What Should Start-Ups Do With the Brilliant Jerk?

Do unto others by dietdew7 · 2012-09-27 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

as you would have them do unto you.

Re:Do unto others by Jeng · 2012-09-27 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

as you would have them do unto you.

There are things some people want done to them that I do not want done to me.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Do unto others by Type44Q · 2012-09-27 06:00 · Score: 2

There are things some people want done to them that I do not want done to me.
Showered a lot in the Navy, did you?
Re:Do unto others by Instine · 2012-09-27 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

what should a brilliant jerk do with a start up might be the real question. If they're brilliant, it will probably be up to them in reallity.

--
Because you can - or because you should?
Re:Do unto others by Tablizer · 2012-09-27 08:15 · Score: 3

There are things some people want done to them that I do not want done to me.
WARNING: High-Risk-Of-TMI Zone has been reached. Click with caution.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Do unto others by Homr+Zodyssey · 2012-09-27 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

If we remove the adjective "Brilliant", it seems that the original post is saying that people who produce things are jerks and business people aren't. That would be the opposite of my experience.
It also sounds like he's saying, "We have a guy who did all the work to get us off the ground. He's not as necessary anymore, so the PHBs want to sideline him and reap the benefits of his hard work."
Perhaps you should think about giving HIM a golden parachute like you would one of your "Brilliant Business People" buddies.
Re:Do unto others by sa666_666 · 2012-09-27 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Isn't this how most business people think? IME, I've never in my life encountered a group of people who are so prejudiced toward those that actually do the work. And the further one is removed from actually getting their hands 'dirty' and doing something, the more they're praised. No wonder society is so screwed up.
Re:Do unto others by Penguinisto · 2012-09-27 10:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

I recall seeing that happen once at a previous job. Four of us, and one gent who acted as leader/purchaser/fill-in-admin/etc, basically built an entire IT infrastructure from the ground up. Then the PTB hired this reject VP from a huge F500 corp as the new IT Director. Everything immediately goes to shit as he starts slinging around acronyms and demands that were workable for huge orgs like the one he just left, but were impossible for a tiny IT department to implement properly in the deadlines he wanted. To top that off, he whips out the microscope, looking for something - anything - to hold over each of our heads as a threat and as a consolidation of power. It just got uglier from there. It took a development admin suffering a stroke, and a sysadmin getting a heart attack before this jackass would get a clue and hire some help to fulfill his ever-increasing list of demands. Given the economy at the time, other jobs were impossible to find, so we were stuck for awhile.
There's only one person out of the original crew left, and she's likely to be gone once her degree is complete. The rest of us said 'fuck it' and pulled the D-Ring on his ass at the first graceful opportunity (and some even sooner). Last I heard their expenses went way up since most of us left (having to hire consultants all the time to fix even minor breaks is a bitch, I guess).
Eventually shit hits the fan for such people. OTOH, even if it doesn't, no skin offa mine - the job I left them for came with a huge raise, a mere 30% of the workload, and telecommuting. First 3 months felt like an effing vacation to me.
But yeah, the corp was shifting from start-up (of sorts) to full-blown. Thing is, unless someone takes control of the situation, it'll eventually crash - either figuratively (budget) or literally (as systems crap out).

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Do unto others by Hognoxious · 2012-09-27 13:58 · Score: 2

If we remove the adjective "Brilliant", it seems that the original post is saying that people who produce things are jerks and business people aren't.
Removing an adjective from a sentence can change its meaning by a non-trivial amount.
So while what you say is true, I don't see what [non-obvious] point you're trying to make.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Do unto others by Mandrel · 2012-09-27 16:55 · Score: 2

as you would have them do unto you.
There are things some people want done to them that I do not want done to me.
This is actually quite true. We should treat others according to our best estimate of how they'd like to be treated. The original proverb selfishly judges actions in terms of our own preferences.
Re:Do unto others by mjwx · 2012-09-27 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

The first thing you do is stop refeing to them as jerks.

From the article,

When he spoke, everyone became quiet and listened â" not out of excitement for what he was going to say but out of respect.

He was always the first to cover for doctors who were on call. He was always the first to volunteer to work on holidays
This is a jerk?

I think the "boss" blogger needs to get up and have a big cup of reality.

This is the complete opposite of a jerk, the kind of person who keeps the business ticking along as usual no matter what is thrown in his way. The kind of person you dont want to piss off into leaving by calling them a jerk behind their back.

So he hasn't got much business acumen, that's not his job, that's yours (the boss). Chances are you know fsck all about his job and would have a very hard time replacing him.

You dont find something to "do" with a person like this, you give them something to do. Finding the work is not his problem, making sure the P&L statements look good is not his problem. His problem is doing the work that your clients pay for.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Do unto others by tehcyder · 2012-09-27 21:43 · Score: 2

The US military has lots of non-citizens in it. In fact, that's one of the easiest and most direct way for foreigners to become a citizen. Serve a complete term in the military and its automatic with no tests or anything.
Sounds like Starship Troopers. Interesting...

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

easy by hypergreatthing · 2012-09-27 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

brilliant business people are the opposite of productive.
Jerk in any way shape or form is not needed in any business.

Re:easy by hypergreatthing · 2012-09-27 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

brilliant business people are the opposite of productive.
That's an ignorent statement.
The whole point of being a brilliant business person is to let others produce for you while taking full credit/full benefit from it while exerting the least amount of time making that happen.
And i'm fairly sure it's ignorant.
Re:easy by udachny · 2012-09-27 05:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

The whole point of being a brilliant business person is to see an opportunity and to be able to take it in order to make profit from doing something that the market wants.
Of-course in the absence of free market there are other possibilities, like buying influence from politicians to establish yourself as a monopoly.
Your "definition" doesn't cut it at all. Workers don't produce out of nowhere, they have to be hired and told what to do and before they can be hired there has to be a case made to hire them, savings have to be allocated to hire them, tools have to be acquired so that the workers can be productive. Throw a bunch of 'workers' together without any purpose, capital, tools and management and see how far that takes you in terms of productivity.
People who take the most business risk are not those who accept salaried positions for jobs that somebody thinks to be necessary to make more profit, it's people who take the risk in terms of putting in their own savings, capital, time and effort into a venture that nobody ever guarantees to be a winner.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Re:easy by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-09-27 05:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Proof positive my manager is slacking off and posting on slashdot.. hey, Karl, get back to work, asshole.
Re:easy by garyisabusyguy · 2012-09-27 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I got mine about 3 years ago, it is part of my transition from technical 'jerk' to affable manager
A 'good' businessman is part PT Barnum and part Blackbeard the pirate, it takes a lot of puffery and cut throat decision making to get a business afloat and frankly, 20 odd years of writing code and jockeying servers really had not prepared me for it.
As a technical person I was looked at as essential to the success of the company, but it was a bit of a risk to bring me into business meetings since I might quote something out of Alice in Wonderland, identify the immediate failings of our business plan or rant about the need to spend a bunch of money to shore up security before doing anything else... stuff that business-people would rather ignore once that they are in PT Barnum mode
My solution is a technical one... put your technical jerks in a DMZ, control your ports of access in and out of the DMZ, give them the resources that they need and (if you really want to trot them out in public) invest a few years in preparing them to be 'seen' by non-techies
BTW, if you really think that all of the 'jerks' are technical and not the business people, then you are missing out on the other half of the story

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Re:easy by SilentStaid · 2012-09-27 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not that I'm trying to exonerate the PHBs of the world, but having a good leader who is able to focus a team towards a goal, and more specificially a financially worth while goal all while maintaining motiviation and finishing with a polished execution is so very far from trying to exert the least amount of energy.

Business people and bosses aren't inherently lazy by nature - you've just got a bad one.
Re:easy by Urza9814 · 2012-09-27 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Throw a bunch of 'workers' together without any purpose, capital, tools and management and see how far that takes you in terms of productivity.
Pretty far, actually...
Re:easy by udachny · 2012-09-27 06:20 · Score: 2

The whole point of being a brilliant business person is to see an opportunity and to be able to take it in order to make profit from having other people do something that the market wants.
- pure nonsense.
In fact if a businessman can do everything that needs to be done in order to make profit on his own without hiring A SINGLE OTHER PERSON he would do it, he'd make more money if it was possible not to hire anybody at all. If the businessman has enough capital to automate all of the production, then all he needs to do is to buy the machinery and get some contractors to install it, put it into operation, he pays them for the job and he starts producing.
Unfortunately for us (all of us) it's not possible to automate every job, otherwise it would make for the most efficient and productive economy.

