Sorry for the dumb question but I think I'm having a hard time parsing and understanding the quote.
> And if you don’t have the first (integrity), the other two (intelligence and energy) will kill you. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy.
I don't follow the logic there at all. I think I get the gist of what he is saying (without integrity, intelligence and energy don't matter) but I don't follow how he got to that conclusion. Can you explain it better?
If they don't have integrity, then intelligence + energy makes them "dangerous" to your company. Think Frank Underwood (House of Cards).. Smart and ambitious, but out to improve his own position, often at the expense of the nation (or company).
If you hire someone who doesn't have integrity, you want them to be dumb and lazy to limit the damage they can cause.
He's saying that if someone does not have integrity, it's better that's they're dumb and lazy so they accomplish less and cause less harm. The tacit assumption is that someone without integrity will make decisions and act on them in ways that hurt the company.
> And if you don’t have the first (integrity), the other two (intelligence and energy) will kill you. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy.
I don't follow the logic there at all. I think I get the gist of what he is saying (without integrity, intelligence and energy don't matter) but I don't follow how he got to that conclusion. Can you explain it better?