It Pays to be the Jerk at Work

RSS
LIVECAREER NEWS HOME
Career
Entrepreneurship
Education
Resume
Job Search Tips
Getting Hired
Job Trends
Arts, Design and
Humanities

Business - Finance and
Accounting
Business - General
Computers and
Information Technology
Counseling and Psychology
Criminal Justice and Legal
Education, Teaching and
Childcare
Healthcare and Nursing
Travel, Entertainment and
Culinary
Email
Add to Favorites
Print
Blogger
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
MySpace

Reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
WordPress
It Pays to be the Jerk at Work
19 August 2011
By Joanna Boydak, LiveCareer
If you think brown-nosing and being the "nice guy" at the office
is going to pay off, think again. The new
study, "Do Nice Guys—and Gals--Really Finish Last?" finds
that agreeable workers earn significantly
lower incomes than less agreeable ones.
According to the study, men who measured below average on
agreeableness earned almost 15%
more—or $9,772 more—annually than their more agreeable
counterparts. Ruder women, on the other
hand, earned only about 5% more—or $1,828 more--than their
agreeable counterparts.
The researchers define agreeable employees as those who "place
a greater value on their interpersonal
relationships" and are inclined to maintain these relationships
than less agreeable employees. To sum it
up, a more agreeable employee will stay mute on a subject
instead of speaking up, for fear of hurting a
coworker rather than contributing the bottom line of the
company. Less agreeable employees realize the
goal at work is not to win the popularity contest—it's to

contribute to the company's success. It's the
really successful ones that are able to accomplish both.
So why the large gap for male and females? The researchers
conclude that gender stereotypes are still
alive in the workplace. When men act agreeable, they do not
confirm to the expectations of masculine
behavior. Furthermore, employees who tend to be more easy-
going and agreeable may also be less
willing to assert themselves in aggressive salary negotiations.
The study examined results from three different surveys
collected over 20 years, from roughly 10,000
employees from a diverse range of jobs, industries and salaries.
Each survey measured the notion of
"agreeableness" in different ways, but the results all point in the
same direction. As Cornell professor
Beth A. Livingston and co author of the study puts it: "Nice
guys are getting the shaft."
Here's what you can do to show your mean side and hopefully
get noticed when it comes time to decide
on bonuses or salary increases.
1. Fight the good fight: Choose your battles wisely based on the
company's bottom line and you
can expect to make your way to the top. When disagreeing with
an idea or decision, remember
that the goal of the decision is to benefit the organization in the
long run. Employees that
genuinely care about the performance of the company and fight
for it will surpass employees that
fight for personal reasons.
2. Be more assertive: Even though the workplace may seem

team-oriented, when it comes to
contribution, it's the individuals themselves that matter. Don't
be afraid to speak up! Your co-
workers and superiors will respect you for it.
3. Follow your gut: Knowledge is power--sometimes. Lack of
knowledge is usually the reason for
insecurity to speak up. However, ignoring your gut feelings and
staying mute on a topic while
you the take time to research wont benefit you or the company.
Intuition can sometimes be
more powerful than hard facts, so pay attention when these
feelings arise. In fact, many
business leaders strive to develop and perfect their ability to
tune into their intuition.
4. Show that you care: Taking the time to form an opinion and
share your stance on a topic
proves that you care about the decision at hand and are willing
to work towards the best
solution. Disagreeing with a co-worker is not a personal attack
or an attempt to undermine their
competency; you are simply doing your job to ensure that the
best decision is made.
Acting less agreeable in an interview can also help you get the
job or assist you in negotiating a higher
salary. Instead of nodding to everything that the hiring manager
says, show your interest in the
company by asking questions and actively participating in the
conversation. This "roll up the sleeves"
mentality will reveal that you are a competent candidate that
isn't wasting any time on jumping in to

start addressing the company's problems.
Need a cover letter that includes your salary requirements? Our
new Cover Letter Builder has templates
with professional responses that don't divulge too much
information. Click here to try it free.
Want to earn more money? The key to a high-paying job or raise
is reliable information. Find out your
real market value with our Free Salary Calculator.
RETURNING USER? LOGIN HERE
For your resumes, tests and more.
SALARYJOBSCAREER TESTSRESUMESHOME JOBS NEWS
Page 1 of 2Jobs News - It Pays to be the Jerk at Work
8/25/2011http://www.livecareer.com/news/Career/It-Pays-to-be-
the-Jerk-at-Work_$$02330.aspx
Related Articles
Arkansas Launches New Program to Give College Credit for
Experience
Wait! The Interview Isn't Over
Lafayette College Alumni Dole Out Career Advice to Students
Interview Faux Pas
Reports Finds Non-Degree Holders Face Uncertain Future
MEMBERSHIP AND ACCREDITATION

Search Articles:
Copyright (c) 2004-2011, LiveCareer, Ltd. First publication
dates for works posted range from 2004-2011, all rights
reserved.
OUR PRODUCTS
CAREER
Assessment Test
Interest Inventory Test
Interest Test Sample
Job Satisfaction Survey
EDUCATION
College and University Search
Education Test
Education Test Sample
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Start A Business Test
PAY/COMPENSATION
Salary Calculator
RESUME
Resume Guide

Resume Guide Sample
Resume Builder
JOBS
Job Search
JOB NEWS
Jobs News Home
Careers
Education
Entrepreneurship
Resume
Job Search Tips
Getting Hired
Job Trends
Arts, Design and Humanities
Business - Finance and Accounting
Business - General
Childcare
Computers and IT
Counseling and Psychology
Criminal Justice and Legal
Culinary Arts
Entertainment
Franchise
GED/High School Diploma
Healthcare
Marketing/Sales
Nursing
Online Education
Paying For College
Real Estate

Teaching
Travel
ABOUT LIVECAREER
Home
About Us
Advertise with Us
Affiliate Program
Contact Us
Counselors
Customer Reviews
Directory
Editorial Team
Forgot Password
Privacy Policy
Sign In
Site Map
Terms of Use
Unsubscribe
Page 2 of 2Jobs News - It Pays to be the Jerk at Work
8/25/2011http://www.livecareer.com/news/Career/It-Pays-to-be-
the-Jerk-at-Work_$$02330.aspx
HBR C A S E S T U D Y
What a Star-
What a Jerk
by Sarah Cliffe

Sometimes an employee can be nasty, bullying, or
simply hard-hearted. What should you do, though, when
that person also happens to be a top performer?
SEPTEMBER 2001
From: Jane Epstein
To: Rick Lazarus
Sent: 5/14/01
Subject settling in
Hi Rick. I'm starting to get settled in at
TechniCo-1 miss you and the rest of the
gang, and the adrenaline of working
with clients when I'm *on,* but I'm
thrilled not to be living in airports any-
more. Hope Mary and the kids are well.
I've inherited a good team here.
They're all strong performers, and most
of them are nice, too. I'm sure they're
still wondering about me-but so far, so
good. Partial cast: Caroline's been here
longest; she seems pragmatic, very gtx)d
with people. Juggling work-family issues
and a recent divorce - but she pulls her
weight and then some. She's universally
trusted (I think). Tom's the joker. A natu-
ral sales guy-a bouncy golden retriever
personality that cloaks real drive, know
what 1 mean? You never really get inside.
37

