[pmoriarty]

"One of Jeff's guiding principals that he infused the company with, is that workers are lazy and will take advantage of any moment to not be productive if you let them. If you're nice to your workforce they'll take advantage of your kindness to do nothing."

The guy sounds like a total jerk.

Zuckerberg seems like a complete jerk too.

Bill Gates was reportedly a real jerk while at Microsoft too.

Steve Jobs was supposedly a huge asshole.

What is it about assholes running the world? Do nice guys really finish last? How many truly nice people ever make it very far in business (not to mention politics)? Do you really have to walk over a mountain of other people's backs to make it to the top?

[saxman001]

Mark Zuckerburg addressed this question very well on the Lex Friedman podcast. He pointed out that facebook did some science around this and discovered that many top level decisions are lose-lose from a public perception standpoint. On key policy questions the losing interest group almost always manages to create a stink that outweighs the happiness of the winning group.

Couple this with the well documented negative bias of the news, and it's not surprising that most corporate public figures have bleak reputations.

Note that I'm not actually defending these men. I'm simply pointing out that there are some structural reasons for the strong negative perceptions of these executives.

[magicalhippo]

Reminds me of when I worked at a grocery store, during training it was drilled that one angry customer would outweigh ten happy customers.

[giraffe_lady]

or it could be that the only reasons to go for a billion when you already have a hundred million are pathological?

I know this is extremely simplistic and insufficient as a complete explanation, but I truly think it's a major component.

[beeboop]

I don't think it necessitates pathological, though I am sure there are higher rates of it among the wealthy. I don't think someone worth $100 million keeps working because they're incentivized by the money as much as they're incentivized by "success". They enjoy the power and prestige and reputation and having people work for them. They enjoy getting to make big, powerful decisions. They like having their big ego.

Of course many do genuinely just want that $400 million yacht and won't get there unless they make a few billion first.

[MisterTea]

Let me get this strait. A billionaire funds a study to find out why they are considered an asshole and the answer is conveniently "the plebs and the big bad media". Riiiiiiiight

[ssully]

I mean there absolutely is truth to it. When you get to the size of Facebook, you are going to be pissing people off with almost any decision you make.

[toomuchtodo]

> What is it about assholes running the world?

They understand how to exploit the existing system for profit and power (which in some cases are synonymous).

> Do nice guys really finish last? How many truly nice people ever make it very far in business (not to mention politics)? Do you really have to walk over a mountain of other people's backs to make it to the top?

Consider your perspective if you’re unhappy coming in last in the same competition where these folks succeed. If these people are “winning”, do you really want to win?

[hemloc_io]

I think it really depends on how you define the word "nice".

On a personal level everyone here (outside of Steve Jobs lol) might be great. I remember when Jeff left senior people who knew him from Amazon seemed genuinely upset, and also left. Tons of photos of people having a good time, drinking and hanging out etc. For all of Zuck's problems he seems more awkward than actively malicious, and lots of his worst quotes come from when he was much younger and immature. So on a personal basis I don't think it's required to be an asshole in order to be successful at this level.

From a leadership perspective someone who is "nice" to the point of being a doormat isn't going to last long in any leadership position. Needing to reach a consensus on every decision or defaulting to the decision that causes the least amount of short term pain just means you're not going to be a leader for very long.

Businesses are dictatorships at the end of the day, and they're constantly in a state of conflict. I think at a CEO level you're going to end up with people who are at the very least willing to be disagreeable, because you need to put your foot down and tell everyone no at some point. "nice" CEOs probably get filtered out b/c they're unwilling to do things like layoff people.

I don't think nice guys finish last per se, because this level of wealth comes with it's own problems. (e.g. How many of these dudes have been divorced...)

Politics are a whole different animal, I'd argue it's much more zero sum than business. Only so many seats after all.

[alexashka]

Top of a mountain that rewards exploitation? Yeah, you have to do some exploitation along the way :)

There are plenty of other mountains to climb.

It's just not very sexy to write articles about people who run a 10 person plumbing company and treat everyone fairly. There are millions of those types of mountains people have been climbing for a long time.

[throwawayboise]

Just because you are conscientious and don't take advantage of your employer doesn't mean that others (many others) don't, especially in a large organization where it's easier to feel anonymous and disconnected.

> Do nice guys really finish last?

Generally, yes.

[MrMan]

if it reassures you, think about scientists, and adjacently, inventors. those two groups can also be entrepreneurs, but they are not necessarily the same.

civilization is advanced largely through the discoveries of scientists and inventors, not by businessmen, who are like the pack animals that provide motive force to implement these advances.

it can be depressing to see the competitive Bronze Age genes at work ruining everything, but given the way humans are wired, we won't escape this cycle of aggression very easily.

if all of society were peaceful cooperative scientists they would be easily murdered by the first vikings to happen along. how can we pacify the global human population (and I dont mean subjugate)?

its a riddle. greed is not good, but without greed how can we fill the vacuum created by everyone having enough? how intelligent does everyone have to be, on average, for people to get up in the morning and create things instead of playing video games?

I am not pretending to rigorously outline these issues, but I feel strongly that humanity needs to take charge of its evolution soon, and also find a away to reach detente between competing AI systems - I fear that AI favors scale so much that anyone who falls behind in marshaling the most complex AI will be at a permanent disadvantage and this will create an incentive to preemptive war.

[twhb]

Who achieves more power, the guy who dedicates his life and soul to it, or the guy who wants it, but only if it’s ok with everybody, and only when his family doesn’t need him?