What to do with the jerk at work, the person who is so disliked by their colleagues that no one wants to work with them? The traditional answer is to tolerate them if they are at least half competent—on the grounds that competent jerks can be trained to be otherwise, while much loved bunglers cannot.

A recent study suggests that such an approach seriously underestimates the value of being liked. In a study of over 10,000 work relationships at five very different organisations, Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo, academics at Harvard Business School and the Fuqua School of Business respectively, found that (given the choice) people consistently and overwhelmingly prefer to work with a “lovable fool” than with a competent jerk.

The authors suggest that as well as training jerks to be more charming—although “sadly there are people who are disliked because they are socially incompetent, and probably never will be truly charming”—companies should also “leverage the likeable”. Amiable folk should be turned into “affective hubs”, people who can bridge gaps “between diverse groups that might not otherwise interact”.

Re-evaluating jolly types who spend long hours hanging round water coolers is currently fashionable. Ronald Burt, a sociologist at the University of Chicago and a leading proponent of “social capital”—an explanation of “how people do better because they are somehow better connected with other people”—has written a book (“Brokerage and Closure”) in which he describes the “clusters” and “bridges” that are typical of organisations’ informal networks. Mr Burt calls the people who form bridges between clusters “brokers”; they resemble Ms Casciaro’s and Mr Sousa Lobo’s affective hubs. In practice, Mr Burt has found that brokers do better than people without the social skills to cross the spaces between clusters.

A book published in English this week, but already a cause célèbre in France, portrays most employees as fools—lovable or otherwise. Corinne Maier’s “Bonjour Laziness” is a worm’s eye view of a corporate world where only three creatures exist: sheep (“weak and inoffensive”); pests (“poisoning the general atmosphere”); and loafers (“their only aim is to do as little as possible”). In the view of Ms Maier, a practising psychoanalyst, pests (ie, jerks) rule the corporate world. (So does being a jerk give you the skills needed to get to the top? And only in France?) The rest can only hope to lie low and await their pension. But, assuming you are lovable, far better, surely, to follow the Burt route: head straight for the water cooler.

1. According to paragraph 1, what has been the traditional attitude to jerks at work?

［A］ Fire them, even if they are good workers.

［B］ Fire them, because they are not good workers.

［C］ Accept them, if they are good workers.

［D］ Accept them, because they are good workers.

2. According to the study mentioned in paragraph 2, why is this incorrect?

［A］ Being liked is more important than being competent.

［B］ Being liked and incompetent is worse than being disliked and competent.

［C］ Being disliked and competent is worse than being liked and incompetent.

［D］ Being liked and incompetent is better than being disliked and competent.

3. What could incompetent jerks be used for in companies?

［A］ To enhance communication between different workgroups.

［B］ For training people to be nice.

［C］ For making companies appear charming.

［D］ To charm people who are not particularly liked.

4. Which of the following is the best definition of “social capital”?

［A］ The ability to use people to your advantage.

［B］ The ability to form social networks.

［C］ The ability to do well in life because you have connections.

［D］ The ability to make business connections.

5. According to the final paragraph, lovable jerks can be considered to be

［A］ sheep.

［B］ pests.

［C］ loafers.

［D］ none of the above.

参考答案：

1-5 CDACD