HBR CASE STUDY • What a Star-What a Jerk
but there don't seem to be many inter-
nal climate changes anyway. Jack's in-
tense, maybe an intellectual - 1 haven't
quite figured him out. I think he may
be shy (?). Anyhow, then there's Andy
Zimmerman, who's got me slightly wor-
ried - maybe because he intimidates
me iust a bit. He's very bright, but he's
aggressive - doesn't suffer fools gladly.
He'll bear watching, I think.
Better run. By the way, I love being
back in Minneapolis. And, glory be, the
hometown team is making us proud.
From: Rick Lazarus
To: Jane Epstein
Sent: 5/14/01
Subject: Hey stranger
Good to hear from you, Jane. The TVvins
have got people talking, all right. Though
of course they'll fold when the Yankees
hit their stride.;)
What's got you nervous about this
Zimmerman guy? -R
Sent 5/15/01
Subject re: Hey stranger
Nothing I can put my finger on. Here's a
little incident. My AA, Maureen, flubbed
a meeting time - scheduled over some-
thing else-and he really lit into her. Not

the end of the world - she had made a
mistake, and he had to rearrange an ap-
pointment - but he could have gotten
the point across more tactfully. And she
is *my* AA. (And I am *his* boss, and he
did It in front of me.) -Jane
Sent 5/1S/01
Subject don't be a softie
J - The guy doesn't necessarily sound
like a problem to me. I hate it when peo-
ple screw up scheduling, and you've
always been too patient with that kind
of thing. Clearly you have to establish
your own authority with him, though, or
he'll step all over you.
What's the place like in general? Are
the folks there patient with incompe-
Sarah Clijffe is an executive editor at HBR.
HBR's cases present cotnmon managerial
dilemmas and offer concrete solutions
from experts. As written, they are hypo-
thetical, and the names used are fictitious.
tence? Or is it crisp and cruel, like here?
;) By the by, Mary sends her love. -R
Sent 5/16/01
Subject tougher than you think
Funny you should ask. It's hardly crisp
and cruel. In fact, it's probably a little
too nicey-nice. Support staff's not up to
the same standards (not paid as well, ei-

ther). And there's a little more coasting
among professional staff here. (Culling
out the bottom 20% of performers every
year sure keeps people on their toes!)
Senior managers talk a lot about lack of
hierarchy, which seems to translate into
tolerating barely average performance
if the people are well liked. (Then again,
this could be all wrong: I'm describing
a place I've only been part of for a few
weeks.) -Jane
Sent: 5/22/01
Subject FW: good for a laugh...
You have just received the Amish virus.
Since we have no electricity or comput-
ers, you are on the honor system. Please
delete all of your files on your hard
drive. Then forward this message to
everyone in your address book.
Thank thee.
38 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW
What a Star-What a Jerk • HBR CASE STUDY
Sent 5/22/01
Subject: ha! • '
Speaking of honor (not), here's another
anecdote in the the continuing "Who is
Andy Zimmerman" saga. Yesterday we
were doing some strategizing as a group.

(We need to be more aggressive about
growth, and this was a pretty open-
ended meeting to think about new mar-
kets.) Jack (the intense, possibly shy one
that I haven't figured out yet) was going
on a bit too long about a pet idea of his.
I was about to redirect the conversation
when Andy cut him offi "What you're
proposing makes no sense, and here's
why." Then he laid out all the flaws in
poor Jack's thinking, one by one - reaUy
made him squirm. The thing is, he was
right. On the other hand, it was a pre-
liminary, semibrainstorming kind of
meeting, so his tirade stopped the free
fiow of ideas in its tracks.
Later, I heard him *reaming* out the
group's other AA, Danielle: "This is an
important customer. He's called three
times - WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT
RIGHT!?!?" Once again, he was right.
But that kind of tongue-lashing *causes*
people to make mistakes. -Jane
Sent 5/22/01
Subject bottom line?
Ignoring his niceness quotient for a
moment, how's the guy's performance?
-Rick
Sent 5/22/01
Subject re: bottom line?
I don't think he'd have gotten away
with his nastiness for so long if his per-

formance weren't topflight. As another
group leader said to me over coffee,
"The guy won't win any personality con-
tests, but you'll love his numbers." He
brings home the bacon: He's smart, effi-
cient-the best we've got (in terms of
pure performance). I'd have to be crazy
not to want him in my group. -J
Sent 5/22/01
Subject re: re: bottom line?
Well, then, I don't see the problem. I
think you're overreacting. -R
Sent: 5/23/01
Subject re: re: re: bottom line?
That's what I like abt^ut you. Rick-never
one to sugarcoat...
Sent 5^0/01
Subject Holy jeily. Batman...we're in
a jam!
Can I bore you again with Andy, my
low-likability, high-performance guy?
Until now, I'd thought he was just nasty
to lower-level people (which I quietly
asked him to tone down, btw, after the
incidents with the AAs) but at least
grudgingly civil to colleagues. But he's
gone and alienated Caroline, the one
who's going through the divorce. Back-
ground: She has huge social capital built
up here; she's the one everyone turns to
with their problems, either professional
or perstmal. She's a good egg, but she
isn't at her best right now (a custody

issue got messy and her mother's sick).
She probably should have taken some
time off, but it's a bad time of year-so I
asked her to hold off. Okay, so here she
is, this normally centered perstm who's
hanging on by a thread, and Andy got
under her skin. She forwarded me this
e-mail he'd sent her, and when I went to
SEPTEMBER 2001 39
HBR CASE STUDY • What a Star - What a Jerk
talk to her about it, she cried. It was a
•horrible* scene. Anyhow, take a look:
Caroline, you screwed up big time.
We had a meeting with people I'd
been trying to cultivate for eight
months, set up well in advance, and
you blew it off at the last minute,
which embarrassed me and endan-
gered the business. 1 can just hear you
whining, "Things are a mess at home
right now" - but you know what?
Tough. Everybody's got problems, and
they should stay out of the office. If I
don't land this business, it will be be-
cause of your incompetence, and you
can bet that Epstein and everyone
else who coimts will hear about it.
After she was done crying-which em-
barrassed us both a lot - she expressed

remorse for making the mistake. Then
we talked... she explained how she has
sort of "handled" Zimmerman until re-
cently (which is why she felt betrayed by
his accusations). Evidently, he'd often
vent to her about what he saw as all-
around stupidity. She'd listen, calm him
down, and occasionally chide him ex-
tremely gently for being out of line. And
other people would come to her and
complain when he'd said something
nasty, and she'd calm *them* down (ex-
plaining the pressure he was under,
whatever). Since he exempted her from
his nastiness, she was shocked when he
turned on hen Anyhow, she wasn't try-
ing to blow the whistle on him - not
really-but I could see that she was fed
up with the smoothing-over role. (I
gather that my predecessor completely
ignored the whole situation - in part
because Caroline kept it under control.
Sure wish I could do that.)
Obviously, I have to have a chat with
the big bad wolf You know, when I left
BCP to take a job with a real company,
1 imagined focusing on numbers, prod-
ucts, customers-on *building* some-
thing. Instead, I feel as if people issues-
stupid little blowups like this-take up
most of my time. Sheesh. These are all
highly paid people, mostly with ad-
vanced degrees.... Why do 1 feel like a
kindergarten teacher?

Sent: 5/30/01
Subject: could be worse...
J - In some ways, he sounds like your
bad cop: He keeps laggards in line, you
get to be the nice guy. I could imagine
worse set-ups.
I'm surprised she showed you that
memo, since it makes her look bad. I
know you're going to tell me it's abusive,
but is it, really?
Sent: 5/30/01
Subject re: could be worse...
Abusive? I don't know. But it is threat-
ening. And it makes someone who's
good, and who's defended him in the
past, feel like garbage.... Oh, I don't
know what I think.-J
Sent 5/31/01
Subject whew
Okay, so Andy and I had a long talk. I
think it went reasonably well. With Car-
oline's permission, 1 told him about the
leave she should be on. And he said he
had to admit that he'd never seen any-
thing like that from her before. Looked
very slightly ashamed (but maybe 1
imagined that part).
I wanted to establish some kind of
rapport, as well as call him on inappro-
priate behavior, so ! got him talking
about his own role in the group and
how he sees the work developing over

the next several months. And-surprise,
surprise-we had a good conversation.
He's got great insights, energy, and
smarts. We talked for quite some time,
in a way that was, to be honest, more
productive and visionary and (simulta-
neously) down-to-earth than would
have happened had the whole group
been present. We were sort of firing
off each other in the same way you and
I used t o - i t was fun.:)
Of course, I went back to the question
of how he acts in the group. 1 said, basi-
cally, "Ltx>k, you're talented and quick
and impatient, and you just have to slow
down and bite your tongue and be a lit-
tle nicer to people." (Since we'd been
having a really good conversation-with
the temporary intimacy that creates-it
was easy to say.) He was somewhat dis-
missive but, when I pushed it, he agreed
to try to listen better in meetings and
stop reaming out the AAs.
Sent 5/31/01
Subject words to live by...
I always said you'd make a great kinder-
garten teacher <ducks>. So problem boy
is tamed?
If perchance he isn't, just remember
what Groucho Marx said:"Time wounds
all heels."-R

