Jerks
Toni Jarels
Prepare yourselves, fellow jerks, for the most mouthwatering tender meaty goodness ever created. As passionate foodies at Three Jerks Jerky we have spent countless hours experimenting, testing and refining our craft. The result: elevated versions of a beloved yet traditionally average snack.
It may help to clarify that "brilliant jerk" can mean different things to different people. To illustrate, I'll describe two types of brilliant jerks: the selfless and the selfish, and their behavior in detail. I'll then describe the damage caused by these jerks, and ways to deal with them.
The following are fictional characters. These are not two actual engineers, but are collections of related traits to help examine this behavior beyond the simple "no asshole rule." These are engineers who by default act like jerks, not engineers who sometimes act that way.
While selfless jerks can be a net positive for the company, they can become more effective if they learn that being kind results in greater productivity. This topic was covered in the Be Kind post by boz. Different companies may have different attitudes towards Alice, whether to tolerate her behavior or not (most reviewers of this post said "no," one said "it's a grey area"). Startups may tolerate Alice, for example, since the company is so small that everyone knows Alice and understands her personality.
At some companies, no one is telling Alice or Bob that their behavior is inappropriate. Everyone sees the bad behavior, but thinks it must be tolerated because Alice and Bob are so brilliant and valuable. Wrong! One important step a company can take is to explicitly adopt a "no brilliant jerks" policy. Netflix has such a policy as part of the culture slide deck, now a memo, which reads:
This policy isn't some useless feel-good text from a nameless source: it was originally published on CEO Reed Hastings' slideshare account. To be effective, such a policy for your company may also need to come from your CEO. All Netflix candidates are told to read the culture deck (memo) when interviewing, and are told that, yes, we take it seriously. While this helps people realize that jerks should not be tolerated, it doesn't necessarily stop jerks from being hired in the first place: Bob is brilliant and charismatic and would probably pass the interview. However, he would then find himself at a company where his colleagues recognize his bad behavior as unacceptable, and are empowered to speak up about it.
In over three years at Netflix, I've worked with zero brilliant jerks. The "no brilliant jerks" policy works, and it's been great. If we hired any in that time, they either changed their ways or left the company before I could interact with them.
Some brilliant jerks can mend their ways: Alice might be motivated to change if she can be made to understand that her behavior is hurting the company, which she cares about. She should be encouraged to exercise empathy, and to leave others feeling positive and motivated to work harder, rather than demotivated. My colleague, Justin Becker, explores this in detail in his QCon talk, including the topic of emotional intelligence (EQ). In the next section I'll share an example.
For management to deal effectively with Bob, they must themselves be convinced that his behavior should not be tolerated, regardless of his brilliance. For some companies, that will require truly understanding the damage that Bob causes (listed above), to justify taking action. For companies like Netflix with an explicit "no brilliant jerks" policy, it's much easier for management to take action, as they don't need to convince anyone that jerks are a problem: that's already covered in company policy.
Regular one-on-one meetings with staff, and scheduled skip-level meetings, should also help inform management about the damage jerks are causing. Netflix does this well: I have scheduled one-on-one meetings with my manager once every two weeks, their manager once a month, and their manager at least once a year. That's three levels of management I talk directly and in private with, without even having to ask for a meeting. We're also encouraged to give other employees direct and honest feedback, intervene if we see harassment, and escalate up to and including the CEO.
As for public speaking: Bob draws power from being a public face of the company. Speaking events should be shared among staff who want to speak, and training can be made available to improve their skills (various companies offer this), so that Bob isn't the only good speaker. Conference organizers can also adopt a "no brilliant jerks" policy (some already do), and attendees can avoid conferences that host known jerks. If Alice needs to learn empathy, Bob needs to learn both empathy and to stop being selfish, and sharing public speaking or other rewarding projects is an example of the latter.
Should brilliant jerks be tolerated? To explore this, I described two fictional brilliant jerks: Alice, who is selfless, and Bob, who is selfish. This makes it clear that the behavior of selfish jerks, like Bob, should definitely not be tolerated. Bob can kill companies. When CEOs and VCs sometimes say that brilliant jerks may be worth it, I imagine they are thinking of Alice, a selfless jerk, and not Bob. (Alice is debatable.)
