...
Let's say I'm hiring for a position in my company. I have two candidates.
Candidate A will take on board any suggestions or recommendations, not cause any drama or conflict, and generally just get their head down and get the work done.
Candidate B perceives every suggestion or recommendation as a personal attack, causes unending unnecessary drama and conflict, continually brings up their race/gender/sexual orientation even when no one else has, emails HR constantly, but will also get the work done.
I am picking candidate A 10 times out of 10. Even if candidate B does slightly or even fairly better work, I'm still picking candidate A because candidate B is going to soak up so much of my time, decrease my output, and decrease the output of my other team members. It's a no brainer.
What if Candidate B does tremendously better work ? and what if he also will not act like such a rebel if your company can show just a little bit of a moral and meritocratic side every once in a while ?
What do you think o_e_l_e_o, and
@Darkstar_, and
@theymos, is it worth it to do the right thing at least sometimes to be able to attract geniuses to your organization, instead of mediocre "yes men" and "cronies" ?..
The scenario is as true for Chipmixer as it is for Bitcointalk in general.