"in other words : his technical brilliance, in my own opinion, was a far larger boon than the problems stemming from having to deal with his knife-like personality."
One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization.
The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run.
It also turns out you can be effective at dealing with people and still be brilliant, and it usually doesn't take a lot more than spending more energy in being self aware and trying to see the perspectives of others.
Sure, but every study i've ever read currently backs it.
If you are aware of any that say "very smart assholes make organizations better in the long run" or even "very smart assholes don't meaningfully hurt them in the long run", i'd actually love to see it!
(I hold the position i do precisely because it's backed by research, not just my own random thoughts and experiences)
Strong-personality-assholes have been making successful things for a very long time now (Linus, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, come to mind).
It's probably not that being an asshole is good. It's that if you are a genius/visionary and nice, your genius gets diluted by the people around you. Let's build a genius/asshole map:
1. Genius, non-asshole: You start a genius-level thing, it is brilliant and awesome. As it progresses, less brilliant people get involved. They start wanting power and influence. You know that the things they want to do kind of suck, but you're too nice to tell them that. Over time, they ascend to positions of power, because you, out of niceness, allow them to, and your thing descends into mediocrity.
2. Non-genius, asshole: You're just mean to everyone. If you start any sort of thing at all, it goes nowhere, because it's not very good, and nobody wants to work with you.
3. Non-genius, non-asshole: You're nice, but so are lots of people. This goes nowhere.
4. Genius, asshole: You start a brilliant thing, because you're brilliant. You're mean to people who deliver anything but the absolute best results. So who stays with you? People who always deliver the best results, or, alternatively, people so enamored with your genius or the thing you've created that they're willing to tolerate it. Congratulations, you've managed to filter your underlings to only the best and most passionate people - you have a high probability of achieving something great.
Note that this is not an endorsement of this behavior. Just an attempt at explaining why it is that these types of personalities seem so common among highly successful people.
Only when reducing the entire spectrum of personalities to your 2-bit representation, your argument holds.
However, what about a genious which politely replies something along the lines of "I'm very sorry but I don't think your contribution aligns with the goals and/or philosophy of this project.". That is not a nice nor an asshole response. After reading Linus' text, it seems to me he intends to get somewhere near this point.
> However, what about a genious which politely replies something along the lines of "I'm very sorry but I don't think your contribution aligns with the goals and/or philosophy of this project."
I agree that, in principle, someone could do that. But I think in practice the people who can stand firm in that response, while remaining polite over many years, are pretty unusual.
> However, what about a genious which politely replies something along the lines of "I'm very sorry but I don't think your contribution aligns with the goals and/or philosophy of this project.".
Do you really think you can provide that kind of consistent response to different types of people? Your reply is most of the time dependent on the people you are interacting. It is very easy to draw a nice person to a fight or being rude. It is very hard to analyze because the scenario sample space is infinite.
I wanted to say something similar to this. But I think you articulated it much better than I could have.
I think that now, today, Linus could afford to be less of an asshole. But I honestly wonder if the project would've have succeeded so well without him being so strict and demanding in the beginning.
EDIT: Yes, I think that it is possible to be strict and demanding without doing ad-hominem attacks and without swearing. It's just that it's very rare.
Do you have a larger set than just famous assholes? Its entirely possible they represent the exception and not the rule. In fact since they themselves then to be extraordinary I would believe that they are influential in spite of being an asshole instead of because of it.
I'm not trying to make a real empirical claim. It may very well not be true that they are over-represented among highly successful people. It may be that they're simply better known, because they're such strong personalities. Would be curious as you are to see some data if anyone has it.
What research? This seems pretty much impossible to scientifically measure since there are no two organizations that are the same, let alone two organizations that have leaders identical in everything but their attitude.
This takes on a particularly hilarious tone now that lots of people assemble their own computers.
Obviously, that quote is utter hogwash, but it might be worth saying explicitly, at least for HN culture: cooperation is essential, and would you cooperate with an asshole?
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
Wouldn't Steve Jobs be a counterexample to this? And possibly Bill Gates?
No, actually (at least, IMHO). Jobs organization failed more than once due to him?