Early on in my career, I supported brilliant jerks of any type and thought they were worth it. I was wrong. People had warned me about them, that their behavior was "not ok," but they never went into much detail as to why. I've shared many details here. I didn't figure this all out until seeing the behavior and damage firsthand. (I've not only experienced it, but I may have reached my lifetime dosage of asshole-rads.)
Companies can adopt a "no asshole rule," or more politely, a "no brilliant jerks" policy. Colleagues may be genuinely conflicted about how to deal with Bob. On the one hand, he is a real jerk, but on the other he is a "high performer," so isn't it in the company's best interest to tolerate his behavior? A policy helps you decide, and it can be as simple as three words: no brilliant jerks.
Have you ever wondered about why some people are jerks? Asked whether your driverless car should kill you so that others may live? Found a robot adorable? Considered the ethics of professional ethicists? Reflected on the philosophy of hair? In this engaging, entertaining, and enlightening book, Eric Schwitzgebel turns a philosopher's eye on these and other burning questions. In a series of quirky and accessible short pieces that cover a mind-boggling variety of philosophical topics, Schwitzgebel offers incisive takes on matters both small (the consciousness of garden snails) and large (time, space, and causation).
Five patients who presented with stimulus-induced jerking as part of an apparent myoclonic or pathological startle syndrome are reported. Neurophysiological observations in these patients suggested the jerks were voluntary in origin. These included (a) variable latencies to the onset of stimulus induced jerks, (b) latencies were greater than that seen in reflex myoclonus of cortical or brainstem origin, and were (c) longer than the fastest voluntary reaction times of normal subjects, (d) variable patterns of muscle recruitment within each jerk and, (e) significant habituation with repeated stimulation. It is argued that these features are consistent with a voluntary origin for the jerks and enable them to be distinguished from the stereotyped electrophysiological characteristics of myoclonus of cortical and brainstem origin. Electrophysiological recordings may help identify patients with this form of psychogenic movement disorder.
Functional jerks are among the most common functional movement disorders. The diagnosis of functional jerks is mainly based on neurologic examination revealing specific positive clinical signs. Differentiation from other jerky movements, such as tics, organic myoclonus, and primary paroxysmal dyskinesias, can be difficult. In support of a functional jerk are: acute onset in adulthood, precipitation by a physical event, variable, complex, and inconsistent phenomenology, suggestibility, distractibility, entrainment and a Bereitschaftspotential preceding the movement. Although functional jerks and tics share many similarities, characteristics differentiating tics from functional jerks are: urge preceding the tic, childhood onset, rostrocaudal development of the symptoms, a positive family history of tics, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and response to dopamine antagonist medication. To differentiate functional jerks from organic myoclonus, localization of the movements can give direction. Further features in support of organic myoclonus include: insidious onset, simple and consistent phenomenology, and response to benzodiazepines or antiepileptic medication. Primary paroxysmal dyskinesias and functional jerks share a paroxysmal nature. Leading in the differentiation between the two are: a positive family history, in combination with video recordings revealing a consistent symptom pattern in primary paroxysmal dyskinesias. In this chapter functional jerks and their differential diagnoses will be discussed in terms of epidemiology, symptom characteristics, disease course, psychopathology, and supportive neurophysiologic tests.
Illustration of polymyography recording of inconsistent jerks (single traces displayed, same patient). Jerks could start in the rectus abdominus muscle (RA) left (L) or right (R) and then spread to legs and neck and not the arms nor the eye musculature (OO orbicularis oculi muscle). Jerks were of variable duration and conduction was rapid. Other jerks confined to the one arm or the neck were also noted. APB abductor pollicis brevis muscle, L1 first lumbar, SCM sternocleidomastoid, TA tibialis anterior, Th thoracic, vastus vastus medialis muscle
Overview of the clinical work-up of the patients in our study. The case of PSM due to ciprofloxacin has been published previously [7]. BP Bereitschaftspotential, Jerk-locked BA jerk-locked back averaging, PSM propriospinal myoclonus, Psychogenic psychogenic axial jerks
aa06259810