3 ms·

Likability is underrated. Someone who is easy to work with, improves workplace morale, and makes other developers feel comfortable at work is a valuable asset.

Likability is underrated. Someone who is easy to work with, improves workplace morale, and makes other developers feel comfortable at work is a valuable asset. Certainly, it shouldn't be a substitute for technical ability, but it can be a very significant complimentary attribute.

Ensorceled 13y ago
Agreed. Team work is critical, but likability should affect the soft rankings only but instead had an overall positive or negative effect, even on technical skill rankings.
meowface 13y ago
The problem is when likability affects how someone reviews your technical abilities. It should be a separate category, but most people would have significant trouble disassociating the two; more so if you're friends with a coworker.
- overgryphon 13y ago
  Is it so important that the individual components of a person's performance be evaluated individually? What about someone with exceptional technical abilities who uses those skills to ensure that blame for potential failure is always assigned to other people, rather than focus those impressive skills on the success of the overall project? Is it so important that person receive recognition for their technical skills? If someone's social behavior jeopardizes the success of projects they work on, then perhaps it doesn't matter how technically competent they are.
  - xymostech 13y ago
    The answer to your question is probably "no". However, most of the discussion was in reference to the stack ranking at Microsoft, where people's pay was being determined by how well they were ranked by their peers. If you were generally likable, people might also say that your coding skills were better than they really were. So, I think that you're right, and it's a good reason why the stack system didn't work very well.
    - overgryphon 13y ago
      Except Microsoft doesn't stack rank people based on peer feedback- it's based on all the leads getting into a room and stack ranking their directs. It's very possible to have a bad stack ranking but excellent peer feedback. With this system, someone who delivers very well, but undermines other people or projects they work on would likely receive a high stack ranking, but poor peer feedback resulting in private discussions. People in charge of managing said employee may ignore the problem, attempt to place the employee under people who will help them address social problems, or quietly find a way to move them to a different org. It's quite likely none of this shows up in stack ranking.
  - meowface 13y ago
    I understand your point, and I agree that cooperation, friendliness, humility, etc. are all extremely important skills in any engineer or developer, but I think there is some value in looking at the two things distinctly (technical and social). As a counterexample to yours, what if someone is very friendly, witty, and amicable, but is severely lacking in technical skills? Perhas they are not even remotely pulling their weight in projects, resulting in friendly coworkers essentially doing their work for them and covering for them? In such a case you'll want to know that their technical skills are below what they should be.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  You can't dissociate parts of an individual just like you can't say that this part of the clock is so so but the alarm bell is great. What counts is the overall, if I may say holistic proposition of what you are evaluating. Does the person fit well in the team? Are they bringing value in one way or another ? It shouldn't be that important to evaluate the specific skills of a said person, but at least recognize what they achieved (or missed) and try to understand why, and then make a picture out of that. Likability cannot make up for actual results (or lack of), or at least not very long.
codeonfire 13y ago
How would you feel about a team of only eminently likable people, none of whom could produce anything of value but all are very well liked, because this is the end game to rating likability.

Ensorceled 13y ago

Agreed. Team work is critical, but likability should affect the soft rankings only but instead had an overall positive or negative effect, even on technical skill rankings.

meowface 13y ago

The problem is when likability affects how someone reviews your technical abilities. It should be a separate category, but most people would have significant trouble disassociating the two; more so if you're friends with a coworker.

overgryphon 13y ago
Is it so important that the individual components of a person's performance be evaluated individually? What about someone with exceptional technical abilities who uses those skills to ensure that blame for potential failure is always assigned to other people, rather than focus those impressive skills on the success of the overall project? Is it so important that person receive recognition for their technical skills? If someone's social behavior jeopardizes the success of projects they work on, then perhaps it doesn't matter how technically competent they are.
- xymostech 13y ago
  The answer to your question is probably "no". However, most of the discussion was in reference to the stack ranking at Microsoft, where people's pay was being determined by how well they were ranked by their peers. If you were generally likable, people might also say that your coding skills were better than they really were. So, I think that you're right, and it's a good reason why the stack system didn't work very well.
  - overgryphon 13y ago
    Except Microsoft doesn't stack rank people based on peer feedback- it's based on all the leads getting into a room and stack ranking their directs. It's very possible to have a bad stack ranking but excellent peer feedback. With this system, someone who delivers very well, but undermines other people or projects they work on would likely receive a high stack ranking, but poor peer feedback resulting in private discussions. People in charge of managing said employee may ignore the problem, attempt to place the employee under people who will help them address social problems, or quietly find a way to move them to a different org. It's quite likely none of this shows up in stack ranking.
- meowface 13y ago
  I understand your point, and I agree that cooperation, friendliness, humility, etc. are all extremely important skills in any engineer or developer, but I think there is some value in looking at the two things distinctly (technical and social). As a counterexample to yours, what if someone is very friendly, witty, and amicable, but is severely lacking in technical skills? Perhas they are not even remotely pulling their weight in projects, resulting in friendly coworkers essentially doing their work for them and covering for them? In such a case you'll want to know that their technical skills are below what they should be.
ekianjo 13y ago
You can't dissociate parts of an individual just like you can't say that this part of the clock is so so but the alarm bell is great. What counts is the overall, if I may say holistic proposition of what you are evaluating. Does the person fit well in the team? Are they bringing value in one way or another ? It shouldn't be that important to evaluate the specific skills of a said person, but at least recognize what they achieved (or missed) and try to understand why, and then make a picture out of that. Likability cannot make up for actual results (or lack of), or at least not very long.

codeonfire 13y ago

How would you feel about a team of only eminently likable people, none of whom could produce anything of value but all are very well liked, because this is the end game to rating likability.