Let’s just get this out of the way, I apologize for using the word “asshole” so liberally. But, honestly, what other word could possibly describe these people? “Unpleasant individual”? Too weak. “Toxic coworker”? Still not quite right. The reality is, some people are just straight-up assholes, and Robert I. Sutton, in his book The No Asshole Rule, makes a strong case for why they should have no place in the workplace.

Why the No Asshole Rule Matters

Hiring someone who isn’t an asshole is much more important than hiring the person with the most knowledge, the best degree, or the most impressive resume. You can train someone to become a better software developer, marketer, or salesperson. You cannot, however, train an asshole not to be an asshole. That’s like trying to teach a cat to do your taxes, it’s just not going to happen.

These individuals poison the work environment. They drain morale, reduce productivity, and create unnecessary drama. Studies show that having even one toxic employee can significantly decrease team performance. It’s not just about avoiding conflict; it’s about preventing a slow and painful deterioration of your workplace culture.

The Typical Workplace Asshole Profile

You know the type. They are often the boss’s biggest fan, always ready to nod in agreement, always laughing at jokes that aren’t funny, and somehow always getting away with doing the least amount of actual work. They master the fine art of “looking busy” while achieving absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, everyone else is left cleaning up their mess, fixing their mistakes, or just trying to stay sane while dealing with their passive-aggressive emails.

And let’s not forget their favorite pastime, making others feel small. Whether it’s through snide remarks, backhanded compliments, or outright bullying, the workplace asshole thrives on making themselves seem superior at the expense of others.

The Real Cost of Keeping an Asshole Around

Some companies tolerate assholes because they think these people are “high performers” or “essential to the business.” This is nonsense. The damage they cause far outweighs any possible benefit. Research shows that one toxic employee can cause multiple good employees to quit. Imagine losing an entire team just because one jerk made the workplace unbearable.

When morale goes down, so does productivity. People stop collaborating, stop sharing ideas, and start focusing more on avoiding the asshole rather than doing their best work. In short, one bad hire can sabotage an entire department.

How to Keep Your Workplace Asshole-Free

1. Prioritize kindness in hiring – Skills can be taught; decency cannot.
2. Zero tolerance for toxic behavior – Even if they’re a top performer, if they make the workplace miserable, they have to go.
3. Encourage a culture of respect – People should feel safe, valued, and heard.
4. Don’t fall for the “boss’s pet” routine – Just because someone sings the boss’s praises doesn’t mean they’re a good employee.
5. Lead by example – If leadership doesn’t tolerate assholes, neither will the team.

Interviews are supposed to be a meaningful process—a chance for employers to evaluate candidates beyond their resumes and for candidates to present their true selves. Yet, in reality, job interviews have become a performance of pre-scripted responses, arbitrary assessments, and superficial judgments. Instead of being an honest and humane process, interviews often reinforce stereotypes, follow outdated scripts, and serve as a mere checkbox exercise for recruiters.

The Problem with Interviews Today

Modern hiring processes prioritize efficiency over effectiveness. Recruiters are often more concerned with fitting candidates into predefined boxes rather than truly understanding their skills, potential, and personality. Here’s why:

1. Stereotyped Expectations Many companies still expect candidates to fit a rigid mold. If a candidate doesn’t display the “right” body language, doesn’t smile enough, or doesn’t answer in a rehearsed way, they may be dismissed—regardless of their competence. These arbitrary expectations favor extroverts, overconfident speakers, and those trained to “game” the interview rather than those who would actually excel at the job.
2. Useless and Repetitive Questions “Where do you see yourself in five years?” “What is your greatest weakness?” “Why should we hire you?” These questions have been asked so many times that candidates prepare generic responses rather than offering genuine insight. Do these questions actually predict job performance? Not really. They serve as filler to give the illusion of evaluation while failing to assess real-world competence.
3. Bias in Disguise Despite claims of fairness, interviews often reinforce unconscious biases. Recruiters might unknowingly favor candidates who share their background, interests, or personality. “Culture fit” often becomes an excuse to hire people who think and act like the existing team, shutting out diverse perspectives.
4. Over-Reliance on Psychological Tricks Many interview techniques are based on flawed psychological assumptions. Stress interviews, for instance, aim to test a candidate’s composure but often just create unnecessary pressure. “Trick questions” designed to measure intelligence often only expose whether someone has encountered that type of question before.
5. Lack of Job Relevance Interviews often fail to focus on the actual work being done. Instead of assessing practical skills, companies rely on resume regurgitation, theoretical discussions, and personality-based judgments. A brilliant programmer might be eliminated because they failed to “sell themselves” properly, while a charismatic but underqualified candidate gets hired because they know how to charm interviewers.

A Better Way to Hire

If interviews are broken, what’s the solution? Companies should move towards a hiring process that is actually reflective of the work being done:

• Practical Assessments Over Talk Instead of asking vague or rehearsed questions, let candidates demonstrate their skills. Coding tests, writing samples, design challenges, or short work simulations are far better indicators of ability than an interview performance.
• Structured, Fair Evaluations Rather than leaving hiring decisions to subjective impressions, structured rubrics should be used to evaluate candidates based on clear, job-relevant criteria.
• Transparency in Hiring Candidates should be judged for what they bring to the table, not how well they fit into arbitrary expectations. Companies should be upfront about what they’re looking for and avoid unnecessary theatrics in the process.
• Eliminate Unnecessary Barriers Does every job really require a formal interview? Some roles may be better assessed through portfolio reviews, trial work, or short-term project evaluations.