certainly don't know of any reformed assholes...

------
ChuckMcM
I think this is a useful policy but one danger to watch for is definition
creep. Any policy of exclusion can be unconsciously used to discriminate. And
that gets to the second challenge, is that the folks most likely to get along
are the ones with the most common set of life experiences and that can lead to
a lack of diversity as well.

------
madd_o
Of course, your realize the issue with a no asshole policy, right?

Everyone left is full of shit. <grin>

------
dinergy
I lived in Columbia, MO for nearly 10 years. It is absolutely full of
assholes. I wonder how they're still in business. :)

------
je42
What do you think about meeting the "significant other" as a test ?

------
jarcane
The responses to this thread remind me of nothing so much as this comic:
[http://amultiverse.com/comic/2015/01/05/its-about-
ethics/](http://amultiverse.com/comic/2015/01/05/its-about-ethics/)

