3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - hodwik 11y ago
      >"If your leader is toxic enough that everyone would rather quit than work with them, how are they supposed to function as a leader?" No one said toxic. They said jerk. I quite like working with a bunch of opinionated assholes that are willing to argue to the bottom of something, and have no personal investment in me liking them. The great thing about jerks is that they don't take it personally. When you see the jerk the next day, you're still at square one. You will always be at square one. Not friends, not enemies, just coworkers doing your job -- willing to step on each others toes to get things done the right way. I've worked at places where everyone is nice. It's hell. "Nice" people are bad: morally, ethically, and for the bottom line.

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.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    >"If your leader is toxic enough that everyone would rather quit than work with them, how are they supposed to function as a leader?" No one said toxic. They said jerk. I quite like working with a bunch of opinionated assholes that are willing to argue to the bottom of something, and have no personal investment in me liking them. The great thing about jerks is that they don't take it personally. When you see the jerk the next day, you're still at square one. You will always be at square one. Not friends, not enemies, just coworkers doing your job -- willing to step on each others toes to get things done the right way. I've worked at places where everyone is nice. It's hell. "Nice" people are bad: morally, ethically, and for the bottom line.