Sent 6/01/01
Subject re: words to live by...
Groucho didn't say that,Jane Sherw<K>d
Ace did.:) And yes, let's decide problem
boy is tamed, and forget about it. -Jane
Sent 6/12/01
Subject too good to be true
Hey Rick, how was Hawaii? Bet the kids
loved the beach - I'm jealous. I could
use a little time off myself.
Of course it was tcx) gcwd to be true -
problem boy being reformed (sigh). Yes-
terday I came into a meeting I'd asked
him to chair until I could get there. I
slipped in quietly - not wanting to dis-
turb things-and the way the room was
set up, he didn't see me at first. Every
person in that room looked cowed: eyes
down, hunched over-slightly squelched
in this rather sad way. And it's a gtwd
group, really! He was responding to
something Tom had said, and his ugly
side was out in full force. He sneered,
used dismissive language - even rolled
his eyes when Tom tried to break in with
a counterargument. And this was *after*
I'd slipped into his range of vision-who
knows what terrors he was up to before
I got there? It suddenly became clear to
me: This guy's a bully.
Afterwards, I saw Caroline and Tom
talking - about Andy, I'm sure. Mean-
while, when I walked into Andy's office

a few minutes after the meeting- and
looked at him, stone cold - he just
shrugged and shook his head.
Damn. He ain't changin'. And this
isn't kindergarten-it's a business. I feel
like I'm between a rock (the lousy effect
he has on the group) and a hard place
(his stellar performance).
What should Jane do ahout her top performer's mean streak?
Four commentators offer their advice.
"In general, the worst thing a supervisor can
do is to sometimes reward and sometimes
punish unacceptable behavior."
Mary Rowe teaches negotiations and conflict management
at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and is an MIT ombudsperson.
I'm going to approach this problem as
if I were TechniCo's organizational om-
budsperson - which means that I'm a
confidentiai neutral. I'm an informal
coach and shuttle diplomat within the
company, looking into problems and
working toward systemic changes.
Jane should prepare for this challenge

as she would for a project launch. She
needs to quickly collect a lot of informa-
tion. And she must protect everyone's pri-
vacy-including Andy's-along the way.
She should start by gathering infor-
mation about the people involved and
the context of the organizational set-
ting. Does the company have policies
about mean behavior-perhaps a "core
values"statement about "dignity and re-
spect at TechniCo"? Official statements
like this-and good training programs-
can offer managers much-needed help
and support. Other questions to ask:
Would her bosses want to know about
the problems with Andy? Is he following
the tone set by TechniCo's top execu-
tives, or would they want to see Andy's
behavior change? Is there a person from
HR who could be helpful? And how is
the company doing? What are Jane's
team's interests? What are the technical
and interpersonal skills of the other
team members?
Next, Jane should analyze her own
interests and power, as well as Andy's.
Does she have strong power to reward
and sanction? Does she have moral au-
thority, derived from company policy or
her own character? What's her technical
expertise? Does she have a fallback po-
sition if this situation goes bad? As for
Andy's interests and sources of power:

Does he want a new assignment? Is he
indispensable? Does he have other of-
fers? Finally, she should consider the
various kinds of power each team mem-
ber wields: Do any of them have other
offers? Might a desperate Caroline
complain about Andy to her old friend
the CEO?
If, after analyzing the situation and
considering the interests and power of
all parties, Jane decides to work directly
with Andy, she'll need to get his atten-
tion. She might suggest that he watch
the movie What Women Want or that
he take the quiz in Harry Levinson's
1978 HBR article, "The Abrasive Per-
sonality." Alternatively, a tough order
from Jane's boss, transmitted through
her, might capture Andy's attention, if
that option is appropriate. Notice that
1 didn't suggest that she directly con-
front him. She should ask him to work
with her to develop an elegant solu-
tion-one that satisfies all the interests
at stake.
In general, the worst thing a supervi-
sor can do is to sometimes reward and
sometimes punish unacceptable behav-
ior. This is even worse than simply re-
warding harsh behavior, since the cycle
of reward and punishment may make
a person immune to rebuke, counsel-
ing, and discipline. Ignoring unaccept-

able behavior is only marginally better
than rewarding it, but neither method
changes behavior. Jane may punish
Andy, but it probably won't change him.
Rewarding Andy for excellent behavior
may be more effective, especially if the
specific behavior of Andy that is re-
warded blocks the behavior jane wants
to change.
For example, Andy might be re-
warded for mentoring that results in
sensational performance by coworkers.
In parallel, Andy might be shown that
his mean behavior doesn't improve the
performance of teammates - that he
should affirm their good performance,
instead. The best solution will be one
that Andy helps to design, so long as it's
fair to the rest of the team, even if it is
just that Andy becomes an individual
contributor.
Whatever happens, Jane needs to
keep careful records and follow up. If
it turns out that Andy should be fired,
she needs backup plans. On the other
hand,if Andy succeeds wonderfully,she
should think about ways to reward his
turnaround.

"In the real world, managers need to carve out
places for unpleasant, highly productive people-
places that keep them from poisoning everyone
else's working environment"
Chuck McKenzie is a senior vice president and managing
director at Oppenheimer Funds. He is based in New York.
I know Andy pretty well. Everywhere
I've worked, we've always had Andys.
And we survived them. In some ways,
we thrived because of them. But you
can't just let the Andys of this world run
wild-adjustments on all sides have to
be made.
Jane's facing a classic situation: the
rainmaker who drives everyone around
him crazy. She can't get rid of him, but
she can't let him destroy the team,
either. The group's morale and its busi-
ness performance are inextricably en-
twined. If Andy seriously damages m(>
rale-and productivity along with it-he
will damage the bottom line. There's
even a business case to be made against
Andy: It can cost up to ten times as much
to bring in new business as it does to
hold onto existing business. So no mat-
ter how big a rainmaker Andy is, if his
actions endanger existing business-per-
haps because turnover rates start to
skyrocket-that's a serious, bottom-line
problem.

But it would probably be foolish to
fire Andy. He generates more revenue
than anyone else, he has great ideas, and
he's extremely smart. In my experience,
many outstanding performers are diffi-
cult and abrasive. If Jane and her group
can cope with true diversity-the diver-
sity that comes with clashing personali-
ties-they'll be a stronger and more cre-
ative group.
Jane also needs to define success for
her group. If her definition optimizes a
range of measures-including new sales,
existing-business retention, employee
retention, morale, and productivity-she
should be able to get everyone rowing
in the same direction.
Once Jane has thought through these
issues, she needs to make changes in
four areas.
Organizational Structure. If the
Andys I've worked with are any indica-
tion, this Andy isn't going to change
much. (I had to laugh when Jane thought
one extremely indirect conversation was
going to change this guy.) Rather than
wasting time on that hopeless strategy,
carve out a role that lets him focus on
what he's best at: developing sales plans
and selling. Give him his own AA (he is
the rainmaker, after all) and let them
work as a sales team. Meet with Andy
regularly one on one, and separate him

from the rest of the group as much as
possible. That may require redrawing
the org chart.
Attitude. Jane needs to adjust her
own attitude. She wants to be a leader-
somebody above the fray who sets di-
rection and thinks about strategy-not
a manager. But in this case, she's going
to have to address the messy, everyday
stuff before she gets a chance to lead.
Roles. The roles in Jane's group are
poorly defined: Caroline is playing full-
time counselor to the group, and Andy
is micromanaging everyone and every-
thing. The team members are bound to
be confused as a result, and productivity
is sure to go down. Jane needs to clarify
each person's responsibilities. (If she
starts to fulfill her own responsibilities,
and clearly defines Andy's, the rest may
take care of itself.)
Culture. Jane has noted that Techni-
Co is too tolerant of barely average per-
formers. If she can change that cultural
norm within her own group, she'll im-
prove the group's performance and pro-
ductivity, as well as her own career pros-
pects. It would probably appeal to Andy,
too. (I'm not deluding myself- people
like Andy always think that they're bet-
ter than everyone else. But at least he'd
have fewer legitimate reasons for his

