5 ms·

> a flat system ends up being a battle for leadership which puts the smart and commanding at the top The problem is you've described someone entirely different

> a flat system ends up being a battle for leadership which puts the smart and commanding at the top The problem is you've described someone entirely different, here, IMO. A smart leader isn't the loudest. Because they know when to listen to their subordinates, and don't need to be the loudest to command attention when they do speak. They don't need to be a jerk, or rely on bullying - for this is morale destroying counterproductive pettiness, and again unnecessary when it comes to commanding attention and respect. It might not chase away all of your talent, but it will chase away some of it, who will leave for greener pastures where they're respected. In my experience, the "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" was both the worst leader and the worst dev. They wrote a bunch of short sighted hacks - making them "productive" "rock stars" - that constantly broke things that other people had to fix. They were quick to assume their half baked ideas of how to proceed were the one true way - and that you were an idiot for thinking otherwise - and quick to dismiss any and all concerns about things they overlooked in their plans. It was bad enough that the best way to get anything done ended up being to hide it from the "rock star dev who's also a jerk". This is the antithesis of what good leadership should result in. That they were too busy doing development to do any real leadership was perhaps a blessing. That's not to say the ideal leader can't ever be loud, or stern, or a dev. These can all be useful qualities at times. But they're not "a jerk", and may find they have less time available to spend on development in response to the burdens of leadership.

gnaritas 11y ago
> In my experience, the "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" was both the worst leader and the worst dev. They wrote a bunch of short sighted hacks - making them "productive" "rock stars" - that constantly broke things that other people had to fix. Those are not rock star devs, those are just shitty devs. The term rock star means your best devs, not your worst, by definition. If you're applying the label to shitty devs, you've missed the point of the term. A rock star is someone who's awesome, that's the entire point of the slang.
- crznp 11y ago
  I see a rock star dev as the guy that seems the best from the outside: most likely because he completes tasks fast at the expense of being maintainable, documented, or understood by the rest of the team. The rock star must be smart because they're using a ton of technologies that nobody else understands. But do you really want that? Part of the disagreement is surely semantics: if you want to define "rock star" as the best, then I guess they're the best (however you measure that). But being a jerk is not semantics. If that works for your organization, great. But I don't want to have to deal with that.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > I see a rock star dev as the guy that seems the best from the outside: most likely because he completes tasks fast at the expense of being maintainable, documented, or understood by the rest of the team. That's not a rock-star, it's not what the term means. As for your main point, most people don't want to deal with jerks, so what? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether the jerk is a good leader or not. Lots of leaders are jerks, it's rather common to people who feel "they should be in charge". Leaders are those who take charge, and lead. Naturally they find ways to take charge of a leaderless group and while you want to say they shouldn't be the leader, they are by virtue of being the only leader there. The smart guy you think would make a better leader, generally doesn't want to be leader and will let the jerk take charge; that actually disqualifies them as good leaders because a good leader wouldn't do that.
    - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
      > That's not a rock-star, it's not what the term means. How are we defining "your best devs" then, exactly, if "rock star who's also a jerk" isn't a contradiction? > As for your main point, most people don't want to deal with jerks, so what? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether the jerk is a good leader or not. Do you not see the inherit conflict between being "a good leader" and "driving away the talent on your team"? If your leader is toxic enough that everyone would rather quit than work with them, how are they supposed to function as a leader? There's going to be nobody left to lead! Let's say they're not quite that toxic. Instead, they're merely driving down morale, merely making everyone want to think about anything but work, stressing them out. Will these people be bringing their A game? And doing their best work? And communicating effectively with leadership so the correct work gets done, instead of avoiding the jerk as much as possible? Let's say they're not quite that toxic. Instead, they just forgot to bring doughnuts into work on your birthday. Are they actually a jerk? > Naturally they find ways to take charge of a leaderless group No such thing. There may be no official leader, or no clear singular leader, but if nothing else people will always lead themselves. Anyone displacing that leadership must provide more value than what exists for their leadership to be a net positive. That may be a fairly low bar at times, but sufficiently toxic individuals won't clear it - as they'll be removing value instead. > The smart guy you think would make a better leader, generally doesn't want to be leader and will let the jerk take charge; that actually disqualifies them as good leaders because a good leader wouldn't do that. Well, I'd agree it isn't good leadership. I've seen people learn from this mistake.

gnaritas 11y ago

> In my experience, the "Rock star dev who's also a jerk" was both the worst leader and the worst dev. They wrote a bunch of short sighted hacks - making them "productive" "rock stars" - that constantly broke things that other people had to fix. Those are not rock star devs, those are just shitty devs. The term rock star means your best devs, not your worst, by definition. If you're applying the label to shitty devs, you've missed the point of the term. A rock star is someone who's awesome, that's the entire point of the slang.

crznp 11y ago
I see a rock star dev as the guy that seems the best from the outside: most likely because he completes tasks fast at the expense of being maintainable, documented, or understood by the rest of the team. The rock star must be smart because they're using a ton of technologies that nobody else understands. But do you really want that? Part of the disagreement is surely semantics: if you want to define "rock star" as the best, then I guess they're the best (however you measure that). But being a jerk is not semantics. If that works for your organization, great. But I don't want to have to deal with that.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > I see a rock star dev as the guy that seems the best from the outside: most likely because he completes tasks fast at the expense of being maintainable, documented, or understood by the rest of the team. That's not a rock-star, it's not what the term means. As for your main point, most people don't want to deal with jerks, so what? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether the jerk is a good leader or not. Lots of leaders are jerks, it's rather common to people who feel "they should be in charge". Leaders are those who take charge, and lead. Naturally they find ways to take charge of a leaderless group and while you want to say they shouldn't be the leader, they are by virtue of being the only leader there. The smart guy you think would make a better leader, generally doesn't want to be leader and will let the jerk take charge; that actually disqualifies them as good leaders because a good leader wouldn't do that.
  - MaulingMonkey 11y ago
    > That's not a rock-star, it's not what the term means. How are we defining "your best devs" then, exactly, if "rock star who's also a jerk" isn't a contradiction? > As for your main point, most people don't want to deal with jerks, so what? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to whether the jerk is a good leader or not. Do you not see the inherit conflict between being "a good leader" and "driving away the talent on your team"? If your leader is toxic enough that everyone would rather quit than work with them, how are they supposed to function as a leader? There's going to be nobody left to lead! Let's say they're not quite that toxic. Instead, they're merely driving down morale, merely making everyone want to think about anything but work, stressing them out. Will these people be bringing their A game? And doing their best work? And communicating effectively with leadership so the correct work gets done, instead of avoiding the jerk as much as possible? Let's say they're not quite that toxic. Instead, they just forgot to bring doughnuts into work on your birthday. Are they actually a jerk? > Naturally they find ways to take charge of a leaderless group No such thing. There may be no official leader, or no clear singular leader, but if nothing else people will always lead themselves. Anyone displacing that leadership must provide more value than what exists for their leadership to be a net positive. That may be a fairly low bar at times, but sufficiently toxic individuals won't clear it - as they'll be removing value instead. > The smart guy you think would make a better leader, generally doesn't want to be leader and will let the jerk take charge; that actually disqualifies them as good leaders because a good leader wouldn't do that. Well, I'd agree it isn't good leadership. I've seen people learn from this mistake.