Gorgeous assholes in the making

Many of us have worked with them - with moron developers who do a great job, but treat others like garbage. Under the cut a couple of remarkable stories and a glade for discussion.

In some companies, these people refuse to hire (for example, Netflix has a rule of " No Brilliant Jerks " - one of the many reasons I joined the company). You can mention the Amazon policy " No Asshole Rule ", popularized by the same book.
')
It has such a test :

1. After talking with a person, do people feel depressed or humiliated, or feel that they were somehow treated badly?
2. Does the person attack those less influential than he / she?

Here is a test check for you or your company: you will endure a wonderful developer with the character of mu ... ka? (or a more polite version: will you tolerate a gorgeous idiot?)

There are many opinions and articles on this subject, including " Great assholes are not worth it " and " It is better not to take an unpleasant employee than to hire a superstar ." My colleague Justin Becker spoke at QConSF 2017 with the report “ Am I a great dork? ".

I have to say that people understand the term “ gorgeous moron ” differently. To avoid interpretations, I will describe two types of magnificent idiots - selfless and selfish, and also tell you about the features of their behavior. And then we will discuss the harm done by these people, and what to do with them.

The characters described are fictional . These are not two real people, but collective images, the behavior of which we will consider, not limited to the “no asshole rule” rule.

Fictional Alice, unselfish gorgeous jerk

Alice is a great developer. Alice cares about the company. She is straightforward and honest. If she believes that the unpopular opinion will be right for the company, she will express this opinion without hesitation. She will even put pressure on others to be supported, often reaching the meanness. Alice will clarify that she does not want evil, that her intentions are initially correct, and that her mean behavior should not harm the company anyway. Alice has difficulty with empathy, she doesn’t recognize other people's emotions, and she doesn’t see much sense in it.



Alice works great alone on difficult tasks. She gets along well with her immediate team and boss who understands the characteristics of her character. But she has a strained relationship with those who encounter only from time to time. Outside of her team, Alice has a reputation as an idiot; people try not to work with her.

Alice has no equal in fixing difficult bugs, writing test packages, merging code, and other non-glamorous work. If a company needs to do something, Alice will be happy to help, and she will not care if it will contribute to her career.

Although selfless assholes in general can be useful for a company, it can be more confusing if they realize that kindness and politeness increase productivity. This topic was raised in the article " Be kind ." In different companies, Alice’s behavior will either be tolerated or not (most of my reviewers have said no, one hesitated). Startups can be patient with Alice, for example, if the company is so small that everyone knows Alice and understands what to expect from her.

But I described unselfish idiots mainly to emphasize the peculiarities of selfish idiots.

Fictional Bob, selfish gorgeous jerk

Bob is a great developer. Bob takes care of Bob. He is selfish, devoid of empathy and endowed with delusions of grandeur. He believes that any behavior is justified if it benefits him, including insults and the use of other people, and he does not feel guilty or regretful.

He can be charming and charismatic when he wants to get his way, so people can ignore or forgive his bad behavior.



Below I have listed a list of traits characteristic of Bob, an extreme case of a great moron developer. Not every great jerk demonstrates the whole range of described behavior, but I personally came across all the listed manifestations.

Bob interrupts others, ignores their opinion. He considers himself the most important person in the room, he does not give a damn that others need to say something, he often interrupts them. He can paralyze a meeting by starting to tell a long story in which he praises himself. At the same time, less assertive people fall silent, even if their opinion at this meeting is more important.

Bob does only the work that brings him benefits . He can work well on a difficult task, but only if he likes it, or does it help his career, or does he “advertise” his previous work. He creates new projects and immediately demands recognition, but leaves it to the end to others, while avoiding responsibility in case of failure. He amazingly convinces the company to allow him to do what he wants, even if it does not take into account the requirements of the market or the past performance of Bob himself. He never seriously teaches or supervises other employees — he does not see any benefit in this for his career.

