> A healthy team requires everyone to play by similar rules The nature of engineering does not align to this. Let's imagine the future with said "rockstar": I

> A healthy team requires everyone to play by similar rules The nature of engineering does not align to this. Let's imagine the future with said "rockstar": If you give them busy work to fill the rest of the sprint they get frustrated and leave because they're doing more work than everyone else, and they probably get paid the same (most companies do not have high compensation plans that align to single team performance). If you assign them no work and just let them coast, now they're bored and required to be somewhere, so they leave. If you give them more work that's large projects to fill their time but don't have opportunities for promotion or leadership, they leave. The opposite can be true too, where they repeatedly get accolades and promotions, then the rest of the team gets annoyed. You're just displacing the issue rather than fixing it. What I'd do with rockstars is stick them on complex things that are cogs in the larger machine. Have them fully document their work, detailing things like interfaces where others will plug into their work. Then they can do whatever with their extra time and I get the longevity I need out of them. What I'm saying is, the processes and communication on your team need to align to having someone of greater talent in the same ways that having someone of lesser talent requires the team to change to support them.