4 ms·

> When your work is a popularity contest and not measured on actual performance, its a toxic mix. Your ability to get on well with others, and work effectively

> When your work is a popularity contest and not measured on actual performance, its a toxic mix. Your ability to get on well with others, and work effectively as a part of a team is a component of your _actual performance_. It’s probably the most important component. The only real mistake here seems like this guy should have been fired instead.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I think that’s a massive assumption on your part. How do you feel that you have enough information to conclude that he ought to have been fired?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  The person described in the parent post was so difficult to get on with that they had to be moved to another project, and they are described has having pissed off a large number of people, including more than one level of management. The two possible explanations are, the majority of the company is highly toxic, this particular IC is highly toxic. So unless the posters wife is a remarkably toxic manager, the most likely explanation is that the IC is. Definitely sounds like the company would benefit from sacking them.
sshine 4y ago
> Your ability to get on well with others [... is] probably the most important Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams. A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals. Some of those are not cooperative. You don't need to be cooperative to be of high value. It just helps in a lot of cases, and it's nice for others either way.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  This isn’t true at all. Unless you are the only person who consumes the work you produce, and you produce it without the input of anybody else, then you work on a team, and how you get along with the other people in that team is the most important factor in your success.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    When the code doesn't work you can let the customer know that the team bond has never been stronger. The most important thing is delivering the product, working on a team is often critical for that but sometimes you need a few skilled individuals over a army of collaborators to get a product over the finish line.
  - sshine 4y ago
    > > Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams. A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals. > This isn’t true at all. Yes, it is true, because if the opposite were true, all work is being carried out by groups. I have personal testimony, which is all you need when making a “not all” claim. :-)
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      So you are not assigned work by anybody? You do not rely on any other person to provide an input to the work you are doing? You do not deliver the work that you complete to anybody? And it is not subsequently used by anybody else for any purpose? Because if you do any of those things, then congratulations, you have to cooperate with other people to do your work.
      - sshine 4y ago
        I did have such a job, yes. No customers, no clients, no end users. But that is not what I’m saying; I’m saying you can be a disagreeable person on average, but because you work on a team of you, you only need to get along with your boss, who will leave you alone most of the time.
grayfaced 4y ago
If you disincentivize (constructive) conflict, then you end up with a team stuck in groupthink that can't critically evaluate problems. It can be unpopular to present differing opinions, but it can also make the team stronger. You filled in gaps in GP's post with a lot of assumptions. I read it as someone that can work effectively in a team. But also had conflicts with coworkers. If those were those healthy conflicts or unhealthy conflicts wasn't even discussed. That your first conclusion is to fire based on the absence of info is absurd. You jumped onto bandwagon of others opinions and acted recklessly. Maybe you should be fired instead?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Whether conflict is constructive or toxic depends on personality traits, not the topic of the conflict. The person described in the parent post doesn’t seem to have a personality capable of constructive conflict, otherwise they wouldn’t have “pissed off” the large number of people the poster alluded to.
  - grayfaced 4y ago
    I disagree. You can piss people off without doing anything wrong too. Complaints should be investigated, not taken at face value. This kind of ranking creates cliques and in-groups which can result in brigading. If someone is pissed off at another coworker, first question should be why.
  - bebopsbraunbaer 4y ago
    you are right but conflict involves at least two and it needs only one to turn toxic
barrysteve 4y ago
The management is the one holding a grudge for something he did in the past. Not a lot of "turning the other cheek" for someone who you can bury into tasks and come back with reward. Good management can de-escalate the situation and exploit his personality to work the system better. Not a lot of management Chess going on here, just people valuing feelings over making money. Not paying the guy the fair market worth for the work he did, isn't going to make him any more nice to work with.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

I think that’s a massive assumption on your part. How do you feel that you have enough information to conclude that he ought to have been fired?

AmericanChopper 4y ago
The person described in the parent post was so difficult to get on with that they had to be moved to another project, and they are described has having pissed off a large number of people, including more than one level of management. The two possible explanations are, the majority of the company is highly toxic, this particular IC is highly toxic. So unless the posters wife is a remarkably toxic manager, the most likely explanation is that the IC is. Definitely sounds like the company would benefit from sacking them.

sshine 4y ago

> Your ability to get on well with others [... is] probably the most important Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams. A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals. Some of those are not cooperative. You don't need to be cooperative to be of high value. It just helps in a lot of cases, and it's nice for others either way.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
This isn’t true at all. Unless you are the only person who consumes the work you produce, and you produce it without the input of anybody else, then you work on a team, and how you get along with the other people in that team is the most important factor in your success.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  When the code doesn't work you can let the customer know that the team bond has never been stronger. The most important thing is delivering the product, working on a team is often critical for that but sometimes you need a few skilled individuals over a army of collaborators to get a product over the finish line.
- sshine 4y ago
  > > Not all work is being performed by cooperating teams. A lot of high-value work is carried out by individuals. > This isn’t true at all. Yes, it is true, because if the opposite were true, all work is being carried out by groups. I have personal testimony, which is all you need when making a “not all” claim. :-)
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    So you are not assigned work by anybody? You do not rely on any other person to provide an input to the work you are doing? You do not deliver the work that you complete to anybody? And it is not subsequently used by anybody else for any purpose? Because if you do any of those things, then congratulations, you have to cooperate with other people to do your work.
    - sshine 4y ago
      I did have such a job, yes. No customers, no clients, no end users. But that is not what I’m saying; I’m saying you can be a disagreeable person on average, but because you work on a team of you, you only need to get along with your boss, who will leave you alone most of the time.

grayfaced 4y ago

If you disincentivize (constructive) conflict, then you end up with a team stuck in groupthink that can't critically evaluate problems. It can be unpopular to present differing opinions, but it can also make the team stronger. You filled in gaps in GP's post with a lot of assumptions. I read it as someone that can work effectively in a team. But also had conflicts with coworkers. If those were those healthy conflicts or unhealthy conflicts wasn't even discussed. That your first conclusion is to fire based on the absence of info is absurd. You jumped onto bandwagon of others opinions and acted recklessly. Maybe you should be fired instead?

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Whether conflict is constructive or toxic depends on personality traits, not the topic of the conflict. The person described in the parent post doesn’t seem to have a personality capable of constructive conflict, otherwise they wouldn’t have “pissed off” the large number of people the poster alluded to.
- grayfaced 4y ago
  I disagree. You can piss people off without doing anything wrong too. Complaints should be investigated, not taken at face value. This kind of ranking creates cliques and in-groups which can result in brigading. If someone is pissed off at another coworker, first question should be why.
- bebopsbraunbaer 4y ago
  you are right but conflict involves at least two and it needs only one to turn toxic

barrysteve 4y ago

The management is the one holding a grudge for something he did in the past. Not a lot of "turning the other cheek" for someone who you can bury into tasks and come back with reward. Good management can de-escalate the situation and exploit his personality to work the system better. Not a lot of management Chess going on here, just people valuing feelings over making money. Not paying the guy the fair market worth for the work he did, isn't going to make him any more nice to work with.