5 ms·

Superstars are why I don’t try harder and am less engaged. They take all of the interesting ownership and inject themselves into every process and space for com

Superstars are why I don’t try harder and am less engaged. They take all of the interesting ownership and inject themselves into every process and space for communication. I wait for these people to burn out and want to actually be a team member instead of a productivity bully hoarding opportunity for themselves. They want to be the first on everything so they can influence it to be more how they like, the rest of team be damned. They don’t care if the rest of the team feels unmotivated from a lack of ownership, at least they got theirs? I don’t understand the mentality.

mechanicker 3y ago
What happens when rest of the team does not rise to the occasion? You now have a happy but very mediocre team for the task on hand. Decision making is very democratic but seldom happens in time. I feel you need pace setters but not excessively reward individual heroics.
- mycall 3y ago
  A very mediocre team that does not rise to the occasion (aka fails at delivering) probably will look bad for management and will be sidesteps (aka outsourced) if not fully replaced.
moon_moon 3y ago
[dead]
jerf 3y ago
"Superstars are why I don’t try harder and am less engaged. They take all of the interesting ownership and inject themselves into every process and space for communication. I wait for these people to burn out and want to actually be a team member instead of a productivity bully hoarding opportunity for themselves." Are you sure you've got a "superstar" there? I think the term ought to be reserved for people who truly do a lot of good work, and not the many varieties of people who manage to make it look like they're doing lots of good work. Which absolutely exist, and need terminology to talk about them, and sharing strategies to deal with them is a good thing to do. But while I'm sure there's a non-zero set of people who are both superstars and very good at giving the appearance of doing a lot of work and being very political about it, I doubt there are many. That's a very particular order off the metaphorical menu of attributes. I would expect a real superstar to be happy to find that you can carry a meaningful portion of the load. There is always more work to do than can be done. Being able to not do some of it allows them to focus somewhere else.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  They truly do a lot of good (great!) work and for quite a few years straight, so much so that the rest of the team atrophies as they continue to fill larger and larger gaps.
- reactordev 3y ago
  I agree, if they are interjecting themselves into everything and taking all the “cool projects”, they aren’t superstars - they’re supera$$høles. A real superstar would empower the team with that extra sprinkle of confidence so they can tackle the cool projects and succeed. They should be SWAT, not Mayor. I’m sorry you feel this way and you should bring this up with your manager.
apwell23 3y ago
> They take all of the interesting ownership How do they get to "take" as an IC.
- ochoseis 3y ago
  Every team and individual have their own norms, but some people just take the agency to get shit done. In other words, when there’s work to be done they don’t feel the need to ask permission.
  - apwell23 3y ago
    Can't OP do the same then instead of waiting on a team member to burn out . I think OP is barking up the wrong tree because the problem seems that their manager doesn't believe in them or maybe OP doesn't believe in themselves to step up and take responsibility .
    - iwontberude 3y ago
      I want them to do less and let the team fail instead of personally holding the team up. Our team needs to fail and learn lessons but this individual is so astoundingly good that they can carry us.
davidmurdoch 3y ago
The type of person you are describing is not what others are talking about.
wiseowise 3y ago
> They don’t care if the rest of the team feels unmotivated from a lack of ownership, at least they got theirs? I don’t understand the mentality. Because when the "team" undoubtedly fails, it falls on shoulders of the superstar to fix it.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Lowest common denominator. If you happen to work with people who are slower / have less ability than you.. you'd be the "superstar".. Now everybody is just picking their nose... welcome to Shitco. inc.
orochimaaru 3y ago
Actually, a superstar will welcome and mentor other capable "superstars". She or he will not have patience for one that expects to be taught everything. One thing they understand very well is while everyone won't be at the same level as them, helping other people skill up leaves them space to go do other interesting things as well So what you have isn't a superstar. That's a jerk who will burn out fast and your management isn't responsive enough.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  They are really good at what they do and they've been going strong for years, so I think there will be more waiting necessary. I like to rise to the challenge and this person covers all gaps so there is no pressure which builds.

mechanicker 3y ago

What happens when rest of the team does not rise to the occasion? You now have a happy but very mediocre team for the task on hand. Decision making is very democratic but seldom happens in time. I feel you need pace setters but not excessively reward individual heroics.

mycall 3y ago
A very mediocre team that does not rise to the occasion (aka fails at delivering) probably will look bad for management and will be sidesteps (aka outsourced) if not fully replaced.

moon_moon 3y ago

[dead]

jerf 3y ago

"Superstars are why I don’t try harder and am less engaged. They take all of the interesting ownership and inject themselves into every process and space for communication. I wait for these people to burn out and want to actually be a team member instead of a productivity bully hoarding opportunity for themselves." Are you sure you've got a "superstar" there? I think the term ought to be reserved for people who truly do a lot of good work, and not the many varieties of people who manage to make it look like they're doing lots of good work. Which absolutely exist, and need terminology to talk about them, and sharing strategies to deal with them is a good thing to do. But while I'm sure there's a non-zero set of people who are both superstars and very good at giving the appearance of doing a lot of work and being very political about it, I doubt there are many. That's a very particular order off the metaphorical menu of attributes. I would expect a real superstar to be happy to find that you can carry a meaningful portion of the load. There is always more work to do than can be done. Being able to not do some of it allows them to focus somewhere else.

iwontberude 3y ago
They truly do a lot of good (great!) work and for quite a few years straight, so much so that the rest of the team atrophies as they continue to fill larger and larger gaps.
reactordev 3y ago
I agree, if they are interjecting themselves into everything and taking all the “cool projects”, they aren’t superstars - they’re supera$$høles. A real superstar would empower the team with that extra sprinkle of confidence so they can tackle the cool projects and succeed. They should be SWAT, not Mayor. I’m sorry you feel this way and you should bring this up with your manager.

apwell23 3y ago

> They take all of the interesting ownership How do they get to "take" as an IC.

ochoseis 3y ago
Every team and individual have their own norms, but some people just take the agency to get shit done. In other words, when there’s work to be done they don’t feel the need to ask permission.
- apwell23 3y ago
  Can't OP do the same then instead of waiting on a team member to burn out . I think OP is barking up the wrong tree because the problem seems that their manager doesn't believe in them or maybe OP doesn't believe in themselves to step up and take responsibility .
  - iwontberude 3y ago
    I want them to do less and let the team fail instead of personally holding the team up. Our team needs to fail and learn lessons but this individual is so astoundingly good that they can carry us.

davidmurdoch 3y ago

The type of person you are describing is not what others are talking about.

wiseowise 3y ago

> They don’t care if the rest of the team feels unmotivated from a lack of ownership, at least they got theirs? I don’t understand the mentality. Because when the "team" undoubtedly fails, it falls on shoulders of the superstar to fix it.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Lowest common denominator. If you happen to work with people who are slower / have less ability than you.. you'd be the "superstar".. Now everybody is just picking their nose... welcome to Shitco. inc.

orochimaaru 3y ago

Actually, a superstar will welcome and mentor other capable "superstars". She or he will not have patience for one that expects to be taught everything. One thing they understand very well is while everyone won't be at the same level as them, helping other people skill up leaves them space to go do other interesting things as well So what you have isn't a superstar. That's a jerk who will burn out fast and your management isn't responsive enough.

iwontberude 3y ago
They are really good at what they do and they've been going strong for years, so I think there will be more waiting necessary. I like to rise to the challenge and this person covers all gaps so there is no pressure which builds.