I've met two kinds of "brilliant jerks" in my working life. One is insufferable and makes the lives of his (it's usually a he) co-workers such a nightmare that they end up quitting. The other is abrasive but pushes his co-workers to achieve a higher level. I've even worked with one developer who was both and, while I hated every moment of working with him, I'm undoubtedly better at what I do now for having worked with him.
When I see opinion pieces like this, my first thought is always of the book "multipliers" which put forward (huge over-simplification) that you should strive to hire people who make their co-workers more productive. A jerk is often a strong individual contributor who detracts from the work of those around him. And to that extent, jerks should be avoided. But when a jerk is also a multiplier, they can drive achievement far greater than what would otherwise be achieved.
A good example of this is Steve Jobs who, by all accounts I've read, was a bit of a jerk, was abrasive and demanding, but also pushed his people to achieve amazing things, not just at Apple, but also Next and Pixar.
If you avoid the brilliant, jerky multipliers, you just might fail in the most enjoyable way possible.
> I've met two kinds of "brilliant jerks" in my working life.
I think this is a key point, along with ianbicking's observation that jerkness is often an environmental (rather than innate) phenomenon. Here's a quote many here might recognize.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"
Substitute "quality" or "progress" for "liberty" and you might see what I'm getting at. Some people are just jerks, full stop, end of story. They won't stop being jerks. They will continue to bring everyone down, so they're best gotten rid of. However, there are others who can exhibit many of the same outward behaviors because of context. Most often, the context is that people aren't listening. In an organization where there's a strong emphasis on empirical results, and even more so in one where there's a strong focus on learning, this "situational jerkness" doesn't occur. On the other hand, when people persist in doing things that are wrong despite every prior proof that it's wrong, others might get frustrated enough with them to start being jerks. Examples from my own experience might include:
* Repeatedly deferring fixes to a known serious problem, while resources are devoted to less important things.
* Re-submitting the same proposal or patch without fixing already-identified flaws.
* Persisting in collaborative anti-patterns such as pulling rank or announcing decisions made without all stakeholders present.
I've been a jerk myself, when faced with these kinds of situations. I'd have to be some kind of jerk not to push for change, when experience tells me that the status quo leads to a bad place. Sometimes passive aggression needs to be met with active aggression. When faced with being a jerk for good or a jerk for evil, I'll choose being a jerk for good. It's not a decision to be made lightly, and if it happens often then we're probably back in "permanent jerk" territory, but sometimes it's a decision that needs to be made anyway.
>One is insufferable and makes the lives of his (it's usually a he) co-workers such a nightmare that they end up quitting. The other is abrasive but pushes his co-workers to achieve a higher level.
See, the first guy is just a Junior Brilliant Jerk. He's slowly learning and will eventually turn into the Senior Brilliant Jerk if you give him enough time. The Senior Brilliant Jerk is the one that stays just within people's tolerances. But you can't become a Senior without being a Junior first, so sorry, you were just the one to give him some experience. :)
I might describe them as a "selfless jerk" vs a "selfish jerk". A selfless jerk cares about the company and team, and while is abrasive is always doing it for the right reasons, and is trying to be effective for the company. A selfish jerk is just a jerk who cares about themselves.
When I see opinion pieces like this, my first thought is always of the book "multipliers" which put forward (huge over-simplification) that you should strive to hire people who make their co-workers more productive. A jerk is often a strong individual contributor who detracts from the work of those around him. And to that extent, jerks should be avoided. But when a jerk is also a multiplier, they can drive achievement far greater than what would otherwise be achieved.
A good example of this is Steve Jobs who, by all accounts I've read, was a bit of a jerk, was abrasive and demanding, but also pushed his people to achieve amazing things, not just at Apple, but also Next and Pixar.
If you avoid the brilliant, jerky multipliers, you just might fail in the most enjoyable way possible.