Absolute unabashed bullshit. People have "produced" since before we came down from the trees.

- of-course people produced before they were hired, but they didn't OVERPRODUCE. So you are completely missing a point of running a business, which is not to produce just for yourself. A business gives to everybody, a businessman starts a business not just to produce enough for himself, he has to overproduce, he has to produce more than one person can consume, otherwise it's not a business, it is just subsistence.

but his actual direct role amounts to nothing more than that of a parasite.
- this is political nonsense, it has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is that no business will survive without direction, without management that provides that direction. No business can stay profitable by not knowing which way to go. Apple computers could have easily died a number of times if it wasn't for a very good manager (whether he is lucky or good is not really relevant and it is also indistinguishable just by looking at the results).
A parasite is what is created by the government, the government itself is a parasite, it produces nothing, it takes from producers, it promises to give to people who didn't produce part of wealth created by the people who do produce.

We made it to all seven continents, to the top of the food chain, and discovered beer before "business" started taking a cut. Far enough for ya?
- business doesn't "take a cut", business creates what wasn't there before.
Beer is as much about business as any other product. Discovering something is not necessarily business in itself, but turning it into something that anybody can then consume does take business. It takes productivity, it takes engineering, it takes trade, it takes accounting, it takes very good management, because all of the above cannot survive if the components do not fit together, if the bills are not getting paid, if the costs are higher than revenues.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Re:easy by jason.sweet · 2012-09-27 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's an ignorent statement.
That's the funniest thing I have read in ages.
Re:easy by Medievalist · 2012-09-27 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Being a brilliant business person is identifying market trends and acting on them. Which means finding out what people want and delivering it to them at prices they can afford. To do this you need to get people with the right skills together on a voluntary basis by offering them compensation that they need to agree with.
Nope, you can torture and enslave people, extort them, kidnap their families and be widely hailed as a brilliant business person. There's really no requirement at all that participation be "voluntary". Plenty of existing businesses, and even more historically, are or were based on exploitation of workers and/or customers.

In other words, it's up to the business person to get people together in such a way that everyone involved is benefiting and is better of than they would have been otherwise.
No, same mistake. You're confusing "worthwhile human being" or maybe "brilliant statesman" with "brilliant business person". Have you ever heard a first person account of how Steve Jobs interacted with Andy Herzfeld? Jobs was brutally verbally abusive, and used his ability to intimidate and dominate Herzfeld to create key components of the system that enriched Jobs (and, to a much lesser extent, Herzfeld) without any consideration for how this might harm anyone. Yet everyone considers Jobs a brilliant business person!
There are thousands more examples, from the New England slave trade to modern Chinese labor practices. I wish you were right, but you've added some things (like, basic human decency) that are not a part of this generation's definition of a brilliant business person.
Re:easy by lgarner · 2012-09-27 06:55 · Score: 2

You're not exonerating the PHB's; a PHB is the opposite of the good leader that you describe.
Re:easy by udachny · 2012-09-27 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd go further than that. All people that I personally know that started and run their own businesses are nearly insanely productive or at least are trying to be insanely productive. All of them had to work their asses off for at least 3 years to get somewhere, before the business would turn even 0.6% of return on the yearly investment. The problem with the majority of people is that they never even thought about running their own business, they are not thinking in those terms, they think they can hold a job and it's an equivalent of starting from scratch and actually making some venture into a profitable one. Another problem of-course is that today 'business' is nearly a dirty word, which is propaganda pushed by the establishment with political power. Businesses actually create everything we buy and use, businesses distribute everything we buy and use, businesses hire all the people *outside of government*, businesses create all the wealth (products, services).
Of-course it's not a surprise that the majority of the population is so completely on the wrong side of it, they never actually tried to run their own real business.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Re:easy by sandytaru · 2012-09-27 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've worked with Brilliant Jerks. They're good at what they do, and they know it. They get shit done. But they also belittle their coworkers, disrupt the work of others, have to have their finger in every pie, are unwilling to delegate things that they don't need to do any more, etc. They like to be the pilot and at the controls at all times. But as a business grows, they cannot be central to every single last project any more. When they are asked to delegate, or find themselves excluded from even a minor project, they throw a hissy fit. You don't "appreciate" them. You "need" them to be involved. You're an ungrateful git because "they" do all the work around here while you slackasses stand around the water cooler and waste time.

The reality is that as a business goes from a startup to steady growth over time, you need people who are willing and able to delegate, otherwise they get stretched too thin, whether they want to admit it or not. That doesn't mean everything needs to be delegated, but some things that are essentially following the same steps every time can always be handed to a subordinate with proper training. Brilliant Jerks have a sense that other people cannot be trusted to do the jobs as well as they can, so they are afraid to lose that precious control, and want to do it themselves instead.

The example in the article was of a doctor who brought in twice as much revenue as some other doctors in the practice. That means he was either 1. seeing twice as many patients as the others in the same amount of time, meaning he was not having as many meaningful patient interactions or more likely 2. ordering unnecessary and expensive tests. Brilliant Jerk doctors like him are the reason healthcare in the US is in a crisis.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Re:easy by dywolf · 2012-09-27 07:45 · Score: 2

The correct answer is: GET HIM LAID.
Seriously though. If he's brilliant, he's valuable. No one is perfect, and this concept of we must all get along is nonsense. Never seen a place advocate firing people as much as /. over the dumbest trash.
People will have conflicts. Some people really really suck at "inter-personal skills", buzzspeak for they dont get along well with other people. Some people make your company tons and tons of money. Sometimes these two people are the same person. That's why the Tom Smykowski's of the world exist in companies. They play it for fun in the movie, and have him be "downsized", but in reality, engineers often need an interpreter in between them and the customer. someone to step in and keep him from telling the customer their artistic vision is stupid, useless drives up the cost of the building (beyond that agreed for already), or that that beam HAS to be there or the building falls down so no I will NOT cut it out whether you think it's an eyesore or not". Customers don't like to be told those things, true or not.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:easy by Homr+Zodyssey · 2012-09-27 08:10 · Score: 2

FYI, your "fact" that "the only growing sector of the economy is government" Is utter bullshit. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Government jobs have declined nationally since June of 2010 -- Remember because of all the budget cuts. Mean while the private sector has added jobs every month since March of 2010.
Wanna talk about villification, lets talk about the vilification of Government, instead.
Re:easy by Stiletto · 2012-09-27 08:17 · Score: 2

- take that for example, should the people who were hired by a successful startup and were promised something in case the company succeeds get more than those, who take more salary upfront?
What about various Google employees who became millionaires, do you think they were not "productive"? They got pretty wealthy as a result of "options".
I wouldn't say they were, on average, necessarily more productive than the average tech start-up employee. Getting rich from stock options is basically like winning the lottery. You luck into being one of the first few employees at a company, and your company lucks into being one of ones that happen to make it. Right place at the right time.
I've met tons of really smart, productive people toiling away for a salary with no equity upside. I've also met tons of really unproductive people who never have to work again simply because they happened to be employee number 19 and their options turned them into millionaires.
Re:easy by Stiletto · 2012-09-27 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is just anecdotal, but most start-up owners I've worked with were already quite wealthy and/or had a family cushion to fall back on in the event of failure. Sure, they risked some start-up capital, but orders of magnitude less risky than literally putting your life on the line in a dangerous job. I know a guy whose family is quite well-off, who started and failed about 4 or 5 businesses before one finally happened to take off. He could keep spinning the wheel of fortune because he knew that regardless of what happened he wouldn't starve or be homeless. That sure doesn't sound like risk-taking to me.
That said, I have met a few who had their personal savings and home equity loans on the line if their start-ups failed. That's, for sure, respect-earning balls-out risk. Those guys definitely deserve their returns.
Re:easy by udachny · 2012-09-27 08:40 · Score: 2

I have written extensively on this phenomena, it is the result of the money pyramid that is being executed by the Federal reserve and the government, it's about inflation and artificially low interest rates. Low interest rates for government bonds prevent competition from the private sector bonds so few companies end up paying dividends. This, coupled with various bail outs and 'stimulus' packages turns the equity market into a casino, people are not looking to gain by participating in a successful business, so they are not looking for dividend payments (and it's nearly impossible to get anything from dividends anyway, given the huge inflation that is proportionate to the real interest rates, which are suppressed), thus basically people are not treating stocks and bonds as investments but instead are treating them as a roulette table in a casino. Put on black, put on red, wait a round, change the bets, hope for a big pay off.
Couple that with inheritance taxes (which destroy family businesses and promote faceless corporations), couple that with regulations that help monopolies and destroy competition, couple that with taxes that also help monopolies and large companies and prevent smaller companies from succeeding, couple that with regulatiosn around becoming a public company, so prevent new companies from raising capital in IPO before actually becoming profitable, eventually you are getting a system where large companies are very large and small companies are too small for most investors.
So what happens then is that large companies are ran by a board of directors that doesn't actually care about most 'investors', because they are not investors, they are gamblers and it's a 2 way street. Basically the monitory and fiscal policy that is set by government destroyed the viable real economy in USA and most of Europe and really hurt Japan as well. In these conditions the big companies are really big and can allocate huge sums of money towards the top and as bribes to the political elite, they don't have to compete, so they don't have to be efficient.