blowups.)
Managing an Andy isn't easy. Some
managers think people like him should
be nurtured, promoted, and fawned
over. Doing that creates ttx) many prob-
lems for the rest of the organization, in
my opinion. But it's also not possible to
take the high road and say, "We won't
tolerate unpleasant behavior." In the
real world, managers need to carve out
places for unpleasant, highly productive
people-places that keep them from poi-
soning everyone else's working envi-
ronment. It isn't easy, but it can be done.
"Jane seems to think that people issues are
distracting her from her 'real* job.... She
needs to realize that managing people is
her real job."
Kathy jfordan, a psychologist, is an executive coach
with KRW Ititernationat, a global executive-development
consulting firm. She is based in Boston.
Jane's biggest problem right now isn't
actually Andy Zimmerman. It's learn-
ing to be a manager. Jane seems to think
that people issues are distracting her
from her "real" job. ("I imagined focus-

ing on numbers, products, customers...
instead, I feel as if...stupid little blow-
ups...take up most of my time.") She
needs to realize that managing people
is her real job.
It's fine to watch a new group for a
while, analyzing behavior patterns be-
fore jumping to action. Nevertheless,
Jane seems too passive. She is spending
too much time observing garden-variety
interpersonal dynamics that demand a
response. When Andy eviscerated Jack's
ideas during an early meeting, for ex-
ample, Jane should have interrupted,
reminded the team that they were in
brainstorming mode, and suggested get-
ting everyone's ideas on the table be-
fore evaluating anything in detail. She
needs to give Andy more than "stone
cold" kxiks when he has been rude and
dismissive.
As a manager, Jane's most pressing
task is to develop a high-performing
team. Luckily, she has inherited a rea-
sonably strong group with a typical cast
of characters, representing no unusual
managerial challenges. Even Andy, her
problem employee, is a common type
who has held the team, and perhaps
TechniCo, hostage to his bad behavior
because he delivers the numbers.
First, Jane must be clear with Andy

about her expectations. He needs to un-
derstand that good numbers are not
enough and that bis job depends on his
ability to manage relationships with col-
leagues professionally. Instead of allow-
ing herself to be seduced by Andy's in-
sight, Jane needs to bite the bullet and
insist on positive behavior as a condi-
tion of employment. A potential obsta-
cle might be TecbniCo's cultural willing-
ness to accept bad behavior in service
to the bottom line. Jane will need to in-
fluence opinion leaders by making the
case that more collaborative and colle-
gial behavior will improve the financial
performance of the team as a whole.
Second, Jane should coach her team
members on developing assertiveness
and conflict management strategies.
Since some of Andy's negative behavior
happens in meetings, the entire team
would probably benefit from training
in how to conduct effective meetings.
Andy is currently incapable of chairing
a productive meeting, and the rest of
the team has no idea how to get a meet-
ing back on track after Andy has de-
railed it. Creating a team that's able
to handle its own work relationships
would allow Jane to avoid the trap of
becoming a "kindergarten teacher," a
trap that's inevitable if she replaces
Caroline as Andy's handler.

Finally, Jane has to stop sending
e-mail to Rick Lazarus. Because they
worked together recently in the same
company, he's probably just reinforcing
her managerial blind spots. She should
find a trustworthy coach wbo is a sea-
soned manager at TechniCo. A good in-
ternal coacb can help in several ways.
He or she can give Jane a crash course
on corporate culture and help her figure
out what kind of leverage she has with
Andy. A coach can also help Jane iden-
tify who needs to be consulted, or at
least kept in the lcx)p, about how she Is
managing Andy. (A rainmaker like Andy
probably has the protection of impor-
tant senior managers, whose support
she will need if she is to influence Andy
or, if necessary, to clear tbe way for his
departure.) A coach would also let Jane
vet her ideas for deploying staff and
managing the business. A good coach
might have questioned the wisdom of
asking Caroline to defer a much-needed
personal leave, for example.
Honeynuwns are stunningly short in
today's corporate environments, and
Jane has only a few months to demon-
strate that she understands TecbniCo's
culture well enough to lead her team
into the future. If she takes action now,
she might be able to prove her mettle.

"When an exasperated Jane compared her
job to that of a kindergarten teacher,
she wasn't far off. Kids need-and want-
limits. Some adults need them, too."
James Waldroop, a psychologist, is a principal at Peregrine
Partners, a consulting firm in Brooktitie, Massachusetts, that
specializes in executive development and employee retention.
One of the best managers I ever worked
with had what he called a "no creeps"
hiring policy. "I don't care how much
money somebody could make us, or
how smart they are; it's not worth it if
they disrupt the entire group," he'd say.
Jane may eventually come to see the
wisdom of that policy. But let's assume
for the time being that she wants to
hold on to Andy.
Andy is extremely narcissistic: It's all
about him - whether he looks good, no
matter what. (Fven when Caroline is on
the ropes, he'll let her have it if she
makes him kx)k bad.) His narcissism has
another component: It's all about him,
now. He doesn't take the time to think
about how his actions at this moment
are going to affect even his own ability
to perform over the long term, never
mind how they affect other people.

Andy's colleagues have been accom-
modating bis behavior for so long that
he has come to see it as all right. When
an exasperated Jane compared her job
to that of a kindergarten teacher, she
wasn't far off. Kids need - and want -
limits. Some adults need them, ttx>, and
Andy is one of those adults, it's time for
Jane to stop accommodating Andy (or
"enabling" him, as the drug treatment
folks would say) and start setting clear
limits.
As his manager, I would alternately
stroke his ego ("You're so bright and
you really know your stuff") and ham-
mer him hard - hard enough to really
rattle him ("But you know, Andy, if you
were dying of thirst, I doubt that any-
one you work with would toss you a
bottle of water"). I'd appeal to his
grandiosity ("If you could learn to con-
trol your temper and your ego, you
could be great, really great...") and at
the same time, I would raise his anxiety
and insecurity levels ("...but I'm afraid
we're wasting our time talking about
this, because you don't seem to want
to change"). And when i say "alter-
nately," I don't mean from one meeting
to the next, I mean from one minute to
the next. To get through Andy's de-
fenses, Jane will have to jam his radar
and scramble bis internal radio signals.
"I'd love to keep you here, Andy, but

you're one expensive piece of equip-
ment-you cause a lot of damage as you
do your job. And the bottom line is
[here comes the limit setting-delivered
with a steely gaze, if possible] your be-
havior is totally unprofessional. I know
that you mean to do your best for the
organization [letting him save a little
face here], but you're not even doing
that. Being 'right' and being 'effective'
aren't even close to synonymous. And
although you may be right a lot of the
time, you're not nearly as effective as
you could be."AII this isto set him up for
the real choice:
"So, Andy, you need to decide very
soon whether you want to work here.
Your behavior is out of bounds, and I
won't bave it. If you decide you want to
stay, I'll support you, and I'll do my best
to help you to rein in your outbursts. I'd
love to see you learn to be more effec-
tive. But, to be very clear [steely gaze
again], if you fall back into bullying
people, I'll initiate action to get you out
of here. So go mull this over, and let's
talk again."
Now that I've stirred him up, I want
him to have to sit with it, so I'd try to
have this meeting on a Friday afternoon
and arrange tbe second talk for Mon-
day. That way, he'll be forced to think
about it all weekend.

