The post doesn't go into enough detail to be sure, but I think the "asshole" participants fighting for control of the whiteboard assumed that whoever would successfully lead the group to solve the puzzle would receive good marks and have the highest probability of receiving an offer. Furthermore, some companies, or departments/teams within companies, foster a corporate culture where "assholes" are more likely to be promoted. So a group participant who isn't naturally an "asshole" may have taken a risk by behaving like one, gambling on the idea that such traits would be looked upon favorably.
I don't get it - in the recollection, the person leading at the front wasn't getting anywhere, so someone else stepped in to give it a go. Is that supposed to be an asshole thing to do?
I didn't really get from reading that who the asshole was supposed to be.
Nothing's happening and someone steps up. Doesn't inherently seem like an asshole thing to do. Things still not working and someone else steps up and says "Mind if I give this a shot?" Not inherently asshole either.
You can get an everyone tries to take charge situation in these scenarios. But just sitting back and waiting for someone to tell you what to do doesn't seem great either.
Well the story doesn't tell us who was the 'assholes'. It could be someone up at the whiteboard, or it could be someone yelling at the people that was at the whiteboard.
The one time I've experienced assessing this type of thing it's very much something you have a natural feel for as you watch the events unfold. You can't really assess it in the abstract sense, it's all about the concrete interactions and how the individuals handle them.