Remember that Apple (etc) have been troubled at many times through their history with him at the helm :)
Gates also eventually left in part because he was doing more harm than good (and has tried to turn himself into a more reasonable person it seems).
Compare that to the organization that MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole?
I'm certainly not going to claim you can't make a successful company or organization by being a brilliant asshole.
I'm only claiming it eventually catches up with you, and over time, ends up a net negative for the organization.
No, as I said, i think it eventually would have caught up with them and ended up a net negative compared to not being an asshole.
It did in the past, why would it not in the future?
To give an example: Elon clearly drives tesla in it's current position. Do you think at some point he will not be a clear net negative to the organization?
(It's also interesting to me that essentially the only counterexamples people have tried to raise are CEO's - i'm curious if this means people believe what i say is true for lower levels but not founders/ceos/etc, or what)
Suggesting the largest philanthropic donor in history (Bill Gates at 27 billion USD) is an asshole ('MS is now under a leader who isn't an asshole') seems like an oversimplification.
I don't have the time to find the comment now, but being the largest philanthropic donor does NOT infact make up for being an asshole or the amount of damage microsoft has done to the computing industry.
Am I downplaying his donations? Not at all. It's just that doing a good thing does not cancel out the bad.
Doing a good thing doesn't cancel out the bad, but I don't think it's fair to anonymously call people assholes on the Internet when they are actively trying, and succeeding, at doing good in the world. Especially when their sins are immaterial things like whatever damage you think MS did to the computer industry.
It depends on how you define arsehole I guess. When it comes to how well an organisation works I've found there are only two things that matter. The first is how good the people there are at their jobs. (If most people are competent, there has been some pretty ruthless pruning going on which is not pleasant when it happens.)
The second is what people are working for - which is to say themselves or the firm. My definition of an "arsehole" is someone who fights to get themselves up the corporate ladder, treating the exercise as a zero sum game. So if they see someone above them occupying a desirable spot, they will back stab, white ant them in an effort to dislodge them from the spot so they can take it.
All this has very little to do with their demeanour. Some people are good at communicating. Some are bloody hopeless. It's nice to deal with people that area really good at handling others of course, but you can't be an expert at everything and if someone is really good at a particular thing it's often because they have a passion for it, focusing a great deal of their time on it. If that area happens to be technical that means they have spent effort on it rather than most other on learning how to interact with others.
Sadly, people who devote most of their efforts at shaking the corporate tree do others fall off it are usually very good at interacting with others. Being effective at manipulating others sort of requires it. The worse of them, psychopaths, are well known for their superficial charm.
Time cures most things and in the end smart people learn the easiest path through life despite their obsession with other things. When it comes to interacting with others, that means learning to use words that engender cooperation rather than conflict. It appears Linus has reached this point. That he did is testament to just how good he is. Most of us can learn these things by watching our superiors over time. (If these people are good at their job, they will both be very good a getting people to work together and instilling it others.) Linus didn't have a corporate ethos he could learn from. He's had to invent it himself.
So we end up at the curious juncture were some introvert who spends all their time playing with things rather than people is likely to be a good asset to the organisation and if given time (decades) will learn how to interact well with others to. A psychopath on the other hand who is focused on human interactions and is really good at it, but if the firm is to survive should be excised at the earliest opportunity.
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole. It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization.
I dunno, Steve Jobs sure managed for a long time. I think they quite often end up being a net negative for the people who work there, but I don't think it necessarily hurts the organization (though maybe it should sometimes).
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
All successful organizations? Really? Definitely not hyperbole.
Even here it's clear that Linus hasn't been a net negative, not even close.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Personally I take the anti-jerk sentiment with a grain of salt. People like you were probably just manhandled by one like ten years ago and still haven't let it go.
> One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
One thing that is true in all successful organizations over time is that for any given person, no amount of genius will make up for being an asshole.
It may take time, etc, but eventually, it ends up a significant net negative for the organization.
The sooner folks are forced to deal with it, the better off the organization ends up in the long run.
It also turns out you can be effective at dealing with people and still be brilliant, and it usually doesn't take a lot more than spending more energy in being self aware and trying to see the perspectives of others.