Bob oppresses, humiliates and oppresses others. In contests with non-technicians, he wins, fooling them with unnecessary technical details, making people feel like fools. When communicating with younger tech-workers, Bob likes to make fun of their ideas, showing people in every way what kind of idiots they are and how smart they are. When his technical knowledge and skills are required, Bob makes others beg and beg his help, thereby humiliating again. When someone makes a mistake, Bob enjoys in every possible way shaming, gushing with sarcasm and witty insults. When arguing, he uses the same rhetoric, trying to win at any cost.



Bob loves to show his superiority over the teams. He likes to demonstrate his importance and impunity, including through pure rudeness. He is late for meetings (deliberately), lifts his legs, and then stares at a smartphone or laptop, ignoring everyone around him. Sometimes makes obscene remarks in the office, bragging: "If someone else said this, he would have been fired!" Bob also insists that he has the best computer / laptop / monitor, thus demonstrating his status.

Bob is trying to assert his authority throughout the company , including those areas in which he does not understand anything. If he cannot control something, he denigrates it. For example, being a developer, argues that marketers are idiots, useless, unnecessary, and that "anyone can do it."

Bob is negative about everything. He scolds other technologies and companies, speaks ill of people about his eyes, always finding something ugly to say. He raises his status by criticizing other people. He denounces technologies that do not use the fruits of his own labor or do not meet his convictions. Other developers avoid using new technology for fear of Bob's ridicule.



Bob manipulates and confuses. Sometimes it does it subtly, presenting the incident in such a way as to mislead people. In some cases, he just lies, so confidently and aggressively, that he is almost always trusted. He upholds his preferences and opinions as facts.

Bob uses physical pressure. He stares at the eyes of those who do not like him, and can invade personal space. It can also make aggressive gestures, such as knocking a fist on the table.

Because of Bob, some good employees left the company . Some developers were fed up with Bob and quit. Talented expelled by Bob, so as not to threaten his position in the company. Bob demonizes the departed, attributing past failures to them, and success to the rest, especially to himself. So he convinces the bosses that leaving those employees was a boon to the company, making it difficult to understand that the real problem was Bob himself. If you ask some of those who quit, they will give other reasons for leaving, hoping to avoid being blackened by Bob.

Bob speaks well - about himself . Since he is a great developer and a great speaker, Bob often speaks at conferences and meetings. From the stage, he talks about his merits, twisting stories in his favor, attributing to himself the merits of others - if not brazenly, then silently or indirectly. Outside the company, he has a group of sworn followers who glorify and deify him, and he enjoys working with them. He really likes people from the side.



Bob exploits the junior : he finds those who admire his magnificence and convinces him to do work that promotes Bob’s ideas and projects, reflecting his fame. Juniors are so bogged down in promoting Bob’s career that they lack the time and energy for their own careers.
Bob is a bad role model. Bob can ruin the whole team by becoming a bad role model. Those who extol Bob begin to behave like him, humiliate and insult others, hoping for his approval and wanting to become like Bob. Other people just use it as an excuse for their current bad behavior: if Bob can, then I can.

Some employees become accomplices of Bob and cover his antics . They watch Bob humiliate and defame others, but do nothing. Or laugh, encouraging such behavior Bob. He likes to surround himself with such sycophants. Or they may be reasonable people, but not yet aware that they have witnessed ill-treatment. They can openly defend Bob and deny that he was wrong with someone, smooth out the accusations, or even fool the victims of Bob (“everyone is sometimes jerks”).

Bob refuses to change his behavior . He knows that he is unpleasant to people, but "these are their problems." I repeat: I personally encountered all such types of behavior, communicating with numerous magnificent assholes. Bob is a completely fictional character that I endowed with all the features. In life, someone may behave in something like a bob, but this person is not necessarily a jerk. However, if you notice in your colleague — or in yourself — much of what is described, then yes, it is probably a jerk of the highest standard.

Some readers have told me that Bob looks too incredible: no one can be so bad! They were just lucky not to run into Bob, from which we can conclude: your idea of ​​a “magnificent asshole” may differ from the impressions of those who actually worked with him or with another type of asshole.

