7 ms·

>For someone who wrote an entire blogpost about the benefits of troublemakers and how to integrate them, she doesn't seem very willing to actually work with the

>For someone who wrote an entire blogpost about the benefits of troublemakers and how to integrate them, she doesn't seem very willing to actually work with them, just to make them work for her. That's kind of the point. You don't want to be working with someone who can't work with other people. If you're a "troublemaker" and refuse to change and adapt to the way the company you work for does things, go ahead and found your own and do it your way, and see if others are willing to work for you in the long term, or find another company with the culture you're after. When it comes to tech there's plenty of companies out there who hire for different personalities and abilities.

alexandercrohde 10y ago
I think there's often a way to use understand what motivates the "trouble-maker" (I dislike that label here) and use it effectively that doesn't take a lot of effort, just getting to know the person and letting them get to know your position. I actually have a post about this: http://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/473 http://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/473
mbrutsch 10y ago
>You don't want to be working with someone who can't work with other people. That describes me pretty well, and those with whom I work love me. They just keep me in my little box, leave me alone and let me do my work. But they are also a grown-up company that doesn't make people wear 27 hats. PMs do their job, Infrastructure does theirs, Client Support does theirs, etc. Not every job has the same requirements as every other job.
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
Yeah, because nobody would want someone like Alan Turing at their company. The whole "everyone must be a team player" thing is such crap. I will gladly take a one man army with the resolve to deliver above all else over a team of mediocre players who take 4 times as long and waste more time arguing in meetings than it would take to just bust the thing out twice. Effective teams are great too, but if you can't figure out how to use the other type, it really is your loss.
- pm24601 10y ago
  No. Most people think that they are Alan Turing, Linus Torvald, Steve Jobs; are not.

alexandercrohde 10y ago

I think there's often a way to use understand what motivates the "trouble-maker" (I dislike that label here) and use it effectively that doesn't take a lot of effort, just getting to know the person and letting them get to know your position. I actually have a post about this: http://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/473 http://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/473

mbrutsch 10y ago

>You don't want to be working with someone who can't work with other people. That describes me pretty well, and those with whom I work love me. They just keep me in my little box, leave me alone and let me do my work. But they are also a grown-up company that doesn't make people wear 27 hats. PMs do their job, Infrastructure does theirs, Client Support does theirs, etc. Not every job has the same requirements as every other job.

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

Yeah, because nobody would want someone like Alan Turing at their company. The whole "everyone must be a team player" thing is such crap. I will gladly take a one man army with the resolve to deliver above all else over a team of mediocre players who take 4 times as long and waste more time arguing in meetings than it would take to just bust the thing out twice. Effective teams are great too, but if you can't figure out how to use the other type, it really is your loss.

pm24601 10y ago
No. Most people think that they are Alan Turing, Linus Torvald, Steve Jobs; are not.