With Andy, Jane has to put a dramatic
end to business as usual. She has to hit
him hard enough to really get him to lis-
ten, she has to set firm limits, and she
has to stroke his underlying insecurity
enough that he doesn't just walk away.
Will it work? I don't know, but it's the
best shot she's got ^
Reprint ROIO8A
To order reprints, see the last page
of Executive Summaries.
This article is made available to you by Tiziana Casciaro and
Miguel Sousa Lobo. Further posting,
copying or distributing is copyright infringement. To order
more copies go to www.hbr.org.
www.hbr.org
A R T I C L E
Competent Jerks,
Lovable Fools, and the

Formation of Social
Networks
by Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo
Included with this full-text
Harvard Business Review
article:
The Idea in Brief—the core idea
The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work
1
Article Summary
2
Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social
Networks
A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further
exploration of the article’s ideas and applications

9
Further Reading
Product 1118
http://www.hbr.org
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/relay.jhtml?name
=itemdetail&referral=4320&id=1118
Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the
Formation of Social Networks
page 1
The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice
C
O
P
Y

R
IG
H
T
©
2
0
0
5
H
A
R
V
A
R
D
B
U
S
IN
E
S
S
S

C
H
O
O
L
P
U
B
L
IS
H
IN
G
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
IO
N
. A

L
L
R
IG
H
T
S
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
D
.
When people need help completing com-
plex projects, they select the colleagues
best able to do the job—not just those
they like. Right? Wrong. Faced with a choice
between a “competent jerk” and a “lovable
fool” as a work partner, people usually opt
for likeability over ability.
This has big implications for your organiza-
tion. Good things happen when people
who like each other collaborate—projects

flow quickly; people gladly help each other.
But there’s a cost: people who like each
other typically share similar values and
ways of thinking—making it difficult to
generate fresh ideas. Moreover, most
individuals avoid skilled but unpleasant
colleagues—leaving competent jerks’
expertise untapped.
How to leverage likeable people’s attrac-
tiveness
and
competent jerks’ knowledge?
Apply this three-pronged strategy:
•
Manufacture liking in critical relationships.
For example, create cross-departmental
project teams to encourage a shared
identity based on the project and to de-
emphasize functional alliances.
•

Leverage the likeable.
People listen to
likeable colleagues, so have widely liked
individuals serve as evangelists for im-
portant change initiatives.
•
Reform the jerks.
Use coaching, incen-
tives, and interpersonal skills training to
burnish competent jerks’ social skills.
Your payoff? Avid collaboration, copious
sharing of knowledge and expertise, and
exceptional performance throughout your
organization.
MANUFACTURE LIKING
To foster positive feelings among people in
your organization, use these tactics:
•
Promote familiarity.

Familiarity increases
liking, so mix up people’s workspaces to
provide opportunities for mingling. Create
informal gathering areas where people can
engage in water-cooler-style chats. Con-
duct all-office get-togethers where people
from different functions and units can mix.
•
Foster bonding.
You’ll need an aggressive
approach if people are divided by intense
animosity (for instance, they’re loyal to dif-
ferent premerger companies) or they’ve
long competed for resources. In such cases,
put people through an intense cooperative
experience, such as Outward Bound–type
off-site adventures. But make these experi-
ences novel and authentic: they quickly
lose their effectiveness if people view them
as trite or contrived.
LEVERAGE THE LIKEABLE
Widely liked people are frequently unexcep-
tional performers. But their ability to cultivate
positive working relationships between di-

verse groups can generate enormous value
for your organization. To get the most from
them:
•
Identify them.
Through 360-degree evalua-
tions and social network analyses, find out
who’s best at deflating frustration and
anger between groups, insulating people
from complaints so they can work undis-
turbed, and connecting people from differ-
ent parts of your business.
•
Protect them.
Some managers deem like-
able people’s “soft” contributions as less im-
portant than more quantifiable contribu-
tions. During downsizing decisions,
carefully consider the value these “affective
hubs” generate for your organization.
•

Position them strategically.
Assign likeable
people to roles where they can link people
from different parts of the organization
who might resist (or never think of ) collab-
orating. For example, have them lead a
program to communicate new practices
throughout your organization. Others will
listen to them and embrace important
change initiatives.
REFORM THE JERKS
Link rewards for skilled but unpleasant people
to their willingness to improve their social
skills. One investment banker who was charm-
ing to potential clients but not to coworkers
was denied a promotion to a managing direc-
tor position.
Also use coaching: explain how off-putting
behavior is self-defeating. Provide immediate
feedback when you see such behavior, rather
than waiting for a year-end performance
review. After coaching from his boss, the ob-
noxious investment banker’s behavior im-
proved—and he was promoted the following
year.

Competent Jerks,
Lovable Fools, and the
Formation of Social
Networks
by Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo
harvard business review • june 2005 page 2
C
O
P
Y
R
IG
H
T
©
2
0
0
5

H
A
R
V
A
R
D
B
U
S
IN
E
S
S
S
C
H
O
O
L
P
U
B
L

IS
H
IN
G
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
IO
N
. A
L
L
R
IG
H
T
S
R
E

S
E
R
V
E
D
.
New research shows that when people need help getting a job
done,
they’ll choose a congenial colleague over a more capable one.
That has
big implications for every organization—and not all of them are
negative.
One of management’s greatest challenges
arises from a natural tension inherent in every
organization. People are brought together be-
cause they have the variety of skills that, in
concert, are needed to carry out a complex ac-
tivity. But this variety inevitably leads to frag-
mentation of the organization into silos of spe-
cialized knowledge and activity.
It’s an understatement to say that resolving
this tension is crucial to success in today’s
knowledge-based and collaborative business
environment. How do you ensure that relevant

information gets transferred between two
parts of an organization that have different
cultures? How do you encourage people from
units competing for scarce corporate resources
to work together? How do you see to it that
the value of a cross-functional team is more,
not less, than the sum of its parts?
The answers to such questions lie not in an
examination of organization charts but
largely in an understanding of informal social
networks and how they emerge. Certainly, or-
ganizations are designed to ensure that peo-
ple interact in ways necessary to get their jobs
done. But all kinds of work-related encounters
and relationships exist that only partly reflect
these purposefully designed structures. Even
in the context of formal structures like cross-
functional teams, informal relationships play
a major role.
In this article, we offer somewhat surprising
insights into how informal networks take
shape in companies—that is, how people
choose those they work with. We then discuss
some of the benefits and drawbacks of this
phenomenon and offer ways for managers to
mitigate its negative effects and leverage the
positive ones.
How We Choose Work Partners
When given the choice of whom to work with,

people will pick one person over another for
any number of reasons: the prestige of being
associated with a star performer, for example,
or the hope that spending time with a strategi-
cally placed superior will further their careers.
But in most cases, people choose their work
Networks
partners according to two criteria. One is com-
petence at the job (Does Joe know what he’s
doing?). The other is likability (Is Joe enjoy-
able to work with?). Obviously, both things
matter. Less obvious is how much they mat-
ter—and exactly
how
they matter.
To gain some insight into these questions,

we studied four organizations selected to re-
flect a wide range of attributes—for-profit and
nonprofit, large and small, North American
and European. We asked people to indicate
how often they had work-related interactions
with every other person in the organization.
We then asked them to rate all the other peo-
ple in the company in terms of how much they
personally liked each one and how well each
did his or her job. (For a more-detailed descrip-
tion of the studies, see the sidebar “Who Is
Good? Who Is Liked?”)
These two criteria—competence and likabil-
ity—combine to produce four archetypes: the
competent jerk, who knows a lot but is un-
pleasant to deal with; the lovable fool, who
doesn’t know much but is a delight to have
around; the lovable star, who’s both smart and
likable; and the incompetent jerk, who…well,
that’s self-explanatory. These archetypes are
caricatures, of course: Organizations usually—
well, much of the time—weed out both the
hopelessly incompetent and the socially clue-
less. Still, people in an organization can be
roughly classified using a simple matrix. (In-
deed, with relative ease you can probably pop-
ulate the four boxes depicted in the exhibit
“Whom Would You Choose?” with the names
of people in your own company.)
Our research showed (not surprisingly) that,
no matter what kind of organization we stud-
ied, everybody wanted to work with the lov-
able star, and nobody wanted to work with the
incompetent jerk. Things got a lot more inter-

esting, though, when people faced the choice
between competent jerks and lovable fools.
Ask managers about this choice—and we’ve
asked many of them, both as part of our re-
search and in executive education programs
we teach—and you’ll often hear them say that
when it comes to getting a job done,
of course
competence trumps likability. “I can defuse my
antipathy toward the jerk if he’s competent,
but I can’t train someone who’s incompetent,”
says the CIO at a large engineering company.
Or, in the words of a knowledge management
executive in the IT department of a profes-
sional services firm: “I really care about the
skills and expertise you bring to the table. If
you’re a nice person on top of that, that’s sim-
ply a bonus.”
But despite what such people might say
about their preferences, the reverse turned out
to be true in practice in the organizations we
analyzed. Personal feelings played a more im-
portant role in forming work relationships—
not friendships at work but job-oriented rela-
tionships—than is commonly acknowledged.
They were even more important than evalua-
tions of competence. In fact, feelings worked as
a gating factor: We found that if someone is
strongly disliked, it’s almost irrelevant whether

