OT: Correlation between Type A, A-hole, and successful entrepreneurs

[slidey]

I've been prompted to ponder the above question for a while, more specifically, is there a correlation between successful entrepreneurs, and either Type-A, or A-holes?

At face value, I think most of you would agree that the answer is no, but is it a matter of perception that we've become sensitized to A-hole behaviour? Not being a pleasure reader, I only regurgitate the perceptions of others on this matter, and it seems to me that the adjectives I've heard used most frequently with some of the entrepreneurial icons of our times have been 'A-hole', and 'genius'. I'm talking of Jobs, Gates, Mark Z, to name a few. This is a place where I can sure use some more anecdotal evidence about who your entrepreneurial icon(s) is/are, and what adjectives do you attribute to him/her/them?

Making the leap of assumption that the above holds true, to a reasonable degree, have we, as a society, naively taken the correlation of A-hole with some famous household-name geniuses (while overlooking the proliferation of A-holes across strata/status/background), and turned it into a causation, effectively trying to imbibe the worst/easiest trait of the successful people?

I've personally, without evidence, believed that there's no correlation between A-hole/success at all, and that the people we tend to look up to were successful due to timing/circumstance/genius/hardwork/luck. However, some anecdotal evidence from the cumulative experiences of a group of people would be great here.

Why do I bring this up now? I'm a 30 yr old rational thinker that has some hopes of being an entrepreneur (don't know about A-type/A-hole but definitely would like to consciously steer away from A-hole), but my most recent boss (CEO of a successful SF startup) turned out to be a total A-hole (hence, the ex bit). Coincidentally, this past startup that I left, is on paper, the most promising startup I've been a part of. The founders of the previous co's were also driven, but were not A-holes, and their co's are just not that good (comparing them to their market, maturity, etc). I'm looking for some anecdotal evidence only to help get a read on the personalities of likely successful people at play, just so I can make a conscious assessment of the various costs/risks before undertaking a venture.

Minor edit: I was among 3 more people who left this 2 yr old startup in the space of 2 weeks, and the other 2 had been working there for more than a year. The total headcount of the company is around 8 now.

[Michael Maddox]

Personally, I find the desire to categorize people into two groups to be quite ridiculous. We are far more subtle in our differences than that.

[Tickdoc]

I wouldn't say a-hole status is as much of a must as stick-to-it-ness and not taking no for an answer. (Also common qualities of a-holes :~)

[joosttx]

Its better to be a dick than an a-hole for obviously reasons.

[slidey]

I'm merely expressing the Q in terms that I've seen being used more, and more in the vernacular, minus the blindlingly obvious ones like - hardworking, resourceful, persistence, etc.

Do feel free to ignore the narrow classification, if it offends, but do feel free to state your mind beyond the above restriction.

[eddief]

if you're a pussy, you may be prone to thinking more people are aholes. I'd like to footnote that quote, but I can't find my B school books anymore.

[slidey]

if you're a pussy, you may be prone to thinking more people are aholes. I'd like to footnote that quote, but I can't find my B school books anymore.

Makes sense, in general, but orthogonal in my case.

[josephr]

a-hole,B----....there's just a lot of stupid people out there who aren't able to comprehend their own idiotness, much less that of other idiots, so its easier just to dismiss them with labels. Unfortunately, smart people get so worn out dealing with idiots that we stop making time to figure out if the next person is an idiot or not --- rather spend that time on a bike.

[goonster]

A successful leader is an a-hole mostly to people on the outside, but fosters loyalty (if not necessarily affection) among the people who work for him/her.

[PeregrineA1]

As a contractor working on the homes of 1%'r's for ~30 years I found that it was about the same as the real world as far as the percentage of A-holes. Maybe 2-3%, but when you have money and power being an A-hole takes on a whole new dimension.

One of my customers lived on a cul du sac of $3M+ homes. We were working for most of the folks on the street and negotiating with others. He gave some sage advice, saying that there is a donkey in every neighborhood. Listening carefully we identified the donkey and did not work for him-made money doing that....

My better half spent the last 18 years at a Silicon Valley firm. There from start-up, through IPO, and LBO. The start-up guys were and are brilliant. The IPO guys the same. The LBO guys could not care less about anything but the bottom line and the drain of talent has been immense, including my GF. Are the LBO guys A-holes? Depends on your perspective. They are there to make the numbers look good for the folks that invested and nothing else, the product doesn't register on their screen. The creative types, the people that care about and nurture the product think they are A-holes. If the numbers are good, the investors think they are hero's.

So, as pointed out in earlier postings there are many facets to it.