--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Re:easy by pla · 2012-09-27 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Tell me, was Henry Ford a parasite? How about Sam Walton?

Henry Ford's biggest fans describe him as "obsessive, dictatorial, abusive and utterly without conscience". He built an empire on the backs (and not infrequently, the blood) of his workers.

And Sam Walton? Seriously, you want to use a guy who built such a great empire that towns go to frickin' court to keep it out, as a role model of what businessmen can do for us?

You're a fucking moron.

...Says the guy who made my own point far, far more poignantly than did I. So in that regard, I guess you did one-up me. Thanks ,dude! :D
Re:easy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Horatio Alger, is that you?
Your math sucks.
Investment has always been pretty speculative, so it's easy to pick on. It also involves "real" wealth -- the kind you nor I will ever have. You can look at Taleb as being a dumbed-down version of Mandelbrot (the fractal guy) and his work on market analysis.
You might also check out what these guys [pdf] discovered about CEO talent.
If you could learn how to succeed from reading a book, or listening to a motivational speaker, then everyone would be successful -- meaning no one would be. If it were some innate ability like IQ, then 'success' would follow a similar distribution pattern. This is not observed.
You live in a world that is chaotic, from top to bottom. It's like weather systems, except the laws aren't immutable. You can't predict weather with any certainty, how can you claim to have a formula for success? What could that be based on, if not sappy-headed romanticism?
Anonymous because otherwise I might be in danger of reading more of the mental vacuities that you dribble onto your keyboard.
Re:easy by Hognoxious · 2012-09-27 14:09 · Score: 2

Stop talking out of your butt.
Sure, the best general in the world can't win a battle on his own.
But the soldiers are pretty unlikely to win without one.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Make him CEO, fire him, rehire him. by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-27 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Worked for Apple Computer Inc.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Re:Make him CEO, fire him, rehire him. by shimage · 2012-09-27 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that in that case the brilliant jerk was the business person. Woz was the brilliant nice guy who created the technology during the startup phase.
Re:Make him CEO, fire him, rehire him. by Tablizer · 2012-09-27 08:20 · Score: 2

Woz is still "too honest" to qualify as a business-friendly guy. Part of business success is knowing when to say nothing.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Why Are They Jerks? by GeneralTurgidson · 2012-09-27 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some types of autism or personality disorders make people come across as "jerks" to other more extroverted people. If someone is just quiet or short with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're a jerk.

Re:Why Are They Jerks? by tragedy · 2012-09-27 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right. Based on reading the article, the author's definition of a "jerk" is someone who doesn't understand that they were just a resource to be used during the founding of the company and then thrown away. Pretty much the worst thing the author lists as something the "brilliant jerk" does is bothering management by assuming they will deign to talk to him. The author is assuming that we all share his implicit understanding that the people who built the company will stay down at the bottom while the company grows and the managers will grow with the company adding more and more layers between them.
Re:Why Are They Jerks? by tragedy · 2012-09-27 06:41 · Score: 2

If they kill plural "people" they are a mass murderer.
If they kill plural "people" all at once, they are a mass murderer. "just killing people", which is what the original AC wrote, means it's an ongoing thing, which means they're doing it one after the other. Anyone who kills people one after the other is a serial killer. Motive is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's because they're a mafia hitman or a psychotic doing it for fun, or they committed one murder then killed a bunch of unrelated people the same way to draw away suspicion.
Basically, a mass murderer is someone who goes on a rampage, whereas a serial killer is more drawn out. Your fictional examples don't define the terms.
Re:Why Are They Jerks? by tragedy · 2012-09-27 11:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

But why is direct management of other people the only thing that's important? And who says that the brilliant person in question isn't good at drawing up plans and handing over the implementation to others. The author of the article seems to simply think that the natural place for "low-level tech person[s]" as you call the people who did all the work to make the company a success, is at the bottom. Is it just stupid sentimentalism for a company to pay its dues to the people without whom there wouldn't even _be_ a company?

How would you possibly avoid the distance increasing?
By not considering every middle managing paper pusher the company later hires (with the money that they wouldn't even have without the people who built it up to start with) to be more important. By promoting them even if the promotion doesn't involve a block of people being under them in an org chart?
Maybe I'm just a little bitter because I've been in a similar situation. I worked essentially for free at first for a company that simply couldn't have existed without me (and my fellow "low level tech person[s]") because virtually all it consisted of was us. The promise was always of the company succeeding and us sharing in that success. When they actually got the large investment they were after they went on a hiring spree. They hired marketing people and sales people and HR people and all kinds of management all of whom were pretty much above us as well as more "low level tech person[s]" like us. All of us who started with the company and had once been nearly the entire workforce were now only a small percentage of the employees, and not a single one of us ever got promoted. There were internal job postings and we applied for management positions and even just other jobs in the company we were perfectly qualified for, but everything went to outside hires or even to other people with our job descriptions who were hired later. I was far less jaded at the time and didn't really see what was going on very clearly. Now I think that our founders just didn't have any respect for us because we'd worked so hard for them for so little at the start.
In the end, I could see that the company was doomed in the long run. I left for an opportunity with another small startup. I waited until the day of my performance review and gave my notice to my supervisor right after it. I still remember how enthusiastically he told me that he'd managed to get me a raise up to the level of the other people with my job description who were hired after me.
Not too long after I left, they went under and sold off what was left to another company. It wasn't much of a surprise to me that they couldn't sustain themselves as a company with more than twice as many administrators and managers than actual productive employees.
In any case, I've been in the position of being actively marginalized in a growing company that I felt owed me at least a chance to grow with it. It wasn't much fun for me, and it wasn't what I would call good business practice either considering the effect it had on morale.

Article has it Right by MyLongNickName · 2012-09-27 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

The article has it right

"So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can"

First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.

Second, his positive contribution will stay stead, but his negative contribution will grow proportionally to the size of your company and the number of people he works with.

Third, the longer he stays the bigger headache it will be to get rid of him.

Fourth, be sure he realy is a jerk and cannot be reasoned with.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

Re:Article has it Right by postbigbang · 2012-09-27 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sometimes the best tactic is to let the creative-if-blustering types do what they do well: create and bluster, but in the back room. Serial entrepreneurs often do well because they have the ego needed to push thru ideas into really profitable businesses, with a few dead ones along the way. No one is perfect.
High collaboration and creativity is very productive, and productivity is helpful for rapid growth. Then move the blusterers out into new ideas, where they can regenerate. Some people are really good at cash-cow business, while others know how to start low and do rapid business building. Some will grow with a business, others need new challenges. It's not a talent easily given to aphorisms. And sometimes, it's not pretty.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Article has it Right by Mozai · 2012-09-27 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