or not she is competent; people won’t want to
work with her anyway. By contrast, if someone
is liked, his colleagues will seek out every little
bit of competence he has to offer. And this ten-
dency didn’t exist only in extreme cases; it was
true across the board. Generally speaking, a lit-
tle extra likability goes a longer way than a lit-
tle extra competence in making someone desir-
able to work with.
Of course, competence is more important
than likability in some people’s choice of work
partners. But why do so many others
claim
that to be the case? “Choosing the lovable fool
over the competent jerk looks unprofessional,”
suggests a marketing manager at a personal
products company. “So people don’t like to
admit it—maybe not even to themselves.”
Yet
is
such a choice unprofessional? Is it a
mistake to steer clear of the competent jerk
when we have a job to do? Sometimes, yes. We
may forgo the opportunity to tap a competent
jerk’s knowledge and skills because we don’t
want to deal with his patronizing, brusque, or

otherwise unpleasant attitude—which is argu-
ably a modest price to pay for the valuable as-
sistance he can provide. We may even shun the
jerk simply to deny him the satisfaction of lord-
ing his knowledge over us.
But there are justifiable reasons to avoid the
jerk. Sometimes it can be difficult to pry the
needed information from him simply because
he is a jerk. And knowledge often requires ex-
planation to be useful—you might, for in-
stance, want to brainstorm with someone or
ask follow-up questions—and this kind of in-
teraction may be difficult with a competent
jerk. Furthermore, in order to learn, you often
have to reveal your vulnerabilities, which also
may be difficult with the competent jerk—es-
Tiziana Casciaro
([email protected])
is an assistant professor of organiza-
tional behavior at Harvard Business
School in Boston.
Miguel Sousa Lobo
([email protected]) is an assistant
professor of decision sciences at Duke
University’s Fuqua School of Business
in Durham, North Carolina.

mailto:[email protected]
Networks
pecially if you are afraid of how this might af-
fect your reputation in his eyes or in the eyes of
others to whom he may reveal your limita-
tions. By contrast, the lovable fool may be
more likely to freely share whatever (albeit
modest) information or skills he has and, with-
out any intention of gaining an advantage,
help others put them to use.
The Likability Bias: Pros and Cons
Some people are liked pretty much univer-
sally. In other cases, likability is relative: One
person’s friend may be another one’s jerk. This
is because our positive feelings can result from
people’s inherent attributes or from the situa-

tions we find ourselves in with them. This dis-
tinction is important to keep in mind as we try
to manage this tendency of people to favor lik-
ability over competence in their choice of
work partners.
Social psychologists have long known that
we like people who are
similar
to us; people we
are
familiar
with; people who have
reciprocal
positive feelings about us; and people who are
inherently
attractive,
either in their appear-
ance or their personality—that is, they are con-
siderate, cheerful, generous, and so on. Each of

these sources of personal likability can contrib-
ute, for better or worse, to the formation of an
informal network.
For Better.
That we like people who are
similar to us—for example, in their back-
ground, their beliefs, their interests, their per-
sonal style—is one of the most solidly docu-
mented findings in the social sciences. After
all, these people make us feel good because
they reaffirm the validity of our own charac-
teristics and attitudes. But there’s a business,
as well as a psychological, benefit when simi-
lar people choose to work together: Their sim-
ilar values, ways of thinking, and communica-
tion styles help projects flow smoothly and
quickly.
Benefits also result when we work with peo-
ple who aren’t necessarily similar, but are fa-
miliar, to us. When you launch into a task with
those you already know, you don’t waste a lot
of time figuring out what to expect from them
or explaining what you mean every time you
say something. In addition, because you are
usually relatively comfortable with individuals
you know, you’re likely to be more accepting
of their differences.
We also like to work with people who seem
to like us. This can produce a virtuous circle in
which everyone is more open to new ideas,

more willing to help, and more trusting than
would typically be the case. A similarly positive
environment can be created if you work with
someone who has an attractive personality—
someone who is empathetic, for example, or
generous. You know that you’ll have liberal ac-
cess to her intellectual resources, however
abundant or modest they may be, and are
likely to reciprocate by freely sharing your own
knowledge.
And a person who is physically attractive?
Well, in such a case, the job you do together
can be, in some indefinable way, simply a bit
more enjoyable than usual.
For Worse.
One of the greatest drawbacks
of choosing to work with similar people is the
limited range of perspectives that a homoge-
neous group often brings to bear on a prob-
Who Is Good? Who Is Liked?
To test our theory of work relationships,
we conducted a series of social network
surveys at four organizations: an entre-
preneurial technology company in Silicon
Valley, a unit of a multinational IT corpo-
ration, a U.S. university, and the Spanish
country office of a global luxury goods

corporation. We also surveyed a large
group of MBA students at a U.S. business
school. In all, we collected data about
more than 10,000 work relationships.
We conducted multiple studies for
two reasons. First, we wanted to see if
the findings would remain consistent
across different industries, types of orga-
nizations, and national cultures. Second,
we wanted to see if the findings would
remain consistent if we used different
measures of likability, competence, and
work-related interaction. For example,
the definition of work interaction in the
survey questions ranged from the very
general (“We interact at work”—in
which any kind of work-related interac-
tion counted, whether formal or infor-
mal, but not other unrelated socializing)
to the more specific (“When I have a
question or issue about my job, I go to
this person for advice or help” or “When
I need to engage in creative problem
solving regarding my job, I go to that
person to help me think out of the box
and consider different aspects of the
problem innovatively”). Although our
results clearly were limited to the five
groups we studied, the consistency of
the findings on both counts was striking.
Our analysis of the responses took
into account biases often present when
someone is asked to rate other people.

We corrected, for instance, for the fact
that some people are generally very gen-
erous with their ratings and others are
very stingy. We took into account the
fact that people working in the same de-
partment or in the same part of the
building would naturally interact more
frequently, regardless of liking or com-
petence. And we adjusted for the fact
that evaluations of competence and lik-
ability tend to go together: If I like you,
I’m more likely to rate you as compe-
tent, and, conversely, if we’ve worked to-
gether in the past, I’ll tend to like you
better. We were able to disentangle this
overlap in our analysis, as well. For de-
tails of our statistical approach, see our
working paper at www.people.hbs.edu/
tcasciaro/AffectInstrumentalTies.pdf.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/tcasciaro/AffectInstrumentalTies.pdf
http://www.people.hbs.edu/tcasciaro/AffectInstrumentalTies.pdf
Networks

lem. A diverse collection of colleagues—what-
ever the tensions and misunderstandings that
arise because of their differences—provides an
array of perspectives that can lead to truly in-
novative approaches to accomplishing a task.
Even groups composed not of similar souls
but merely of people who are very familiar
with one another miss the chance to integrate
the fresh perspective that new players bring to
a project. Working with the same old col-
leagues can also dampen debate: People may
hesitate to challenge or reject a bad idea put
forward by someone they know and like.
There is also an obvious downside when
we gravitate toward people because they like
us or because they are pleasant to work with.
These individuals, however terrific they may
be, aren’t necessarily the ones most suited to
tackling the task at hand. The required exper-
tise or knowledge may lie elsewhere, in some-
one who in fact doesn’t like us that much or
isn’t attractive.
One other danger of people working prima-
rily with those they like: They may simply have
a good time and get nothing done. An experi-
enced venture capitalist recalls the case of a
very capable manager who hired individuals
based on his personal affinity with them. “His
team had a great time going out for a beer, but
the quality of their work was seriously compro-

