The price of interpersonal conflict has gone up dramatically over the past ~10+ years. I don't know if that's good or bad, and while I certainly learned a great deal from some very "mean" folks, the more important part was learning how I myself needed to take criticism and avoid reacting to perceived "meanness".
Learning how to get along with "mean" people is more about learning how to not take things personally....although by the same token, you also need to learn how to stand up for yourself when you're right and they're wrong. One persons "mean" comment is another persons normal feedback, just like being nice can come off as condescending or patronizing in certain circumstances.
In the end most workplaces are a mixture of all types of communicators, and being able to handle those different types of people is far more useful than worrying about people being too nice or too mean.
The article reads like this person worked for a fictitious Steve Jobs, and if real at all, this editor does sound gratuitously cruel. Why does a person spend their energy delivering workplace critique with maximum twang?
> Why does a person spend their energy delivering workplace critique with maximum twang?
Maybe because an editor with a long career in journalism has found a strong correlation between twang and readership? And attention paid in general. We may not like J. Jonah Jameson, but the son of a bitch can sell newspapers and Peter Parker listens when he speaks.
I'm not sure why that means you need to insult the people you work with. It's a symptom of power more than correctness, because you wouldn't address board members or investors that way, and presumably one wouldn't treat clients this way either.
Some workplace expressions emerge with the cover of power.
So sure, if you're working for Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds, identify that fact and know the tradeoff you're making. But then they better deliver like so.
I agree in the case of a gratuitous insult, but look at the lead sample from this article:
"My job compelled me to read the lede on your story; nothing can get me to read the rest of it."
To me this is a good insult, because it gets to the exact business reason that the editor has with the story in an admirably concise way. If a reader doesn't like the lede, they stop. The paper is less compelling so people by fewer of them. So this is a case of a boss being unkind, but direct and informative. He's making his point in a memorable way that has a good chance of improving the reporter's value. So it's kind in the long run.
Learning how to get along with "mean" people is more about learning how to not take things personally....although by the same token, you also need to learn how to stand up for yourself when you're right and they're wrong. One persons "mean" comment is another persons normal feedback, just like being nice can come off as condescending or patronizing in certain circumstances.
In the end most workplaces are a mixture of all types of communicators, and being able to handle those different types of people is far more useful than worrying about people being too nice or too mean.