I wonder what 'brilliant jerk' means? For me the worst kind of jerk is a 'fool with authority'.
I'd much rather work under a brilliant jerk than a hypocritical fool.
I'd much rather work under a brilliant jerk than a hypocritical fool.
Good news: There are people who are neither. I prefer to work for competent non-jerks. A team of good people will always outperform a brilliant jerk that drives everyone else away.
True, but from my experience, companies are shockingly terrible at identifying and promoting those. Instead, they tend to promote the foolish but politically correct loud mouths.
High intelligence which is unrewarded tends to leave signs of trauma in a person. So they might seem like greedy selfish jerks, but in fact, they're frustrated for good reasons and we should listen to them and tolerate their harsh but accurate views about reality.
Jerks are fine so long as they're not afraid to criticize you to your face and give you a chance to improve. Not all jerks are sociopaths. For example, Linus Torvalds has described himself as a jerk - I'd be honored to work for such person. Altruism is about actions, not about choice of words or tone of speech.
I prefer to work with brilliant people and love to learn from them.
I personally know several truly brilliant people at what they do and none of them are jerks. I have yet to see this 'brilliant jerk' everyone seems to be taking about.
You're talking as if most, if not all, companies are engaging in R&D at the level of the Apollo 11 space mission. You don't need brilliant people in most cases, merely having honest, diligent, persistent normal human beings can get the job done.
I am pretty sure, Linus qualifies as one in past, not sure about the current developments there.
Instead it's very clear this is the result of 'wokeness' winning a culture war inside Atlassian: a giant red flashing warning sign to not work there or use their products.
It starts with this phrase:
We recognise things are not the way they used to be, yet companies haven’t evolved (from) 30 years ago when they were primarily made up often of white men. Tech standards have evolved, we have new ways of working, new demographics and generational change.
There's a dead comment on this thread pointing out that Atlassian are engaging in blatant and shameful racism and sexism here. It's based in Australia, a country full of white people, and is a software company - developers are mostly men. Demographics haven't actually changed as any quick consultation of computer science courses will show, so this statement is not only racist and sexist but also a blatant lie.
What might motivate a change to ensure that 2/3rds of job performance is no longer defined by skills? The explanation is quite obvious - if jobs are allocated based on ability then Atlassian will always be dominated by white men, simply because that's overwhelmingly the Australian demographic that learns computer programming, the most relevant skill to a software company. There's simply no way around that.
But if performance is assessed based on "how they bring their whole self to work", "how they live the company values" and how they "impact others on their team" then suddenly anyone can be promoted, anyone can be hired, and most importantly anyone can be fired by random employees asserting that they're a "brilliant jerk". There's no defence against such an accusation - it's entirely subjective and arguing with it would require effectively saying, your emotional reaction to this person is invalid. That would itself be taken as evidence of jerkhood!
This change will allow the "millenials", as Chee puts it, to completely purge the company of anyone who isn't a fanatical hater of white men. After all, actually being good at your job is no longer a defence against a colleague who doesn't like your politics.
There's another important message being sent by this article - Atlassian no longer cares about their customers (like my firm). Customers don't care about how much of their own self Atlassian employees bring to work, or whether its employees live their company values. These things might matter to some of their employees or their HR team, but it's irrelevant to the users. What does matter to users is whether the software is any good i.e. if it was written by people who are "brilliant". If actual skill is only considered of 1/3rd importance relative to the feelings of their employees, it seems clear that Atlassian staff prioritise their own feelings more than the needs of the people who buy their products. Not a good sign!