mised,” says the dismayed investor. “If you
keep hiring only people you like, you can kill a
company.”
The objective, therefore, is to leverage the
power of liking while avoiding the negative con-
sequences of people’s “affect-based choice”—to
use the psychological term—of work partners.
Keep in mind that we’re not talking here about
formal work relationships: You work with your
boss and your direct counterparts in other divi-
sions whether you like them or not. We’re talk-
ing only about people’s choices of informal,
though work-related, interactions. Even so, that
doesn’t preclude executives from doing some
things that will positively affect those interac-
tions and the often task-crucial informal net-
works that grow out of them.
We offer three basic approaches. First,
where possible, manufacture liking in critical
relationships. Second, carefully position uni-
versally likable people so they can bridge orga-
nizational divides. Third, to put it bluntly,
work on the jerks. The first tactic acknowl-
edges that whether you like someone or not
may depend on the situation. The second and
third tactics acknowledge that being a jerk or
being likable can be an intrinsic characteristic
of a person, almost regardless of the situation.
Manufacture Liking
Given the central role that our feelings about

people play in our work relationships, is there
anything a manager can do to foster positive
feelings toward one another? The answer, per-
haps surprisingly, is yes.
Promote familiarity.
In a well-known psy-
chological experiment, a person shown a pho-
tograph of himself and a reversed image of the
same picture consistently preferred the re-
versed photograph—simply because it was the
image he was used to seeing in the mirror!
And just as people like the images they’re used
to seeing, so they tend to like other people
they’re used to seeing around—they, too, are
known and predictable. Familiarity is, in turn,
one of the reasons why physical proximity
strongly affects the degree to which people
like each other: Research has shown that regu-
lar exposure to someone generally increases
the comfort and pleasure of interaction.
The power of familiarity to generate posi-
tive interpersonal feelings argues for some
careful thinking about the design of office
space. This could involve anything from mix-
Whom Would You Choose?
If you were faced with the need to ac-
complish a task at work, what sort of

person would you pick to help you—
someone able to get the job done or
someone enjoyable to be around? Stud-
ies done in four very different organiza-
tions consistently showed that most peo-
ple would choose a “lovable fool”
(someone who, to varying degrees, is
more likable than competent) over a
“competent jerk.”
low
high
Competent Jerk
mostly avoided
Lovable Star
desperately wanted
Incompetent Jerk
desperately avoided
Lovable Fool
mildly wanted
Competence
low highLikability

b
lis
h
in
g
C
or
p
or
at
io
n
. A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
re
se
rv
ed
.

Networks
ing up people’s work spaces (“I generally don’t
care for people in Finance, but I’ve actually
grown to like Sarah since she moved into the
next office”) to creating areas in an office that
foster informal, watercooler-style chats.
You can also design processes that give peo-
ple an opportunity simply to become ac-
quainted and thus make them more comfort-
able with each other. The “peer assist,” a
knowledge management process in which
team members aim to capture the expertise of
other colleagues before starting a project, gen-
erally involves some initial interaction—say, a
cocktail party—the evening before work be-
gins and any work-specific goals are addressed.
This allows people to get to know one another
a bit, independently from the work at hand,
while relationships are still emotionally neu-
tral and haven’t yet been subjected to any task-
related interference, such as the potentially
competing interests of the assisting and as-

sisted parties. Less formally, all-office get-
togethers on Friday afternoons can be more
than culture- and morale-building exercises.
They offer an opportunity for people from dif-
ferent functions and units to become familiar
with one another, thus making it easier for
them to share knowledge in the future.
Redefine similarity.
Similarities can be cre-
ated where they might not naturally arise. It’s
no secret, for example, that marketers and re-
searchers tend to be wary of one another.
Their personalities, as well as their depart-
mental allegiances, are generally very differ-
ent. But if you create a product management
team that includes both marketers and re-
searchers, there is a chance their similar iden-
tities as “Product X people” may begin to feel
stronger than their dissimilar identities as
“marketing people” and “R&D people.” Super-
imposition of the shared identity, by overrid-
ing natural differences, may lead to increased
cross-functional cooperation, both formal and
informal.
Foster bonding.
Often, however, coopera-
tion fails to emerge despite a redefinition of
similarities. Where there exists powerful

forces of distrust or animosity, either because
of strong dissimilarities (for instance, loyalty
to different premerger companies) or because
of a troubled history (years of competition be-
tween functional areas over budget alloca-
tions, for example), you won’t be able to get
people to like each other simply by inviting
them to some TGIF gatherings or by sticking
them on a cross-functional team. Promoting
positive feelings in those circumstances re-
quires stronger methods.
One involves putting people through an in-
tense cooperative experience. In a famous exper-
iment conducted more than 40 years ago by so-
cial psychologist Muzafer Sherif, groups of 11-
and 12-year-old boys were brought together in a
camp setting. Initially, they were randomly as-
signed to two groups. These were kept separate
to foster ties within each group, and competitive
activities were designed to produce animosity
between the two groups. Then, to see if expo-
sure to one another in a fun environment could
reduce the hostility that had been generated, the
competitive activities were suspended, and the
boys got together for such benign activities as
watching movies. In fact, though, hostility in-
creased, with fights erupting at every turn.
Sherif figured that something else was needed: a
situation that would force the boys to cooperate
with one another. So he created several. For in-
stance, a truck taking the two groups on a camp-
ing trip broke down, and all of the boys had to
push it up a steep hill to get it going again. Over
time, episodes like this decreased hostility and,

by the end of the camp experience, the number
of boys who said that they had a best friend in
the other group quadrupled.
The Outward Bound–style off-site experiences
used by many companies are based on this vener-
able psychological principle. Such tactics can be
problematic, however, because novelty and au-
thenticity are critical to their success. The mo-
ment they become trite or feel manufactured,
they lose their effectiveness. The challenge for
managers, therefore, is to constantly find new
ways to take advantage of this old concept.
Leverage the Likable
What should managers do to make effective
use of people—fools or otherwise—who are
likable almost regardless of the situation? Per-
haps the best way to capitalize on their per-
sonal qualities is to have them play the role of
“affective hubs”—people who, because they
are liked by a disproportionate number of
people, can bridge gaps between diverse
groups that might not otherwise interact.
We don’t necessarily like such people be-
cause they are similar or familiar to us. More
likely, we are drawn to their attractive person-
ality traits, sophisticated social skills, and old-
If someone is liked, his
colleagues will seek out

every little bit of
competence he has to
offer.
Networks
fashioned “chemistry’’—a chemistry that may
arise from our sense that these people genu-
inely like us. Such individuals aren’t necessar-
ily the best performers (although they can
be—that’s the lovable star). More commonly,
because of the time they devote to interacting
with people, they may actually lag slightly be-
hind their peers in terms of measurable perfor-
mance. But their ability to establish positive
working relationships between groups that
would otherwise tend to be disconnected can
be crucial to an organization’s success. Manag-
ers can do several things to get the most out of
such people.

Identify them.
Attentive managers know if
they have someone who could play—or is al-
ready playing—the role of an affective hub.
But most managers aren’t closely enough at-
tuned to the emotional dimension of work to
recognize such an individual. Take the case of
an employee in one company’s IT department.
She was the person who dealt with break-
downs in the technical infrastructure of the
company. Although less technically proficient
than many of her colleagues, she acted, in the
words of one, “as a coral reef barrier when the
user community in the company had prob-
lems. Because she was liked by everyone, she
could deflate users’ frustration and anger, in-
sulating us geeks from complaints and allow-
ing us to solve the problem.” After she was laid
off in a cost-cutting move, her job was divided
among more technically competent people.
The result? “It was a disaster,” according to her
former colleague.
Granted, it’s often difficult for a manager
several steps up in the firm to identify and as-
sess the value of such a person. One aid is the
increasingly common 360-degree evaluation,
which typically includes questions about how
pleasant someone is to deal with. A more sys-
tematic approach is to perform a social net-
work analysis with surveys whose questions
are specifically designed to collect informa-

tion on relationships between workers and on
the structure of the network formed by those
relationships.
Protect them.
Even when affective hubs
are identified and their value to the company
is acknowledged, such soft contributions may
be deemed less important than more quantifi-
able ones. When told about the concept of af-
fective hubs, members of a management team
at a large technology company exclaimed al-
most in unison: “Damn, we just fired him!”
They went on to describe someone who was
beloved within and outside the organization, a
person other people would turn to when they
wanted to make contact with someone in an-
other part of the business or at an alliance
partner. “It’s not just that he knew everybody,”
according to one member of the team. “It’s
that everybody really liked him, and they were
happy to do him a favor.” Even though people
were aware of his critical informal role, it
wasn’t enough to save him from being one of
the first to go in a round of downsizing.
Position them strategically.
Clearly, you
don’t want to waste the talents of an affective