What troubles bring great assholes

Alice, selfless idiot :

• Hurt or offend some of your employees with your attitude.
• Causes his team and chief to spend forces on Alice's fencing from other employees.
• Alice's projects may be less successful if others avoid working with her.
• No one wants to ask Alice questions, so her knowledge is often unclaimed.

In addition to this, Bob can bring such troubles :

• Bob drowns out the opinions of other specialists, reduces the company's overall technical IQ.
• People have to finish projects abandoned by Bob.
• Bob demoralizes many employees, their productivity decreases.
• Bob provokes stress, psychological and physical problems with his victims.
• Because of Bob, some employees may miss work, for example, affecting patients.
• Because of Bob, people quit and no longer return to the company.
• Bob can strengthen competitors because those will hire retired employees.
• Because of Bob, it’s harder to hire good new employees (word of mouth).
• Bob deprives the company of clients and investors (word of mouth).
• Some employees build workflows to avoid Bob, which reduces the effectiveness of the company.
• Someone can sabotage Bob's work, which means sabotage the company itself.
• Bob inspires some employees to behave just like him, which only worsens the situation.
• Bob creates a hostile work environment fraught with lawsuits.

In the second chapter of the book “The No Asshole Rule” more details are described (but not about the developers), and how to calculate the TCA (Total Cost of Assholes) - Total expenses for money in your organization.

How to be gorgeous assholes

Here we need to solve two problems: to help the victims of idiots and those who unwittingly watched their antics, and do something with the idiots themselves. You will not cover both topics in short, so I will go over the top.

In some companies, no one tells Alice and Bob that their behavior is unacceptable. Everyone sees how they behave, but they tolerate it because Alice and Bob are so gorgeous and valuable. This is mistake! The company must openly declare a policy of intransigence to the magnificent assholes. At Netflix, this has become part of a presentation about the company's culture :

There are no “gorgeous assholes” in the dream team. They hit too hard on the teamwork. In our opinion, great people can also act like human beings, and we insist on it. When highly gifted people work together, hand in hand, they inspire each other, mutually increase productivity, and teams work much more efficiently than groups of individuals.

This is not some useless blessed text from an unknown source: it was originally published under the CEO of Reed Hastings’s SlideShare account . For such a policy to be effective, you may need support at the top. All candidates for work at Netflix should read the memo about the company's culture, they are warned that we take this seriously. Although the memo gives people to understand that the company does not tolerate idiots, this does not mean that idiots will not be able to slip: Bob is gorgeous and charismatic, therefore, he will most likely pass the interview. But then he will find that the new colleagues are not ready to put up with his behavior and openly talk about it.

In my three years at Netflix, I haven't met a single gorgeous idiot. Company policy is working, and that's great. If someone like this was hired during this time, then these people either changed or left before I ran into them.



Some gorgeous assholes may take the path of correction. Alice may realize that her behavior harms the company she worries about. Alice should be encouraged to develop empathy, supporting positive emotions in her and motivating her to work hard. My colleague Justin Becker talked about this in detail in his speech at QCon, touching on the topic of emotional intelligence. In the next chapter I will share an example.

As for Bob, he needs to say that his behavior harms people and the company, and to give the opportunity to change. But he, most likely, will not care. He is sure that “the good guys are losing,” and the role of the jerk always helped him. Bob’s superiors can change this mental equation, controlling everything Bob is aiming for: you can let him work on his projects and perform on stage, promote and pay bonuses, and not fire him at all.

“I'd rather have a hole in my organization than an asshole.”
- Fred Wilson, Velocity NY 2013 keynote .

If you are a colleague / victim / witness, then inform the authorities about the behavior of Bob. But it is hardly worth demanding his dismissal (among other things, what if one day you yourself will be considered a Bob?).

Tell the authorities, but let them decide what to do. In fact, the dismissal of a magnificent jerk is a complex topic that requires a separate article written by a manager who has already solved such problems. Usually you need to follow a specific procedure, which Bob can use and show that he has become better, trying to save work. But then he will return to his former behavior. He can even convince his bosses that his knowledge and reputation are so important that the company will be bent without him. This is not the case, but such concerns may cause management to hesitate.

