Reminded me of an article from Harvard Business Review (http://hbr.org/product/competent-jerks-lovable-fools-and-the..., accessible excerpt http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4916.html) about the same matrix. The authors found that team members tend to prefer "lovable fools" over "competent jerks" due simply to the difficulty of working with the latter. Of course, employees working on a team don't have the same interests that investors do.
> Of course, employees working on a team don't have the same interests that investors do.
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.
My experience at companies large and small is that employees prefer likable competent people over jerks and fools. Why isn't that also in the investors' interests?
Strictly comparing the bottom left quadrant (the "lovable fools") to the upper right quadrant (the "competent jerks"). Everyone would rather work with someone who is likable and competent.
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.
> Everyone would rather work with someone who is likable and competent.
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.
I think you and Fred Wilson are talking about different things.
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.
Here's the definition Fred was using, by Don Valentine of Sequoia: 'Along one axis, he put "easy to get along with" on one end and "hard to get along with" on the other end.'
