It seems to me that the reason you spend time accruing trust credit is to maintain your likability among people when you're obligated to do things that are unlikable. That's fine. But how much does that improve performance or enable progress? What is the optimal amount of likability for healthy workplace that performs well?
Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't result in a bad work environment.
I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment, but I don't know how much it matters for performance.
I'd be interested in reading about that. A brief search yielded research about effects of diversity on team performance, but I couldn't find articles on toxic or hostile cultures.
I think the asshole behavior as expressed by the author (i.e. rude, dismissive, passive aggressive or even outright hostile behavior) is not the source of the benefits but are often seen together.
"Assholes" don't care what other people think and they don't seek validation from them. As a corollary they don't tone down their opinions nor do they mind confrontation. Since they express their opinions with confidence, they seem smarter.
Assholes can take advantage of people, since most people want to please others to some degree. There are also people who don't try please people, but don't engage in the anti-social behavior assholes do. It's not the Nice vs the Assholes.
In my opinion too much niceness can be a hindrance. Taking delicate care that you express your opinions in a way that doesn't upset or offend anybody is great for that warm good-feel between everybody but doesn't pave the way for real progress. People should learn to take harsh critique and not let it affect them too much personally. Likewise they should learn to give straight-up, even harsh critique.
Living in Finland, I haven't always been thrilled about our extensive social welfare and the consequent high tax rates. This story reminds me that even though I don't benefit directly from social welfare, there are latent benefits on the societal level. Namely the ubiquitous sense of security, because the poor rarely have to resort to theft as the government gives them money to get by.
I don't really have to watch out for thieves. Of course they exist and you can never be too careful with these things. But occasionally having left valuables in view inside my car, or a bag at a cafe table while I visit the restroom, I've never had anything stolen. I'm not afraid to walk in the city at night.
A friend of mine was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight in SF, which came to me as a big surprise. I couldn't imagine that could even happen. Obviously I need to travel more to broaden my worldview...
Let's take military bootcamp as a counter-example. People form strong friendships in a high stress environment where they might actively dislike their superiors. Their skills, abilities and tasks progress in leaps and bounds. Obviously this doesn't directly apply to normal workplaces, but provides an example of a situation where disregard for likability doesn't result in a bad work environment.
I believe the sense of belonging is a core human need, and people go to different lengths in making sure they have that. We all do at some level. What you do with "trust credit" probably makes your workplace a nicer environment, but I don't know how much it matters for performance.