I worry that people labelled as "the Brilliant Jerk" are sometimes "the guy smarter than me who doesn't go along with what I propose."
Re:Article has it Right by gstoddart · 2012-09-27 05:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.
I'm sure it's not true in every case, but I've definitely seen cases of this.
Had a co-worker years ago who could crank out huge volumes of code, so management loved him.
The problem was, his code was absolutely un-maintainable crap, and he didn't like to go back and fix things. So first you needed to cajole him for a long time to even do it, and then he would do a half-assed job and go back to whatever he was finding fun at the moment.
He didn't follow any procedures, didn't bother with testing, documentation, or sometimes even putting his code in the the version control stuff -- which meant he didn't always even had the version he was trying to fix as it had long since been updated in place. In some cases, he created more work for the people around him than the value of his code.
In a lot of ways, I always found him to be a liability, since he refused to adhere to even the most basic standards we had.
But, to the best of my knowledge, he's still there writing large volumes of lousy code, and I'm not there any more. So clearly how I perceived things had nothing to do with how management did.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Article has it Right by DocSavage64109 · 2012-09-27 05:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

I worry that people labelled as "the Brilliant Jerk" are sometimes "the guy smarter than me who doesn't go along with what I propose."
+1 on that thought. Especially if what that person proposes involves me doing all the implementation.
Re:Article has it Right by TheCarp · 2012-09-27 05:45 · Score: 2

Not just that....
I have a friend who was telling me about an issue at his workplace. They brought in a jerk... possibly not a "brilliant one" but...it hardly matters....
Because his being a jerk actually prompted the two really brilliant researchers who did the core development of their product line leave....
I don't care how brilliant this guy is.... I have a hard time swallowing that he could be so brilliant as to be worth the damage caused by pushing key people out the door.... unless pushing them out the door was the plan... which... while I wont rule out ever being the right move, but, seems unlikely to be.
As a strong tech geek, I tend to get along with the jerks (as long as I don't report to them), but.... that doesn't mean I think they are healthy for the organization. They increase the drama, and decrease overall morale... which makes the place less enjoyable to work at, and makes other places look more attractive.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Article has it Right by nharmon · 2012-09-27 05:58 · Score: 2

I was sort of getting that vibe from the article as well. Maybe the doctor in question had legitimate reasons for "why the group couldnâ(TM)t do some things and shouldnâ(TM)t do others". But the non-doctors, like the author for example, do not understand the reasons and as a result see this as being a jerk.
Re:Article has it Right by gstoddart · 2012-09-27 06:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

You were not the boss, so your opinion really didn't mean shit.
In that context, I absolutely agree ... that doesn't change the fact that his code was utter crap.
Some places are just more willing to sell utter crap if it makes the quarter.
But an amazing amount of companies can't always correlate long-term costs associated with a project and the like.
I've seen projects at many places where once the sales guys have cleared their cheque, nobody keeps tabs on what it really cost to deliver what was sold. And I know for a fact that in many places, it ended up costing more in the long run than the revenue.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Article has it Right by garyisabusyguy · 2012-09-27 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have been the jerk and karma has certainly made me pay
About 20 years ago I was working on GIS for a local government. The challenge was to present our Pavement Management System data (from a beloved DG Mini) on our spiffy new GIS system. I proposed using dynamic segmentation (new concept in ArcInfo 6) and set about learning what needed to be done. My boss assigned his bestest buddy to ride along on this and even split the coding responsibilities down the middle... The bestest buddy decided to work in awk and sed instead of the software tools that were part of ArcInfo... Pissed me off so much that I kept all documentation in my head and set about finding another job. When I left, it took them about three years to get back on track...
As luck would have it, I walked into a new job where people had been pulling the same stunt for the last decade. Every day of my life was debugging undocumented code and re-creating wheels. These days I invest a lot of time into cross training, documentation and making certain that my developers are happy

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Re:Article has it Right by Jeng · 2012-09-27 06:07 · Score: 2

Intelligence and knowledge are two different things.
Just because someone is smart, that doesn't mean they are right.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Article has it Right by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-27 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've seen projects at many places where once the sales guys have cleared their cheque, nobody keeps tabs on what it really cost to deliver what was sold. And I know for a fact that in many places, it ended up costing more in the long run than the revenue.
Most places are like this, but even if they put in a control like "Check Clearance + 90 days", the salespeople can adjust things so that they don't go south for 90 days. Remember, good sales people are master manipulators. Sales will always maximize its own benefits, if you try to rein them in, great sales people will just leave for another company that pays better. (If we follow the article's author's advice, we'd just fire all those pesky sales people, since they're in it for themselves, not the good of the company)

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:Article has it Right by Kijori · 2012-09-27 07:14 · Score: 2

The article has it right
"So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can"
First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.
Second, his positive contribution will stay stead, but his negative contribution will grow proportionally to the size of your company and the number of people he works with.
Third, the longer he stays the bigger headache it will be to get rid of him.
Fourth, be sure he realy is a jerk and cannot be reasoned with.
What you say is perfectly reasonable, but actually the 'Brilliant Jerk' in the article is described as being brilliant. In fact, as far as I can see, he's only described as being brilliant - I'm not really sure where the 'jerk' part comes from at all. The author labels as a jerk the doctor who put more than anyone else into the startup, generated the most revenue and was always the first to help out the others, and why? Apparently because he said that there were things that the company shouldn't do.
The article seems to come from the position that the company should always get bigger and always take every opportunity, and that anyone who disagrees with that is a jerk. But every successful company I've worked for has turned down clients and chosen not to pursue opportunities because they recognised that sometimes the downside outweighed the advantages.
In short, there's nothing in the article that actually makes me think that the highly respected doctor is the one being unreasonable rather than the guy who writes articles calling people jerks for having the temerity to disagree with Cliff Oxford.
Re:Article has it Right by garyisabusyguy · 2012-09-27 08:59 · Score: 2

I'll agree with you that obscure hacks suck, even more so when they are rife with regular expressions and scant man pages like awk and sed...
My approach was to do things in a repeatable manner so that the next time that I ran into the problem I already had a solution in my head that I could either apply directly, or extend in a common manner to handle the problem at hand. I can not tell you how much it pisses me off to have a single developer apply a different solution each time they run into the same problem... The big things (many to many relationships and cursor processing) took me a couple of week-long headaches to get a handle on, but the pain resulted in re-usable code that I would apply repeatedly (eventually I switched from Infos to pl/sql and started making my work more reusable with calls to stored procedures). Honestly, when I read my own code it might as well just be comments because it is based on an internal approach that I already understand. With larger teams I have had to write (and ask others to write) more universal comments, but at least I can communicate to them the reasons for the effort and the benefits that they will receive
I really do feel sorry for the person who ran into the first dynamic segmentation project that I worked up... But, that was what the 'jerk' me wanted to happen anyways

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Re:Article has it Right by garyisabusyguy · 2012-09-27 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because, at that time I lacked the business acumen to take advantage of it... I had led the development of postscript based high resolution mapping and even got our agency to receive national awards for the work. My first inclination was to give lectures to other GIS-folk on how to do it themselves. My first presentation was 20 minutes of me talking as fast as I could and a room full of people who looked like a pterodactyl had just swooped over their heads... complete and utter incomprehension
At that point, other ArcInfo users started hiring me on contract to apply the methods to their systems, and even then I horribly undercharged them for the work and spent my own time training their people to take it over
That is to say, I had no idea on how to profit from my knowledge and I missed on out on a prime opportunity because of it

