I did some research on Bob Sutton’s The No Asshole Rule some time ago. The premise is straightforward enough: the workplace is full of dysfunctional jerks - people who take their anger and aggression out on others - that diminish workplace productivity, independent of their own individual effectiveness.
Fair enough. But I’m wondering if it’s ever acceptable to be a bully or abusive boss or manager? By many accounts, highly successful CEOs like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Larry Ellison were all abusive and disruptive managers, at least at times in their careers. It’s hard to argue that these individuals had a negative impact on productivity at their respective companies.
In fact, Sutton goes to great lengths - both in the book and since - to try to explain Steve Jobs’s effectiveness at Apple and Pixar. The distinction wasn’t convincing, at least not to me. The book also makes a distinction about former Intel CEO Andy Grove’s style of constructive conflict.
What really got me thinking about this is that, in a few weeks I’m having some friends over, all of whom worked for me some years ago. That’s nothing new; I met virtually all my friends at work, since working is what workaholics mostly do. And I know for a fact that I fit the rule some percentage of the time. Come to think of it, I’ve worked with and for a number of senior executives who fit Sutton’s description. Some I’d consider working with again, some I wouldn’t.
It seems to me that there are significant exceptions to the rule. But what are they? Are CEOs, founders, board directors, and entrepreneurs immune? Do certain positive traits - leadership, intelligence, charisma, humor, humility - balance it out? Does it matter what percentage of the time you’re an a–hole?
What do you think? What exceptions to the rule have you come across in your career? Or are you a devout believer or disbeliever in the rule?
