The No Asshole Rule
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Sam Bleckley wrote a really good essay on this behavior[0] that pretty much explains how my wife and I interact with each other. We interrupt each other constantly to move the conversation along faster and to express our current state of understanding. I have learned that this often comes across as "rude", but I feel like it's perhaps a difference of style between east coast (and maybe just NY/NJ) and the rest of the US.
The Holy Creedo of The Church of Interruption:
1. Thou shalt interrupt when thou understand’st.
2. Thou shalt speak until I interrupt.
3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate when I ought continue talking.
> “I’m talking about how you behave when we’re talking. When you understand whatever it is I’m trying to say, you don’t wait around for me to finish my sentence, you—”
> “Interrupt. Sure. It’s the easiest way to make sure I understand what you mean.”
> “That’s very insightful. You’re right; if you finish my statement in a way I agree with, I know that you understand. And, if I accept your summary, we both know you’ve got it. It’s very efficient.”
PS. Cue in, relevant (?) all the work nowaday's being done on conversational AI and "interruption".-
PSS. It - indeed - could be "regional", definitely cultural.-
1. To stop the flow of conversation. This is definitely rude. A manager shutting you down, for example.
2. To facilitate the faster flow of conversation. This is The Church of Interruption; the point of the interrupt is to move the conversation to the next point with less waste.
Some folks when they are speaking perceive these as one and the same, but they are actually quite different. In fact, to one who aligns with The Church of Interruption, drawing out a talking point feels rude -- as if the conversation partner were giving a speech and the rest of us are merely here to listen.
My wife is Caucasian (Polish/Italian) and I'm Asian (Taiwanese) and definitely both of us fall into the latter. I think the high density of Italian, Indian, and Asian immigrants here in NY/NJ might have something to do with it as well!
It's certainly a cultural or habit thing, and one that I was not exposed to until I was an adult. I think because of that, when I'm interacting with people who use the technique I can no longer actually focus on the substance of the conversation because I'm always having to decipher the mechanics of it. By that I mean I have to pay conscious attention to the conversational flow in order to determine when I should interrupt and why the other person is interrupting.
At first it was pretty disconcerting, though, because if you weren't raised with that sort of conversational approach then it does come off as being rude or, worse, dismissive.
That modality is not one that I encounter often, so it's a little like trying to speak with someone using a language I'm not fluent in. I have to pay attention to the language itself as much as what we're using the language to convey. That's why I find it exhausting.
Unless the conversation is really critical to have, I'm more likely to disengage with it to a degree and just let the other do all the talking. Which is not always a bad thing.
Not at all. Actually, a learned skill rather.-
1. The true, genius level assholes are very few and far between. If you do find one, isolate them from your broader team, and ideally put them on contract. They are going to build you a great organization. The corollary of this: if you're an asshole, you likely aren't a genius. So stop acting like one.
2. Most assholes don't actually create anything great, they just look like they do. Strong opinions and blistering personalities tend to hide a crappy work product.
3. You'll learn there are enough nice people out there that you don't need to settle for crappy behavior. It can take time to find capable, nice people, but it's worth the effort.
Finally: there are naturally asshole people, and then there are people who have been around so much institutionalized asshole-ism they just look like assholes. Learning the difference is critical.
(Edit, formatting)
Over the years, I've observed that you basically need 2 out of the following 3 things to be successful in this world:
* Luck
* Skill
* Propensity for violating social norms (be an asshole, be corrupt, etc.)
I also think asshole behavior is a subjective label in many cases. If your culture is not compatible with someone else's, they might be averse to you for no reason and assume you're an asshole, and then any minor encounter can turn into a dispute. Other people are so used to conformity that if you disagree with them, they'll shun you or else shout you down.
Agreed.-
It is absolutely subjective, but I think the advice still applies: "No assholes" means no assholes, regardless of your definition.
That said, I also see a lot of assholes hide behind this reasoning. "I'm not a jerk, your culture is just weak." In my experience, 9 times out of 10, they really are just a jerk.
Here's an example. I literally had to sit through a HR training video where some people were pissing and moaning about a guy using sports metaphors they didn't understand. Instead of pissing and moaning about it, you know they could just educate themselves about that tiny bit of someone else's life. I'm sure that the guy would love to explain it to them, and enough people needing an explanation would make him reconsider his metaphors. There are times when the metaphors people use may be inappropriate, but is a basic sports metaphor in the US really so unacceptable? The choice of actors in that video also paints a troubling picture about whose culture is welcome or not.
Shockingly, it's almost like a slogan on a book cover isn't enough.
Is there any reason to believe it wouldn't?
If he wasn’t an asshole he might have spent time with his daughter and maybe not came back to Apple at all when it was failing.
There is no reason to think fundamentally altering his personality and therefore the entire way he interacted with and ultimately selected leadership underneath him would not drastically change the outcome.
There is no reason to think apple would be better if it was effectively run by entirely different leadership.
Could this be measured?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
But was the rise of Apple contingent on Job's assholehood, itself?
... that is was his (documented) assholehood sine qua non?Many would even posit, taking this further, that if your assholehood is high, your confidence might just be a posture, or shakey, and your assertiveness an overcompensation.-
> Does the person target people who are less powerful?
I have seen too many times a big-boss talking how good someone is after receiving criticism: "How can X be doing bulling if X is so nice with me, the boss?".
I cannot count how much money it costs to companies I have worked for to have unmotivated employees. It is bad for the company, it is bad for shareholders, is bad for employees, it is bad for society... but up in the hierarchy someone feels good about themselves for being assholes and getting away with it.
I am sure it has been quantified by HR studies somewhere. I'd be interested to know.-
> It is bad for the company, it is bad for shareholders, is bad for employees, it is bad for society... but up in the hierarchy someone feels good about themselves for being assholes and getting away with it.
We need an AI-based "self-serving assholehood detector", at scale, parsing company traffic :)
Sure, as in "man made", but - just wanted to say - oodles can certainly be said (and, academically I am sure it has) about "natural" corporate environments (ie. environments arising from man made corporativism ...)
Over the next five plus years this asshole screwed up almost everything he touched. Many logical complaints to upper management and HR were lodged, with no action taken, he always flew just below the "fire" threshold. The management team who promoted him (it was revealed later after the asshole left) wouldn't remove him because of how it would have reflected on them!
I hate having to witness this at work where there's a team who's been working on a shitty project FOR YEARS and then it gets standardized across the company seemingly out of sunk cost fallacy and ass-covering of the people running it. Meanwhile there was an competing implementation done ahead of schedule and technically excellent, got canned.
PS. I am sure there's an in-between somewhere, but, fair enough.-
The author of "The No Asshole Rule" explains the incentive to be an asshole and succumbs to it in the title to get more attention.
Such as “[insert deeply disrespectful term associated with systematic denegration, unfair treatment, hate or violence aimed at any group that includes people innocent of causing some systematic intentional harm to others]”.
“Enshitification” is another rude word not aimed at anyone innocent, but whose unpleasantness memorably represents dramatically repellant and even harmful behavior.
I’ve heard it said matter-of-fact-ly on podcasts which otherwise avoid blue language.
""Their unpleasant behaviors were catalogued by Sutton as The Dirty Dozen:[9]
Insults
Personal space violation
Unsolicited touching
Threats
Sarcasm
Flames
Humiliation
Shaming
Interruption
Backbiting
Glaring
Snubbing (Apparently ...)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Asshole_John_rule
Funny, I do not think the Wikipedia rule is very much related (or, at all) to the book's matter, but, there's that ...