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Re:Article has it Right by Velex · 2012-09-27 11:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hi. "Rockstar"/"Brilliant Jerk" programmer here. I'm responsible for maintaining a niche piece of software that's used by call centers, and I'd like to offer another perspective that my current day job has helped me to understand deeply.
So, this piece of software is closed-source. It's also buggy, wonky, inconsistent, breaks basic Windows UI conventions (like using alt-tab to switch between windows), is inexplicably slow, implements its own widget set (poorly), and is a downright piece of crap. For example, to create a formula, it gives you an interface a lot like Crystal Reports if you've used its formula editor, but instead of allowing you to type on your own, it forces you to use drag-and-drop. Want to do len(myfield)? First, you have to browse through a squinty tree of haphazardly categorized functions and operators to find the len function, drop it in your formula, then you have to find myfield in another squinty, non-alphabetical list of every variable in the system and drop it in place as an argument.
Now let's put this into perspective before your (or somebody else's) knee jerks and goes "ah ha! a n00b using len and Crystal Reports, this is obviously the Brilliant Jerk in the wild!" (Incidentally I gave up on Crystal a couple years ago in favor of \LaTeX{} and gnuplot.)
First of all, all but a few of my co-workers (I'll get to those few towards the end) will tell you that I'm the first to admit when I've screwed something up. I screw things up all the time. I'm human, and I'm not perfect. I hold my abilities in high esteem and strive to take pride in my work, but that doesn't mean I think my understanding of programming is the end-all be-all. If somebody points out something I've been doing wrong, I'll correct it and thank them for showing me the light.
The problem is that when things screw up, it's not always something I've done wrong, and sometimes it's not even something I can do anything about. In case you missed it above, the software I use for my day-to-day tasks is closed-source.
I have indirectly dealt with the Brilliant Jerk. You see, the vendor who shall remain nameless that sold my company this closed-source turd that was the reason I was promoted (originally my job was to be temporary, to transition accounts to the new software only) seems to employ a lot of Brilliant Jerks and Rockstars. And yes, trust me, there are reasons I haven't just replaced this software with some kind of Ajaxy Vaadin-ish Web 3.4.2 RC1 portal that are beyond the scope of this post. And also, inasmuch as the user-unfriendliness of this software is the reason I now have a new car and a mortgage, there's only so much bad I can say about it.
The point being, the Brilliant Jerk just about describes, as far as I can tell, the software development staff of this nameless vendor. They're always right, and you're always doing something wrong. If their software can't do something that it needs to do, you're wrong for even wanting it to do that thing! You can't win. For 2 years this software was randomly locking up and losing data, but it took intervention from the owner of the company I work for before they even acknowledged that a day-to-day reality for the folks on the call floor was even happening. Even then, they never really acknowledged it, and they never apologized. It just magically got better release after release until it didn't happen any more.
The reason I called myself a Brilliant Jerk in the start of this post is because that's how some co-workers perceive me. One of the mottos in the call center world is "perception is reality." My counterpoint is that if I perceive that I should fly if I jump off a building, it's not very functional to blame the concrete that splits my head open at the bottom of my "flight."
As I mentioned before, my job was meant to be temporary. It turned into a permanent job, because it turns out that the CTO (kind of a software developer, network admin, and graphic artist all rolled into one, quite the talent

--
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!

Wait, What? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-09-27 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I define Brilliant Jerks as specialized, high-producing performers. They are not, however, brilliant business people

Seriously, he's never met a brilliant jerk MBA business guy? He needs to get out more. Many business types are jerks, some are even very talented and smart.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Re:Wait, What? by MyLongNickName · 2012-09-27 05:16 · Score: 2

If he is a jerk to the extent that the article is talking about (causing problems within the organization meeting its goals) then he is not brilliant. If he is simply cut throat with competitors and vendors, he would not meet the definition of jerk being used in the article.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Re:Wait, What? by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-27 05:27 · Score: 2

I think the point is that the Brilliant Jerk is predominantly brilliant in the early stages of the company, but predominantly jerk as the company grows. A startup can really use a few genius employees who can work miracles on a shoestring budget and a tenth the time anyone else would need, but with growth comes more of a need for established procedures and established domains of authority. The Brilliant Jerk does not thrive in such an environment. The writer is simply pointing out that just because someone provides a near-superhuman performance early on in a company does not mean the company owes them any loyalty: Once their usefulness has passed, kick them out the door.
Re:Wait, What? by tilante · 2012-09-27 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because your mom carried you for nine months, then spent huge amounts of time and effort raising you doesn't mean you owe her any loyalty; once her usefulness has passed, kick her out the door.
But seriously -- I hope you're being extremely metaphorical with "kick them out the door." If they did that much for the company, they at least deserve some stock or a good severance package, and a glowing recommendation.
Re:Wait, What? by Kreigaffe · 2012-09-27 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative

And.. what problems did this particular brilliant jerk cause?
From TFA: " A growth company needs enablers, not disablers."
That's really the most damning thing said about him during his employment with TFA's author.
Basically, the author is complaining that somebody had the audacity to tell management that there were problems and flaws with their brilliant ideas. The Jerk wasn't being a jerk, he was approaching issues from a problems-first perspective. Management *hates* when people hear their wonderful new idea and tell them what's wrong with it, or that the whole thing won't ever accomplish what they want because of this or that, or that it won't work unless this or that is also done or stopped.
It's been my experience that management only likes to be treated like a 6th grade english class. There are no wrong answers, everyone's right, yippee feel-good-happytime!
Anecdote: I once worked for a place that spent in the neighborhood of 2.5mil to distribute a procedure across many employees that had previously been centralized. They had 3 people doing that job, and spent all that money so they could eliminate 2 of them. They were making ~40k/year. Even if you assume their total benefits ran the company 80k/year, that's still ~15 years until they hit a break-even point. And that's not taking into account that from the start, their distributed plan was executed poorly (despite employees having pointed out those problems before anything was installed) and the quality was decreased (as the employees who were forced to take on a new task weren't really able to perform it well, it was an industrial environment and there simply wasn't the time for them to dick around with something else and still keep pace with the machinery and other employees). That was also pointed out, and ignored.
The next year, despite more protestations that the idea wasn't going to work and calm explanations why, another 1.5mil was spent installing more crap that was slower and more unsafe and more prone to failure than the previous procedure.
Decision makers don't like being told their ideas aren't all brilliant, and when their decisions only affect the jobs done by those below them it's pretty simple to pass off any failure of their idea to work as a failure of the employees, not of the idea. Anyone who points out the problems with the idea is labeled a jerk.
In my book, it's the dingleberries with the inflated egos who are unable to take criticism of their ideas productively who are the jerks. But hey, what do I know. Wait, no, scratch that. What I know is irrelevant. All that matters is WHO I know, gosh I'm dumb!

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:Wait, What? by dkleinsc · 2012-09-27 06:20 · Score: 2

Seriously, he's never met a brilliant jerk MBA business guy? He needs to get out more.
Yeah, I thought I'd run into a brilliant jerk MBA recently who said he was running for president. Then he gave a speech and it turned out that guy wasn't brilliant at all.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Wait, What? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-27 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

My mom is a cunt bitch who acted like she owned me as a slave and has never recognized a situation where she could have possibly been wrong in her life. I moved out because I was plotting how to get away with stabbing her in the throat and I figured the cost was higher than the return. She's already been hit by a car once and I almost killed her in labor, two good tries but no such luck; world will be better without her.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Wait, What? by tilante · 2012-09-27 07:26 · Score: 2

To carry the analogy back, if you have an employee who did a bunch of work, but is also also an asshole, holds the company hostage to get his way, and can't believe he could ever be wrong, and who you're sure any company would be better off without... kick him to the curb.
Sometimes people are so nasty that there's no way to live with them. Sorry that person had to be your mom, man.

Clown question bro by Andy+Prough · 2012-09-27 05:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Why would you ask that here? What would slashdotters know about being jerks?

Re:Clown question bro by stephanruby · 2012-09-27 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The word 'jerk' is just a label we use for others, never ourselves.
That's what makes this topic so fruitless. Go ask the biggest jerks you know of if they believe they're jerks. Most don't think they are, but they'll probably volunteer a list of many "others" that fit the label.
Re:Clown question bro by tehcyder · 2012-09-27 21:37 · Score: 2

The word 'jerk' is just a label we use for others, never ourselves.
That's what makes this topic so fruitless. Go ask the biggest jerks you know of if they believe they're jerks. Most don't think they are, but they'll probably volunteer a list of many "others" that fit the label.
Agreed. It's like asking someone if they think they're stupid or a below average driver or lover.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Article says get rid of them ASAP by syntap · 2012-09-27 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can think of no better way to inspire under-performers in a growing company than to jettison the worker who has been a superhero to date in a small company. This article is baffling to me and I don't understand why the author thinks dealing with super-performers should be different based on the company size. And the premise that it is unreasonable for the guy who constantly pulls backsides of others out of the fire to become a little irritated is odd.

Just so I have this straight, in order to drop the "jerk" suffix, a super-achieving worker who fills in for people when they are on vacation or sick, does not take vacation himself because the company is so reliant on his performance, and probably isn't getting credit for how many times he saved his coworkers must a) always be cheerful, and b) not speak up when he believes management is heading in directions that will increase reliance on said worker and make life even more difficult.

Basically the mind is cutting the heart out of a company, when both need to recognize each other's strengths and capitalize on them instead of picking a "winner".