Managers themselves must be convinced that Bob’s behavior cannot be tolerated, regardless of his dignity. In some companies, you will have to realize the harm Bob is doing (see above) in order to justify further actions. If the company has already adopted an open policy “without superb idiots”, then managers find it easier to cope with such employees, because they will not have to convince anyone of their harm: this is already stated in the company's policy.



Regular one-on-one meetings, scheduled meetings with teams that are not subordinate to him, will help inform the authorities about the dangers of the idiot for the company. In Netflix, the order is this: once every two weeks I meet with my boss, once a month with his boss, and at least once a year with an even higher boss. That is, I communicate directly with the leaders on three levels directly and alone, without even asking for a meeting. Also in our company it is customary to speak with others directly and honestly, to interfere if you notice unpleasant behavior, leading the proceedings down to the level of the CEO.

As for public speaking, Bob likes to be the face of the company. But you need to give others the opportunity to speak, if they want to, to help develop public speaking skills so that Bob is not the only good speaker. Conference organizers can also adhere to the policy “without great assholes” (some already do this), so other participants can avoid conferences where famous assholes are going to speak. If Alice needs to learn empathy, then Bob needs to also stop being an egoist, in particular, without interfering with others acting on behalf of the company or participating in other projects.

When I behaved like a jerk

Many people sometimes act like Alice, and you can just discuss it with them (with the real Alice, this will be more difficult because of her default behavior). I will give an example from my experience when I myself behaved like a jerk.

Once, one of the developers made a big mistake in a field in which I was well-versed, after which I sent a letter in which I evaded responsibility and did not suggest ways to correct it. I was furious and called the developer: I wanted to make him understand that he had made a big mistake, and instruct him to let him be true. I was rude, scolded him. I did not like it myself, but it seemed that I was doing a good thing for the company and solving the problem.



A week later, I suddenly received a call from the head of this developer. He said that he knew about my call, although technically I was not wrong, but did I know that after our conversation the developer cannot recover, he is demotivated, everything falls out of his hands; Have you deliberately brought this up? No, of course not. The caller continued: do not you think that you could talk with my co-worker in a different way so that after talking with you the person would have a positive attitude that he would want to correct the error? Yes, probably could. Good. Please do this in the future. And I did.

This telephone conversation lasted less than two minutes and acted immediately. I suspect that the man has already conducted such conversations. Please note that he did not accuse me of being a moron, but asked two questions that essentially meant: 1) do you intend to harm the company? and 2) are you able to keep a low profile? And for each question there is only one correct answer. If he had told me “you are a jerk,” I could answer “nothing of the kind” by asking questions, he made me reflect on the answers, including self-reflection in me.

Additional topics

There are a few more topics that I didn’t talk about, but they cannot but mention:

• What about assholes in open source communities? I recommend reading the article " No more rock stars, " which describes a rock star very similar to Bob.
• What about bob boss? Bob may seek promotion and may be offered a leadership position. This will cause the company more harm. Bob the boss exploits and terrorizes his subordinates. This is a topic for a great article.
• What about Bob's sexual harassment? Will Bob harass, given his delusions of grandeur and a sense of self-righteousness ( Al Capone Theory ), or is he smart enough not to go so far? Or he just does not belong to this kind of idiots? I do not know. I did not come across this, so I did not write.
• What about those juniors? Those whom Bob exploited for his own selfish purposes. This is another big topic. You can read here , here and here (from this article I borrowed the words “reflect glory”).
• Is Bob really great? This is not so easy to answer as Bob claims glory for the work of others. He also makes enemies in his industry, and some employees even sabotage Bob's work. In the long run, it will hurt his career. Not a great result, I must say.
• ? . , , , , , . : « « » , , , . , ».
• , ? Yes. Fortunately, they are few. , , . , , . , .
• ? Complex issue. Is Shame Necessary , . . , , . , : , . , , .
• , ? , , . , , . « ? "

Conclusion

? : . , . . - , , , , ( ).

- , . . , , , . . , (, ).

« … », — « ». , : , , — « », , , ? , , : .