[54ny77]

do you wanna be the hammer, or the nail?

there are exceptions, of course. and defining "success" within the context of your question helps shape the answer. success as measured by what myriad of categories?

as it pertains to money, i've met & worked with a myriad of folks very, very far up the socioeconomic food chain. along the way, i can speak with 100% certainty that some of them squished people like a bug.

[oldpotatoe]

Yikes...:cool:

[93legendti]

I am not sure exactly what/why you are asking, but I would say be yourself. There will always be someone who thinks you're off. You can not make everyone happy/like you.

[eddief]

by the "kitty" word I used in my response. i think i may have been showing a passive aggressive aholyness.

[Dead Man]

do you wanna be the hammer, or the nail?

there are exceptions, of course. and defining "success" within the context of your question helps shape the answer. success as measured by what myriad of categories?

as it pertains to money, i've met & worked with a myriad of folks very, very far up the socioeconomic food chain. along the way, i can speak with 100% certainty that some of them squished people like a bug.

Ive been the nail, and ive been the hammer. I like neither. Now i am the guy who tells the guy holding the hammer where to swing it, and i much prefer that.

I always ask nicely.

[slidey]

As a contractor working on the homes of 1%'r's for ~30 years I found that it was about the same as the real world as far as the percentage of A-holes. Maybe 2-3%, but when you have money and power being an A-hole takes on a whole new dimension.

One of my customers lived on a cul du sac of $3M+ homes. We were working for most of the folks on the street and negotiating with others. He gave some sage advice, saying that there is a donkey in every neighborhood. Listening carefully we identified the donkey and did not work for him-made money doing that....

My better half spent the last 18 years at a Silicon Valley firm. There from start-up, through IPO, and LBO. The start-up guys were and are brilliant. The IPO guys the same. The LBO guys could not care less about anything but the bottom line and the drain of talent has been immense, including my GF. Are the LBO guys A-holes? Depends on your perspective. They are there to make the numbers look good for the folks that invested and nothing else, the product doesn't register on their screen. The creative types, the people that care about and nurture the product think they are A-holes. If the numbers are good, the investors think they are hero's.

So, as pointed out in earlier postings there are many facets to it.

Hmm, your description of the LBO persona is hitting home on a couple of examples during my short stint at this co. For instance, there were a couple of unexpected glitches in the delivery of our service due to unforeseen circumstances (AWS unscheduled failure), which everyone rallied round to mitigate (engineers redeploying services, marketing/sales pacifying customers, etc). Also, at around this time, we were (still are) hunting around for Series A investors. Nothing out of the ordinary thus far, but what really made me uncomfortable were when one of the founders asked us (the engg team) to doctor the numbers, by removing the numbers during the reported outage so the resultant dashboards would look investor-friendly. This, to someone who is first an engineer, is being dishonest. I still (perhaps, naively) hold the view that explaining away a problem with exact reasoning, and mentioning how future instances of similar situations can be handled is the constructive, grown-up, honest way of handling things. Suppressing facts, and presenting utopia in a world where > 90% of startups go to hell is firstly pissing off, and being remarkably presumptuous of the investor's maturity. I mean, I might use such doctored numbers as an elimination criteria for investors so I know who can bring the most bang along with their buck, but to use it as a selection criterion...hmm, naivete + a-hole, per my book.

[slidey]

a-hole,B----....there's just a lot of stupid people out there who aren't able to comprehend their own idiotness, much less that of other idiots, so its easier just to dismiss them with labels. Unfortunately, smart people get so worn out dealing with idiots that we stop making time to figure out if the next person is an idiot or not --- rather spend that time on a bike.

There are stupid actions, but I'm not certain I'd say stupid people. Beyond a certain minimum IQ/maturity level, at least in tech, most things come down to exposure/mettle. Things in tech are changing constantly, and someone who thinks they're on top today, will face some uncomfortable moments trying to keep pace with even a 3.0 CS undergrad 5 years later, if that long.

Having said that, there's a slight distinction I think will help here for you to visualise.

Q: Is it crucial for a successful CEO/founder to establish themselves as the alpha in the room?

A: "I think" when someone tries to establish that connection, it becomes a zero sum game, as it brings in a notion of hierarchy, and in one way or another degenerates to a pissing contest. That sits very poorly with me, unfortunately. To me, I acknowledge someone as a leader, when they give autonomy (within reason), not restrict it.

But, what do you (directed to everyone) think?

[Dead Man]

http://msl-cdn.radiantforestllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/boss-vs-leader-800x800.png

[Pelican]

But, what do you (directed to everyone) think?

I think you need to find a better startup to work for. :)

I'm saying this as someone who's been working with technology startups for the last 15 years, the last 10 of which has been helping them find engineers. There are lots of asshole Founders, and the media likes to write about them. There are also plenty of successful "nice guys" out there if that is an important criteria for you in your next startup opportunity.