Re:Article says get rid of them ASAP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've seen it happen more than once in an engineering software context. The trajectory of the company is typically as follows:
- initial startup fueled by technically-capable professionals
- company growth requires ancillary services including marketing and HR
- sales and marketing takes over leadership of the company, HR takes over hiring
- HR hiring significantly dilutes levels of technical acumen and professionalism
- original professionals are gradually tossed over the side or quit
- company reaches apogee, is taken over, and disappears
It strikes me that the article can be succinctly summarized as an argument for mediocrity.
Re:Article says get rid of them ASAP by Zalbik · 2012-09-27 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, rather than actually doing some "management", and figuring out how to best fit this person within the company, let's just terminate him.
Who cares if they were (from the article):
- Respected by their co-workers
- Producing twice the revenue of some of the other founders
- First to volunteer to work on holidays.
- First to get new training and share it with others one-on-one
- etc.
As well, article seems to define a "jerk" as: "anyone who doesn't agree with management"), just fire them. I'm certain their co-workers find firing these people very inspiring. At least their inspired to shut up & not criticize any bad ideas management may have.
Who's the clown that wrote this anyways? All I can find about him is he got a bit lucky with a single startup (STI Knowledege), sold it for around $12mil, and now is going to be the host of the reality show "The Next Tycoon". Not exactly stellar credentials.
Re:Article says get rid of them ASAP by RoknrolZombie · 2012-09-27 06:14 · Score: 2

Oh, for some mod points. I work at a company right now that's going through this process...what a complete clusterfuck.

Sack him. by Xest · 2012-09-27 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Honestly, I've never met a brilliant jerk who actually is.

People only get genuinely brilliant because they're capable of introspection, because they're capable of looking at themselves and seeing in what areas they can improve and then they go out and do exactly that, they improve that area. If they could do that, they wouldn't be a jerk because they'd recognise it as an area of improvement.

People who are jerks often think they're better than they are and simply don't have anyone above them competent enough to call them out on their bullshit.

Re:Sack him. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Already posted here, so can't mod, but yes. Posting anon because I'm about to describe a former co-worker... I'll call him Dave (not his real name).
Dave was our chief network admin, and he was brilliant -- he knew his stuff better than any other network admin I've worked with.
He was, however, a huge jerk. The first manifestation of Dave's jerk-ness -- and the most obvious to me, since I was working in the same group with him -- is that he could not stand to have competent employees under him. The incompetent ones he'd keep, because they made him look better. Anyone who was hired in under him that was actually competent, he'd give only the tasks that he didn't want to do -- basically, pulling cables and putting ends on them. When management got tired of everyone who was hired in under him leaving quickly and ordered him to give his guys more responsibility, he started deliberately setting them up for failure. He did things like letting tasks that he knew were high-profile, but not really important overall, age until there was very little time to do them, then hand them off to his subordinates -- often with incomplete information, or doing this with tasks that were things they hadn't been trained in.
(To give a concrete example, when we were getting IP phones and the time came to set up the phones for the executive office, Dave went and installed the CEO's phone himself... then gave his subordinates the task of setting up the phones of the other people in the executive office, with them not having been trained on setting them up. And telling them it needed to be done that day. Thus, he showed off his personal competence to the CEO, then made his employees look incompetent to people he knew would complain about how long they were taking to the CEO.)
Related to that, he'd withhold training from his guys -- or get them sent to training months before the new equipment would arrive, then not let them have any devices to work with in between, so they'd forget as much of what they'd learned as possible before they had a chance to actually use it. He also would use "his guys" as his personal entourage and lackeys, sending them to do errands for him, and loaning them out to other groups to do things that weren't in their job descriptions. He lent them to the front office to help them move furniture so often that someone made a sign that said "Dave's Moving Company" and stuck it on their door.
Oh, and by the way -- one of those guys he kept lending out to move furniture had a chronic back injury. Really.
Eventually, there were enough complaints that Dave's position was changed, and his employees were moved under another manager -- under me, actually. They still took direction from him for network tasks, but I was responsible for managing training for them, and had to approve any non-network-related uses of them... so "Dave's Moving Company" promptly went out of business.
Of course, that meant that I had to then deal with Dave a lot. Which led to discovering more aspects of his jerk-ness.
Dave was brilliant at what he did -- but he believed he was perfect, and would lie, falsify evidence, and do anything else he could to avoid ever admitting that he'd made a mistake. When someone suggested that a network port or device might have a configuration error, he'd huffily deny the possibility... but quite often, it would mysteriously start working correctly a couple of hours later. Dave would deny that he'd changed anything, but when that happens over and over, as it did, it definitely becomes suspicious.
Lastly, Dave loved to feel important. Oh, he'd vocally complain about how often he'd get called when he was on vacation... but at the same time, he'd refuse to give his subordinates access to the passwords to the most important network equipment, so that if anything went wrong, he'd be the one people would have to call. When management told him that he needed to start giving them passwords, he stalled, saying first that he needed to train them mor

Isolate them by dkleinsc · 2012-09-27 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Give them a sandbox where they're the autocratic ruler and sole resident.
2. Slowly make that sandbox not at all relevant to the core of the business, by creating alternative approaches to solving the problem that the jerk used to solve. Other people will naturally route around the jerk whenever possible anyways, since nobody wants to deal with a jerk if they can help it.
3. When the sandbox becomes irrelevant and socially outcast, fire the jerk.

There are smart people who aren't jerks. Get them instead.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:Isolate them by dubbreak · 2012-09-27 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are smart people who aren't jerks. Get them instead.
This. There are plenty of great people out there if you look hard enough (though often you have to poach them).

Of course you have to look at both sides. The brilliant jerk may not actually be a jerk, he just is willing to speak out about managements failings where others are unwilling, "Oh yes master, whatever you say master, you are always so right master.."

Personally in my business I want people that are willing to call me on my bullshit. If I'm doing something stupid don't just hang on for the ride, I honestly may not see the mistake I'm making because I have horse blinders on or similar. Maybe I have a fuller view of what is going on, and the concerns are unwarranted, but then I should be clearly explaining why those concerns are unwarranted not just some brush off, "Trust me." Which is the biggest bullshit line ever. If you've put sweat equity into our product I owe it to you to explain I'm not driving it into the ground when from your perspective that's what the situation appears to be.

--
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Re:Isolate them by dkleinsc · 2012-09-27 06:28 · Score: 4, Informative

The difference between somebody who disagrees with management and a jerk: When the boss presses the dissenter for more details, the non-jerk can produce information about exactly what's going wrong, why it's hurting the company, and what they propose to fix it. The jerk, when pressed, on the other hand, will announce that the boss is a moron who will never "get it".
And yes, the greatest managers in history tolerated all sorts of dissent. For instance, Abraham Lincoln dealt regularly with cabinet secretaries (e.g. Samuel Chase) and top generals (particularly George McClellan) who hated both Lincoln and his other top officials.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Isolate them by VAElynx · 2012-09-27 07:38 · Score: 2

Smart people who aren't jerks tend to require an actual good salary ,however.
Re:Isolate them by VAElynx · 2012-09-27 10:25 · Score: 2

Beats me.
However, that's what the IT industry in USA appears like, especially gaming industry - silly amounts of overtime, little job security, not that great salaries and little in the way of retirement benefits.

Prepare to jettison booster on 5, 4... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

The guy sounds like a booster rocket. At some point it has to be cut loose or you won't reach orbit. Just one thing: people aren't hardware that you can just let burn up. Make sure he gets a nice severance. The next problem you have might be "they chew people up and spit them out". Who wants a reputation like that?

Manage them accordingly by madsenj37 · 2012-09-27 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Find managers that can bridge the communication gap between jerks and the rest of the business. There are plenty of business people who know how to talk with someone like a specialized programmer for instance, without having any practical programming skills themselves. Every business success or failure is about finding the right people, culture, etc. Productivity is only one measure and people must be in place to motivate and communicate with all types of people.

--
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.

Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 05:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe he wouldn't be a jerk if the rest of you weren't all so stupid! Ever think of that?

Easy by jbrandv · 2012-09-27 05:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Promote him! Seems like that's what happens where I work.

Let him be... by Zapotek · 2012-09-27 05:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Give him his own office, a supply of fast food, sodas, coffee and energy drinks and let him work on the weird stuff that would defeat the others.
Why did everything get so touchy-feely all of a sudden? Why can't a guy just work in peace without having to tip-toe around the feelings of all the precious little snowflakes?

Now, if he goes out of his way to piss people off and promote general chaos and destruction then kick his ass out, otherwise suck it up.

