3 ms·
I really like this insight. However, just to play the devil’s advocate, software engineering is not like chickens laying eggs (a commodity skill). Sometimes,
by psadri 8y ago
I really like this insight.
However, just to play the devil’s advocate, software engineering is not like chickens laying eggs (a commodity skill). Sometimes, you have problems that most normal people can’t solve on their own and the only people who can solve them happen to be brilliant but toxic.
The existence and importance of these very difficult problems can give rise to a higher ratio of toxic brilliance in a field.
Of course, you can get lucky and have brilliant and nice. I am so grateful to have worked with some of these as well.
- Jtsummers 8y agoIt's about costs though, not skills per se. Like the aggressive hens, you'd want to isolate those toxic employees or accept the lower retention rate (higher mortality). At some point the one is not worth the other. Isolating a toxic employee can be costly (giving them a private office gives a sense of favoritism, do you give offices to the rest or alienate them?). Permitting them in general population causes good, but lower pain threshhold, employees to leave (they know they don't have to put up with it, they can get a job anywhere). You can afford to lose some, but how many is this toxic employee worth? > Sometimes, you have problems that most normal people can’t solve on their own and the only people who can solve them happen to be brilliant but toxic. If it's occasional, consultants on retainer. They aren't around long enough to drive (many) people away, and if you isolate them to a seemingly nice office/area people know it's temporary.