8 ms·

I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. rude, dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile behavior) is not the source of the b

by detry 11y ago

I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. rude, dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile behavior) is not the source of the benefits but are often seen together. "Assholes" don't care what other people think and they don't seek validation from them. As a corollary they don't tone down their opinions nor do they mind confrontation. Since they express their opinions with confidence, they seem smarter. Assholes can take advantage of people, since most people want to please others to some degree. There are also people who don't try please people, but don't engage in the anti-social behavior assholes do. It's not the Nice vs the Assholes. In my opinion too much niceness can be a hindrance. Taking delicate care that you express your opinions in a way that doesn't upset or offend anybody is great for that warm good-feel between everybody but doesn't pave the way for real progress. People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Likewise they should learn to give straight-up, even harsh critique.

bjt 11y ago
There is a pretty well documented bias that people tend to think that negative people are smarter than positive ones. I think the critical/dismissive breed of assholes are playing into that. I agree with the author that if left unchecked, this can result in a toxic culture. http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402
marcus_holmes 11y ago
I disagree. There is no correlation between "real progress" and "not upsetting people". There is clear, documented evidence that toxic teams and cultures are less productive than teams with high diversity that listen to each other and are safe to express opinions in. I would link it but you're probably not going to read it or listen to anyone else's opinions so you can google it yourself. It's Tragedy of Commons stuff: there are marginal benefits to the individual of behaving like an asshole, but the group suffers.
- jdc 11y ago
  I would be interested in reading said documented evidence.
- detry 11y ago
  I'd be interested in reading about that. A brief search yielded research about effects of diversity on team performance, but I couldn't find articles on toxic or hostile cultures.
wpietri 11y ago
> People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Well, my straight-up critique is that you're trying to pass your personal preference off as some sort of broad rule, and I think that's bunk. If you like being a jerk, godspeed. But other people get to think that you're a jerk and ignore you if they want. > Taking delicate care [...] but doesn't pave the way for real progress. That's the opposite of my experience. My simple model for it is "trust credit". If I'm generally kind and respectful, if I usually work to create good feelings, then I slowly build up trust credit. The more trust credit I have, the more people are willing to listen to difficult truths from me. Today at work we did a project retrospective covering more than a year of work. There were a lot of difficult things to say. But what got us through was all the effort we put into building strong relationships as we worked together.
- mafribe 11y ago
  You can only build up trust credit over extended periods of time. In modern, globalised science, you often have to deal with people you've never met before, and may never meet again. This requires a different approach critique. What counts as an acceptable critique is part of the core methodology of each scientific discipline, and differs with subject matter. In mathematically oriented fields one can often come up with clearcut counterexamples as a way to criticise a statement. This is not so simple in humanities. One may wonder if the dismissal of critique as AH-behaviour may also be a social strategy to dismiss criticism. It is not surprising that the author of the original article has a humanities background.
  - leoc 11y ago
    I'm not sure what position you're arguing here. But if it is that chest-puffing confrontational behaviour is less common or less effective at "winning fights" in areas which lack clear-cut standards of proof I think the opposite is the case.
- detry 11y ago
  It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that are unlikable. That's fine. But how much does that improve performance or enable progress? What is the optimal amount of likability for healthy workplace that performs well? Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't result in a bad work environment. I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment, but I don't know how much it matters for performance.

by detry 11y ago

bjt 11y ago

There is a pretty well documented bias that people tend to think that negative people are smarter than positive ones. I think the critical/dismissive breed of assholes are playing into that. I agree with the author that if left unchecked, this can result in a toxic culture. http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.wired.com/2014/11/be-mean-online/ http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402 http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7402

marcus_holmes 11y ago

I disagree. There is no correlation between "real progress" and "not upsetting people". There is clear, documented evidence that toxic teams and cultures are less productive than teams with high diversity that listen to each other and are safe to express opinions in. I would link it but you're probably not going to read it or listen to anyone else's opinions so you can google it yourself. It's Tragedy of Commons stuff: there are marginal benefits to the individual of behaving like an asshole, but the group suffers.

jdc 11y ago
I would be interested in reading said documented evidence.
detry 11y ago
I'd be interested in reading about that. A brief search yielded research about effects of diversity on team performance, but I couldn't find articles on toxic or hostile cultures.

wpietri 11y ago

> People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Well, my straight-up critique is that you're trying to pass your personal preference off as some sort of broad rule, and I think that's bunk. If you like being a jerk, godspeed. But other people get to think that you're a jerk and ignore you if they want. > Taking delicate care [...] but doesn't pave the way for real progress. That's the opposite of my experience. My simple model for it is "trust credit". If I'm generally kind and respectful, if I usually work to create good feelings, then I slowly build up trust credit. The more trust credit I have, the more people are willing to listen to difficult truths from me. Today at work we did a project retrospective covering more than a year of work. There were a lot of difficult things to say. But what got us through was all the effort we put into building strong relationships as we worked together.

mafribe 11y ago
You can only build up trust credit over extended periods of time. In modern, globalised science, you often have to deal with people you've never met before, and may never meet again. This requires a different approach critique. What counts as an acceptable critique is part of the core methodology of each scientific discipline, and differs with subject matter. In mathematically oriented fields one can often come up with clearcut counterexamples as a way to criticise a statement. This is not so simple in humanities. One may wonder if the dismissal of critique as AH-behaviour may also be a social strategy to dismiss criticism. It is not surprising that the author of the original article has a humanities background.
- leoc 11y ago
  I'm not sure what position you're arguing here. But if it is that chest-puffing confrontational behaviour is less common or less effective at "winning fights" in areas which lack clear-cut standards of proof I think the opposite is the case.
detry 11y ago
It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that are unlikable. That's fine. But how much does that improve performance or enable progress? What is the optimal amount of likability for healthy workplace that performs well? Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't result in a bad work environment. I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment, but I don't know how much it matters for performance.