Re:The Jerk by cruff · 2012-09-27 05:33 · Score: 5, Informative

The word 'jerk' has gone through a transformation from when it started. First it was someone cool, then it was someone who behaves strangely (when that movie was made) and now it means someone completely rude and annoying.

When I was growing up (before the movie) in our neck of the woods, a jerk, as applied to a person, always had the third meaning (rude, annoying), unless one was referring to a "soda jerk" in old time movies. I've never heard of the other meanings, and even my Merriam Webster dictionary doesn't define the other meanings you gave, not even in a historical context. But I'm not surprised either, as all sorts of regionalisms exist that I've never heard of (especially when doing NYT crosswords).

Stop focusing on growth and scaling so much by photon317 · 2012-09-27 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's a need for and room for a certain number of large-scale companies in this country and in the world. There's also a need for and room for countless smaller and medium-sized companies. They're all integral parts of a functioning society and economy. Most small/medium companies will never be big and shouldn't be. When you fully understand business scaling, you realize that both in theory and practice it's *impossible* to scale a company without changing the product or service being delivered to your consumer.

Think about the quality difference between say, Famous Restaurant Chain and that long-running Small Family-Owned Restaurant near you that makes incredible-tasting food. If you think the difference between the two is that the big tasteless one always sucked at making food but had a brilliant business guy at the reigns, and the small one, while tasty, simply lacks the business sense to scale up their operations and make real money on their talent, you've completely misunderstood how businesses scale.

Most of those famous large-chain restaurants and fast-food joints actually started out as a single family-owned restaurant that was doing very well financially because customers loved the place. They genuinely loved the food, the service and price. The low-quality form they exist in today is the direct result of scaling; there's simply no other way to do it. Quality of the goods and services *always* falls when you scale up, but you make more money. Many of those successful small family restaurants that stay that way are constantly under pressure from peers and partners to expand and are perfectly capable of handling the business process of expansion, but they relentlessly resist because they don't want to ruin a good thing.

At a small scale, each employee really matters. You do need some people who are brilliant at their respective jobs to be successful. Moving from there to the large scale is all about commoditization. It's about building a self-sustaining organization that delivers a consistent product or service regardless of which employees come and go over time. It means trading out the special people that make great things for the ability to turn out consistently mediocre things cheaply using random sets of mediocre employees. It's a hard transition to make, and it's a constant process as you grow rather than a one-time thing. If you want to grow, you have to hire people that can work with that process. People that can take themselves out of the picture personally. People who can instead design and operate an ever-expanding system where employees are just cogs in a machine which always runs smoothly even if some of the cogs are a little warped and misshapen, and even if there's a regular pace of cogs just leaving the machine and randomly-different ones replacing them sometime later.

So if you're a businessperson, or business owner, or investor, this sort of scaling and growth is what excites you. You're not excited by making the best fajitas this side of the Mississippi, you're not excited by making the best firewall software man has ever seen, etc. You're excited by creating systems out of human cogs that scale up infinitely and keep giving back ever-increasing monetary rewards. But so many business people in the world want to scale their small-to-medium company into the next behemoth and most of them will fail. Scaling is hard, and there's only so much room, and your already-larger competitors already have a big leg up on you. Most of them shouldn't even try to scale. It's perfectly ok to stick to your smaller size, not frustrate everyone with scaling attempts, and simply keep re-investing profits into making it the best damn small company anyone ever did business with.

The "brilliant jerk" isn't necessarily the problem. Maybe he's perfect for that small company, and the problem is your unnatural desire to scale things at the cost of quality, destroying a beautiful and functional small cog in the economy by trying to make it too big.

--
11*43+456^2

OK, I read TFA by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-09-27 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read TFA, assuming that the definition of "Brilliant Jerk" in the summary was, in fact, summarized, and that the whole definition actually defined the "jerkiness" as something other than just not being a "business person". But that wasn't the case. Later in the article were some half-assed examples of what the author means by "jerky" behavior, but still no real definition. He ended up a competitor, so? He poached employees? He started legal battles? Competitors do do that, as we've seen with Apple, Samsung, Google, and countless smaller companies.

How many "business people" do you need? Someone's got to treat patients or develop products or otherwise provide some goods and services for the salesmen to sell and the marketeers to market. And if everyone says "yes, let's do it" to everything, you'll do everything without even thinking about it.

If an employee just doesn't fit in anymore and everyone's unhappy about it, then sure, end the relationship as quickly and amicably as possible. But why label someone a "jerk" just because the business changed? If you now need a hammer but keep trying to drive nails with the saw, that's your fault. Blaming the saw for being a saw makes you the poor workman who blames his tools.

--
I am not a crackpot.

Brilliant Jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-27 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

The truth of the matter is Brilliant Jerks are what run your company in the background. It's not necessarily that they are "jerks" but that they don't have that "political jargon" speech a lot of managers have. For instance, they say "no" instead of "I think there is a better way we can do this." Yes, you can fire all of them, however keep in mind if they truly are "brilliant" they will be bringing more to your company than your "regular" people.

Jealousy and self rightousness by WaffleMonster · 2012-09-27 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

TFA read like a breakup with one side telling their story while the other side was not allowed to speak.

What is most telling to me is the authors willingness to judge and place blaim on others while demonstrating his own lack of leadership.

What Should You Do With Name-Calling Consultants? by inputdev · 2012-09-27 05:48 · Score: 2

I started to read tfa, and from what I can tell, there is a paid consultant coming to speak with a group of 25 Doctors. There he makes snap pre-judgments and starts name calling, then publishes a blog about how right he is... What a waste of time and effort...

Re:Give him stock and tell him to fuck off by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-09-27 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except for the jerk part, your assertion is accurate. Woz was and is brilliant.... Jobs OTOH was a narcissistic panty-boy with sociopathic tendencies (lying, conning, getting others to do his work then claiming it) who's "contribution" lives on in its pure, distilled form in Apple's lawsuit against Samsung.

Fuck Apple.

What do you mean my Jerk? by wisnoskij · 2012-09-27 05:56 · Score: 2

Do you mean introvert, nerd, slightly autistic?
Or you you mean backstabbing, businessman.
If the former, put him in control of your product design, it sounds like he knows how to get things done (and being the most popular man around the water coolers does not help the company one bit). It worked for jobs and Woz.
If you mean the second. Their is nothing you can really do about the boss. He is not going to resign simply because everyone hates him.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:The Jerk by Jeng · 2012-09-27 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Agreed. Jerk has always been a way to call someone an asshole without swearing.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Here's a crazy idea by Minwee · 2012-09-27 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

How about if you stop calling the people who built the company "jerks" and plotting how to get rid of them behind their backs?

Just a thought. It might lead to fewer people realizing that they don't like working with you, leaving the company, becoming competitors, poaching employees and starting legal battles over stupid things that could easily have been sorted out between people who aren't jerks.

But what would I know? I'm probably a jerk too.

Change the relationship by LordZardoz · 2012-09-27 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think that the situation as described is incomplete or missing part of the picture.

What he is describing is what happens when you have a highly valuable and contributing team member who has a vision for the company that differs from what everyone else wants.

Assume we have 10 employees.
Lets say Employee X has a value of 1000, and the rest have a value of 100 each. The company has a value of 1900. Clearly Employee X is valuable and to get where you need to be, you need to accommodate his views. He is basically more than half the company

Now you grow to 40 employees. Employee X is still worth 1000, but the rest of the group is worth 3900. Employee X should not be dictating where the entire group wants to go, even if he carries so much influence.

Employee X did not become less valuable, he did become less important. The only time Employee X becomes a Jerk is if Employee X allows his ego to think he is still more than half the value of the company.

The solution is that Employee X needs to be treated as a consultant or contract. Let him be the rock star that saves every ones ass. But as good as he is, he cannot lead if no one wants to follow him, and he should not lead if the place he wants to lead is not the place the team wants to go. And Employee X should not be allowed to prevent someone else from leading if his plans do not add as much to the group as the other guy.

A good leader is not the guy who is worth 1000 to everyone else's 100. A good leader is the guy who can get a value of 120 from people with a base value of 100.

END COMMUNICATION

different people have different strengths by TheSync · 2012-09-27 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was in a situation where we had a very bright and capable college intern, and we hired him when he graduated. The kid was the kind of person you could throw an amorphous ill-stated problem at and he'd work out a solution. He also had mad Linux and OSS skills which was sadly lacking at the company I was working for.

