4 ms·

hah. classic management thinking. do you understand that the time spent working on something is only very weakly correlated with the quality of the deliverable

hah. classic management thinking. do you understand that the time spent working on something is only very weakly correlated with the quality of the deliverable? do you understand that some people can save you months or years of work and operational pain? do you understand that some people no matter how much they work end up creating negative value and someone has to clean up after them? you also have a very distorted view on what a superstar is. you’re effectively substituted toxic person with high output with superstar. “superstars” get where their input is needed and provide the input in a timely manner (most of the times even before it’s requested). superstars think about the product and the output of the team as a whole. superstars grow junior developers and instill the values that will turn them in then next gen of superstars. superstars don’t sacrifice the future because of the present. superstars despise managers with but-in-seat mentality such as yourself. you probably have never worked with a superstar or if you did you were oblivious to the value they actually created.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> classic management thinking. I think you misread. I was speaking about my experience as an employee in this situation. When a single team mate refuses to work with everyone, you have to put in extra work to work around them. It's as simple as that.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  this is what triggered my response: > When I transitioned to management I made a point to try to balance workload and availability across teams. It often makes more sense to let go of superstar engineers who are only available 4 out of 5 days per week and only working a few hours per day, even if their work is good in isolation. Rarely does something needs an answer right now. Asynchronous work? Also, of course you don’t want to encourage people that are straight up hostile, but also your expectation that I’m gonna drop everything at any point in time to answer some thing that does not matter right now is pure bs. randomization is where productivity goes to die.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> classic management thinking. I think you misread. I was speaking about my experience as an employee in this situation. When a single team mate refuses to work with everyone, you have to put in extra work to work around them. It's as simple as that.

rantwasp 5y ago
this is what triggered my response: > When I transitioned to management I made a point to try to balance workload and availability across teams. It often makes more sense to let go of superstar engineers who are only available 4 out of 5 days per week and only working a few hours per day, even if their work is good in isolation. Rarely does something needs an answer right now. Asynchronous work? Also, of course you don’t want to encourage people that are straight up hostile, but also your expectation that I’m gonna drop everything at any point in time to answer some thing that does not matter right now is pure bs. randomization is where productivity goes to die.