What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.

Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.

That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.

What is the essential characteristic?

A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.

You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.

•