However, he was a bit odd, like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory (but a bit nicer). He was nervous with strangers. He had a certain way of living his life, and did not like change.

So (after he was moved out of my group) the company came along and put him on the road by himself to visit customer sites across the country and meet new people in unfamiliar cities. He melted down and was let go after a few months of that.

Some people were not meant to work with customers. Some people were not meant to work on amorphous technical problems. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. A good manager will recognize that, and maximize the performance of their reports (along the lines of the theorem of comparative advantage).

I'm not saying you should never challenge your reports or encourage them to push their limits, but you should recognize that pushing them too far may break them.

Brilliant jerk or won't share with MBAs by EmperorOfCanada · 2012-09-27 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have seen these fights before and it usually comes down to shares. Often the Brilliant Jerk has a founder's fraction of the shares 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and the new MBA types that have been hired (usually mostly in a sales capacity) are envious that when the big sale comes along that those few founders are going to get all the cheese. So they convince them to dilute but the so called jerk will say good for you, dilute your shares, mine stay as they are. He knows that the new MBA types are very replaceable now that they can just offer them a salary.

The other variation of the brilliant jerk is that they have again a founder's share and the other founders are business types. The brilliant jerk did the programming of 10 to earn his share but now they have hired 20 programmers and the business people suddenly decide that the original programmer isn't carrying his weight anymore while they do all the big deals. So as the really big sellout comes they resent that while they "made it rain" that the brilliant jerk will get just as much as them. They rationalize that even if he is worth 10 programmers that they can now just hire 10 programmers for far less.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen where the original founders were causing a problem for anyone except for getting in the way of self-entitled jerks.

Re:The Jerk by thereitis · 2012-09-27 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I happened to be reading the steam locomotive wikipedia entry and it says:

During the early days of railroading, the crew simply stopped next to a stream and filled the tender using leather buckets. This was known as “jerking water” and led to the term "jerkwater towns" (meaning a small town, a term which today is considered derisive).

I don't know the origin of the word 'jerk' but I wonder if it had to do anything with the kind of people who normally did the "jerking water" job. I could see that being shortened down to 'jerks'.

Re:Hire us instead by tragedy · 2012-09-27 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The author of the article will only consider you not to be a jerk if you know your place. Which, by the way, is way down at the bottom of the org chart. You have to remember that, no matter how reliant on your skills the company is, and how interchangeable the MBA-types are, you are always less important than anyone with an MBA.

The Jerk by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-09-27 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative

The Jerk must be fed ... with pizza and Coca-Cola.

It must be kept cool and in the shade during summer days and kept warm and cosy during the harsh storms of the winter.

Always keep the Jerk dry and away from women.

Do not talk with the Jerk unless about jerky things.

The Jerk needs better and faster machines than the others, whom we do not want to mention here.

That is the way to keep the Jerk ... to increase your wealth and wisdom.

Taking part at the start, but not in at the finish by Geoffrey.landis · 2012-09-27 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The point of the article was a person who was the lynchpin in starting a business out of nothing and turning it into a rising star is often not well suited for steering a growing corporation, that is, managing a team that's grown large enough that not every decision is made by consensus of all the participants. When the business moves to this state, arrogance and stubbornness--the very qualities that made the "brilliant jerk" indispensible during the incubation of the company--make them jerks to the company trying to go mainstream.

True enough.

The correct way to deal with this is to divert them away from the corporate leadership structure and into a new start-up venture, where being brilliant and pig-headed once again becomes an asset. A good "brilliant jerk" can probably spark four or five new companies before the rough edges get worn off. Look at Steve Jobs, for example.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:The Jerk by PRMan · 2012-09-27 07:21 · Score: 2

In this context, it would mean a guy from a jerkwater town. But I was under the impression it was short for jerk-off, which was somebody doing something to themselves...

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Re:The Jerk by mcgrew · 2012-09-27 07:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

The word 'jerk' has gone through a transformation from when it started. First it was someone cool

No, "jerk" was never a synonym for "cool". It was originally coined to label the kid that had a job pouring soda at the drug store; "Soda jerk". In short, the uncool guy, the guy that had to take all the cool kids' shit or be fired. It transformed from there to mean "dweeb" or "dork" (the Steve Martin jerk) and finally morphed as a euphamism for "asshole".

--
Free Martian Whores!

Brilliant Jerks or Exploitative Management? by atticus9 · 2012-09-27 09:49 · Score: 2

On the flip side of this article - I worked with start-ups that followed the same pattern of growing the business to ~50 people then deciding it was because of genius management that they were successful and they didn't need their star engineers (plural) anymore. So they use the profits to give all the executive big bonuses, hire middle managers to effectively demote engineers and make it clear they're expendable. The star engineers get disgusted and leave the company, in the short term everything's fine and management congratulates themselves for removing the "egomaniacs" from the team that they clearly didn't need.

Then, inexplicably, growth starts to decline; tasks that used to take weeks are now lagging for months. New features are buggy, unreliable, and unpolished. The company's no longer getting rave reviews.

The executives decide it's because there's not enough process governing how software is developed, the company "has been lucky, but we need to grow up", so they hire a consultant to impose best practices on how features are developed and releases are handled. Involving lots of documentation, committees, and approval chains. Productivity drops further, there's a disaster or two, and investors start getting antsy.

Management will remind them of earlier successes, that it's the same management team so there's no need to worry, but to hedge their bets they have a round of layoffs to focus the team and reduce costs. They outsource the "grunt work" of software engineering to cheaper suppliers. Things get worse, and a long and painful failure ensues.

Fuck you, Cliff Oxford by HeckRuler · 2012-09-27 09:59 · Score: 2

I define Brilliant Jerks as specialized, high-producing performers.

"Jerk"? This is one of the many, many, reasons that technical geeks hate business people.

I have listened to Brilliant Jerks proclaim, “I am the one who is always on call, who drives the most revenue, who is here on weekends and who has the knowledge.” And the Brilliant Jerk speaks the truth. But I have also seen him stick his head in the door and deflate an entire management team. A growth company needs enablers, not disablers.

Whoa there. Whoa. So... the guy that does the work and who knows where the big problems are, like the code is a horrible mess of spaghetti, shouldn't tell anyone what those problems are because.... it'll make the managers sad?
Really?

So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can.

Hey guys, there's like, one single engineer who knows how all off this stuff works. He said this thing at my last meeting? Really got me down. Let's get rid of him. We're a growing company, I'm sure those highschool grads we hired and a couple entry level engineers who handled their own section before will be up to the task. I mean, it's not like the entire code-base was a one-man spaghetti-code mess right?

Had one of those at Divine by thesandtiger · 2012-09-27 11:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Years ago I worked at a place called Divine Interventures in their "Buzz" group. We had a guy - he was the webmaster/developer guy, one of the first employees, etc.

Guy had ideas for graph design that were better than what the designers came up with, came up with awesome ideas pretty much whenever we had a problem, but was kind of brusque.

He got laid off in the first wave (and was smart to do it - one of the only people to get a full severance package when the companyimploded, and literally started his new job the next day) and about a month after that we got written up in a magazine as being a great place to work in Chicago. There were several specific things pointed out in the article as why it was so great, and when the CEO was holding an all hands meeting to congratulate us, she asked who came up with idea one, and it was pointed out this guy did. Then idea two and... Same guy. Then idea three and... Same guy. "Well, decisions like laying him off are probably why we're going out of business," the only honest thing I've ever heard from a CEO.

If they are really brilliant, it's worth keeping them around.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.

Re:The Jerk by twoallbeefpatties · 2012-09-27 11:46 · Score: 2

Do not taunt happy brilliant jerk?

--
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.

Re:Jerk-Faced Butthole by Culture20 · 2012-09-27 12:32 · Score: 2

My bet is on "jerk-faced" being unrelated, stemming instead from "[beef] jerky" as a way to insult a leathery skinned person.

Actually Manage the "Jerk"? by bobbutts · 2012-09-27 13:12 · Score: 2

If you let your people do whatever they want, some of them will do things you don't like. Try managing them, if you're not sure how, you can find classes at most colleges.

Slashdot Mirror

What Should Start-Ups Do With the Brilliant Jerk?

107 of 480 comments (clear)