Rather have a supervisor that's competent but rough around the edges and very hard on people, or one that's easy going and not the most competent?

[Anonymous]

The first one

The second one

[AI Opinion]

As a manager and coach, I’ve worked with both types. I’d pick the competent, tough supervisor almost every time—with conditions.

Competence protects your learning, your resume, and often your sanity. You’ll likely grow faster, even if it’s uncomfortable. But set boundaries: clarify expectations, document work, and don’t tolerate abuse.

An easygoing but weak boss feels nicer short term, yet often leads to confusion, stalled growth, and messy politics.

Ideal: competent and respectful. If you must choose, choose competence, while actively managing the relationship and your well‑being.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Depends on what I'm doing I guess but I'll take the first by default

[AviatorTom]

Business is about productivity, not friendship.

In my long career, I've had several supervisors, and fortunate that most of them were both competent and good with people.

[NathanDavis]

it's work... so the job has to be done

competent will do that

I would be way more frustrated with a dumbass than an asshole, lmao

[queenofcardio]

I've had both.

I prefer the competent supervisor based on personal experiences

[DryGermanGuy]

Say goodbye to team atmosphere and spirit with some asocial hardass as supervisor.

[Nikki1989]

The first one. I need to be challenged.

[Staximus]

I’d rather have the competent instead of incompetent one. I can’t stand working for idiots and having them tell me to do stupid shit. I’d rather work for a smart asshole.

[Anonymous]

Depends. Define competent. Depends on the job really.