hub by letting the person languish in a job
that is only loosely connected with other func-
tions. Such individuals should be put in a posi-
tion to link people from different parts of the
organization who might otherwise resist—or
never think of—collaborating with one an-
other. Affective hubs also are useful in posi-
tions central to the diffusion of new ideas.
Think, for example, of a program designed to
communicate new practices or principles
throughout an organization. How do you se-
lect participants? Do you chose managers?
Star performers? Or do you chose the people
who, because others will listen to them, are
going to be good evangelists for the new
ideas?
Work on the Jerk
Competent jerks represent a missed opportu-
nity for the organization because so much of
their expertise goes untapped. Dealing with
jerks is so unpleasant that colleagues simply
can’t be bothered with them. What can you do
with such people?
Reassess their contribution.
The individual
performance of the competent jerk is great.
But how does he contribute to the perfor-
mance of the organization as a whole? Does

he help the people who work with him or ac-
tually hinder them? Take the case of an invest-
ment bank that hired an extraordinary rain-
maker in a difficult and highly profitable
market the bank wanted to enter.
1
Unfortu-
nately, the qualities that made the new hire a
phenomenal producer in this rough-and-tum-
ble market also alienated lots of his col-
leagues. Over time, it became clear that the
newcomer’s manner was violating the culture
of respect and polite behavior that helped de-
Sometimes it can be
difficult to pry the
needed information from
the jerk simply because
he is a jerk.

Networks
fine the company. What, then, to do about it?
Reward good behavior; punish bad behav-
ior.
If the contributions of the competent jerk
are significant, it’s probably worth trying to
turn him into a tolerated, even if not actively
liked, star performer. Changing the behavior
of adults is never a straightforward proposi-
tion, of course, but some things can be done.
Jerks who can be charming when they wish—
but choose to do so only when convenient—
may respond to incentives. The rainmaker was
one of those. He could be very charming to po-
tential clients but was not to his coworkers. So
when it came time for him to be considered
for a managing director position, the bank de-
nied him the promotion.
Socialize and coach.
Although the rainmaker
could have quit, taking his revenue-generating
skills with him, he did not. His boss adopted

an aggressive coaching stance, scolding for bad
behavior immediately after the fact, rather
than waiting for a year-end performance
review. The boss was effective in explaining in
detail how the behavior was self-defeating—
information that a self-interested and ambi-
tious individual is likely to take to heart. After
coaching from his boss, the rainmaker’s behav-
ior improved, and he was promoted the fol-
lowing year. (Sadly, there are people who are
disliked because they are socially incompetent
and probably never will be truly charming. For
them, interpersonal-skills training, rather than
incentive-based coaching, may be preferable.)
Reposition.
If likable people can improve
an organization when they operate in highly
interdependent roles, competent jerks will
probably do best when they work indepen-
dently. There is often a place for people who
don’t need to be liked so long as they get their
jobs done—even if you must sacrifice wide-
spread access to their expertise.
• • •
Obviously, simply being liked doesn’t mean a
person is valuable to an organization. We all
know the fellow that people adore whose per-

formance is continually disappointing—to the
point that his colleagues end up disliking him
because he repeatedly lets them down. We all
know the woman who builds relationship
after relationship that ultimately go nowhere,
at least as far as the organization is concerned.
Still, it’s easy to be mistakenly dazzled by a
high performer, even if his expertise is never
tapped or shared because people don’t want to
work with him. And too many managers fail to
appreciate the benefits that a likable person
can offer an organization, particularly if those
benefits come at the expense of some measure
of performance. Building an environment in
which people like one another—whether by
creating situations that make liking people
easy, by fostering those likable people who can
play the role of an affective hub, or by improv-
ing the behavior of competent jerks—can help
all employees work more happily and produc-
tively and encourage the formation of strong
and smoothly functioning social networks.
1. “Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley (A), (B), (C) (Abridged),
(D),” HBS case nos. 9-498-054, 9-498-055, 9-498-057, and 9-
498-058.
Reprint R0506E

OnPoint 1118
To order, see the next page
or call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500
or go to www.hbr.org
=itemdetail&referral=4320&id=R0506E
http://www.hbr.org
Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the
Formation of Social Networks
To Order
For reprints,
OnPoint orders, and subscriptions

to
Harvard Business Review:
Call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500.
Go to www.hbr.org
For customized and quantity orders
of reprints and
Harvard Business
Review
OnPoint products:
Call Rich Gravelin at
617-783-7626,
or e-mail him at
[email protected]
page 9
Further Reading
A R T I C L E S
A Practical Guide to Social Networks
by Rob Cross, Jeanne Liedtka, and

Leigh Weiss
March 2005
Product no. R0503H
This article focuses on the use of social net-
work analysis to identify widely likeable peo-
ple in your organization and leverage their
ability to connect colleagues. The key to this
analysis? Use it to promote the kind of con-
nectivity that best suits your organization. The
authors describe three types of social net-
works: 1) The
customized response network
ex-
cels at framing ambiguous problems related
to innovation (as in strategy consulting firms
and new-product development groups). 2)
The
modular response network
is best when
you know the components of a problem but
don’t know the sequence of those compo-

nents in the problem’s solution (e.g., in a law
firm). 3) The
routine response network
is best
suited for organizations where problems and
solutions are predictable, but collaboration is
still needed (a call center, for example).
How to Motivate Your Problem People
by Nigel Nicholson
January 2003
Product no. 2780
Nicholson sheds further light on how to re-
form competent jerks. Start by using informal
conversations to discern what’s driving so-
cially inept behavior. An incorrigible gossip,
for instance, may crave interpersonal stimulus.
Ask whether you or the business situation is
contributing to the problem. Are you coming
across as overly critical? Has a recent restruc-
turing lessened your tolerance for the person’s
behavior? Affirm the person’s value to your

company, describe the problem behavior as
you see it, assert that things must change, and
state your desire for a mutually beneficial out-
come. Finally, develop a menu of possibilities
for new behaviors: a gossip, for instance, may
thrive if given opportunities to interact di-
rectly with customers.
What a Star—What a Jerk
by Sarah Cliffe
September 2001
Product no. R0108A
This fictional case study further explores the
dynamics that occur when a top performer
has an abrasive personality. Four experts offer
advice for curbing the bad behavior so the or-
ganization can benefit from the person’s tal-
ents. For example, accept that managing
competent jerks is part of your job. Be consis-
tent in rewarding improvements in social skills
and giving critical feedback on problem be-
havior. Appeal to the person’s ego (“If you
could learn to control your temper, you’d be
really great”) while also setting clear limits
(“Your behavior is out of bounds; I won’t have

it”). If he can’t change his behavior but you still
don’t want to lose him, carve out a place for
him where he can work without poisoning ev-
eryone else’s work environment.
http://www.hbr.org
=itemdetail&referral=4320&id=R0503H
=itemdetail&referral=4320&id=R0108A
Case 2 – The Jerk at Work
Read the 3 articles on jerks at work, and then respond to the
following questions.
1. What should Jane do about Andy (the Jerk at Work)?
2. Would your advice in Q 1 be different if Andy was gay?
Why, why not?
3. Thinking about yourself at work in the future:
a. Would you rather be a competent jerk, or a lovable fool?
Explain your choice.
b. Which type would you prefer as your team mate - a
competent jerk, or a lovable fool? Explain your choice.
4. What is “workplace incivility”? Can “incivility” ever be OK
at work? Are there any positive outcomes possible? (you may
need to look for articles in Google Scholar for this Question).

It Pays to be the Jerk at Work

It Pays to be the Jerk at Work

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to It Pays to be the Jerk at Work

Similar to It Pays to be the Jerk at Work (20)

More from SUBHI7

More from SUBHI7 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

It Pays to be the Jerk at Work