[Iv]

Disclaimer: I am an independent contractor mostly because I fled what I consider structural defects of the corporate world, so a bit biased.

Isn't it a matter of management though? Assholes can be productive to a company if you have a good manager doing damage control and sinking time into firewalling the asshole.

Given the prevalence of this disease and the abundance of managers, it seems like a good way to increase the hiring pool of a company.

As a manager, you want to contain an asshole just enough so that coworkers do not leave, also enough so that the asshole feels they have to make up for their social behavior with additional skill and hard work (which is not hard, they are often competitive).

I believe (and that's the reason why I don't want to employ people) that the optimal point for a business is when you maintain your employees on the edge of quitting. Assholes create stress and competition, an environment where projects often strive and individuals wither.

All the ethical managers or business starters I have known have been replaced by more assholish versions. This could be anecdotal evidence of course, but I think that assholes are better suited for a corporate world of greed and competition.

[dusklight]

Why do you believe that the optimal point for a business is maintaining the employees on the edge of quitting? What are the pros and cons of doing this?

[htkibar]

It seems to be a very simple way of looking at it: squeeze out as much as possible from the employee without losing the employee - hence on the edge of quitting.

However, I think it is way too simple to be useful. People who are happy and relatively less stressed are way more productive on average. (Yerkes - Dodson Law applies here)

[Iv]

Pro: employee is more productive.

Con: none for the company