Also, if you're going to start a company yourself, don't be an asshole. ;)

[rwsaunders]

You're searching for an answer to a question that most likely cannot be answered, at least not in simple terms. Think of a CEO essentially having four responsibilities...optimize financial performance, develop and execute strategy, develop culture and be the "face".

Sometimes the CEO is perceived as the proverbial a-hole in order to effectively address all four areas of responsibility and the more stakeholders and investors to appease, the more masters to serve. Manipulation of facts and data though is akin to our Belgian CX racing friend using her motor...a big time no-no. He or she will eventually be exposed.

If there is a level of transparency in a firm, it should be clear what the ultimate short term goals, as well as the long terms goals of a particular firm are, such as grow and sell, grow and nurture, phaseout, etc. Even those goals are subject to change as you know, but you can't reach a destination without a plan and high performance CEO's know that the plan has to be clear to all, if there is any chance of proper execution taking place.

[Black Dog]

Ive been the nail, and ive been the hammer. I like neither. Now i am the guy who tells the guy holding the hammer where to swing it, and i much prefer that.

I always ask nicely.

You and I are on the very same page. There are other options, the world is not just hammers and nails.

[JasonF]

If you've ever started a business then you realize the immense pressure that exists. Hiring talent, appeasing investors, making sure the thing turns a profit - these things are extremely hard to balance and maybe some handle it better than others. I don't think it has as much to do with being a d**k and more to do with how one operates under high stress.

[eddief]

are you born with it or do you become it? and to what degree does being a start up person act as the catalyst?

[rccardr]

I'm retired now, but worked at a fairly high level in technology firms.

Never had the luxury of seeing things in black and white.

My perceptive world always had to be in shades of gray.

[slidey]

Agree with most things being probabilistic, and not binary. However, my decision had to be taken in a binary setting - do I stick around, or do I get out? I chose the latter, and walked out last week.

I'm retired now, but worked at a fairly high level in technology firms.

Never had the luxury of seeing things in black and white.

My perceptive world always had to be in shades of gray.

I'm wondering aloud here as
1. I'm trying to get more objective feedback on what could be moulding a first time founder's perspective so different from that of every other founder I've met thus far, who are invariably down-to-earth, at least in non-work related scenarios.
2. I'm considering a few positions; amongst which one of them is a tech leadership position at another startup, which is a new world to me, so I want to make sure I don't commit the mistakes I see in someone else.

[slidey]

are you born with it or do you become it? and to what degree does being a start up person act as the catalyst?

Hmm - I side very heavily towards 'nurture', perhaps because I have no doubt that I have been dealt a bad hand by 'nature'. :help:

[josephr]

There are stupid actions, but I'm not certain I'd say stupid people. Beyond a certain minimum IQ/maturity level, at least in tech, most things come down to exposure/mettle. Things in tech are changing constantly, and someone who thinks they're on top today, will face some uncomfortable moments trying to keep pace with even a 3.0 CS undergrad 5 years later, if that long.

Having said that, there's a slight distinction I think will help here for you to visualise.

Q: Is it crucial for a successful CEO/founder to establish themselves as the alpha in the room?

A: "I think" when someone tries to establish that connection, it becomes a zero sum game, as it brings in a notion of hierarchy, and in one way or another degenerates to a pissing contest. That sits very poorly with me, unfortunately. To me, I acknowledge someone as a leader, when they give autonomy (within reason), not restrict it.

But, what do you (directed to everyone) think?


just putting people on a bell curve....if you're in tech, probably don't run into lots of those at the other end. :p

[rugbysecondrow]

To be elite seems to require a level of focus, dedication, sacrifice which many of us are unwilling to or unable to muster up. That might mean that they come off as assholes, but can average effort and average determination create anything more than average results? I doubt it.

[velomonkey]

I 'teach' entrepreneurship at the University level and I've had my own company where I was CEO - founder. I am so over the "Bro" CEO thing and think that it's more an anomaly than a reality - as someone else said the press writes about it so it's what people think. I'm still amazed at how students simply don't understand options and investment (neither do most employees - they just know they want stock).

My linkedin has former employees referring to me as a mentor - the sesame street VC deal announced yesterday was a former employee. I'm proud of that stuff and none it happened by being a jerk.

[rwsaunders]

This might be a good read for you.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3045389/work-smart/what-not-to-do-when-you-work-for-a-jerk

[merlinmurph]

...but what really made me uncomfortable were when one of the founders asked us (the engg team) to doctor the numbers, by removing the numbers during the reported outage so the resultant dashboards would look investor-friendly. This, to someone who is first an engineer, is being dishonest.

Reminded me of this

http://dilbert.com/strip/2009-03-02

http://assets.amuniversal.com/6dd1dbf06cbb01301d46001dd8b71c47