Yes, team dynamics, especially at large corporations are vastly different than startup dynamics. Loveable fools fit right in at BigCo, as long as they are not so foolish to do their job reasonably well. The brilliant worker who fights for change and speaks their mind isn't seen as a team player and is often a threat to management. They are seen as "difficult," even when they are right. BigCo largely wants compliant workers who take orders, which is largely the opposite of what drives a startup founder.
That same brilliant worker, however might make a great founder at a startup. Smarts and tenacity can pay very well with a startup, so long as the people can understand what drives the founder and sometimes makes them hard to work with.
In a large company, dabent's "BigCo", as long as you're getting your paycheck, an easy-to-along-with but less competent coworker may be less of an impediment to your ability to do your job than a competent jerk. It may also be that the article's authors were not using the same concept of "difficult" as Fred Wilson was.
So it would seem, but Sequoia says they make less money working with them than they do with competent jerks.
> In a large company, dabent's "BigCo", as long as you're getting your paycheck, an easy-to-along-with but less competent coworker may be less of an impediment to your ability to do your job than a competent jerk.
The same's true in a small company. And it's easy to overlook the destructiveness of jerks; http://www.amazon.com/Asshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Survi... started as an HBR article as well. So once again, I don't see why investors interests should be different.
Being a "jerk" is about backstabbing people. That's not a good long term strategy.
Being "difficult" is sticking to your vision and not being afraid to offend people defending it. That's a good long term strategy if you're a good entrepreneur.