5 ms·

It’s a very rare company where they can make the claim that their CEO is the recipe for success. This seems to be the opposite of what most VCs tell. "We inves

by moe 17y ago

It’s a very rare company where they can make the claim that their CEO is the recipe for success. This seems to be the opposite of what most VCs tell. "We invest in people, not in ideas" is a common claim. If you can’t trust the guy sitting in the cube next to you, you are in trouble. Hiring rock stars and ninjas is inviting trouble because they are likely to be glory seekers who are thinking about their own personal rewards, and less likely to be thinking about the team I disagree with the stereotype he draws of "rockstars" (which is a retarded term anyways). Overall this whole article is just based on a broken premise. The author suggests that a team of programmers is more than the sum of its individuals. This is false. A team of programmers is less than its sum. The larger the team, the more dramatic the impact of this inverse correlation. Cf. The mythical man month. That's why a very small group of "rockstars", or even an individual, can run circles around mediocre teams of any size.

strlen 17y ago
> That's why a very small group of "rockstars", or even an individual, can run circles around mediocre teams of any size. They can (and do) in the case of a true technology company. Lot of early stage Internet start-ups aren't yet technology companies (the modus operandi is "do the simplest thing that could possibly" vs. "build a technological advantage that others can't").
- moe 17y ago
  I'd argue that "building the simplest thing that could possibly" is amongst the hardest tasks available. A veteran has an arsenal of tools and knows which shortcuts to avoid even under pressure. An aspiring hacker usually has a single tool and under pressure will take all shortcuts he can find.
prewett 17y ago
Whether the team is more or less than the sum of the parts depends on how well the team works together. A team of good programmers who value each other and work to improve each other will cause each other to be better than if they were all alone. A team of rockstar programmers who get into lots of design conflicts will be less effective. Imagine a team of Linus, RMS, JWZ, and Miguel de Icaza; probably a pretty ineffective team. But how about Kerninghan, Ritchie, and Thompson? From their writings/interviews they seem like good people who became great because they worked together as a team. Or maybe Xerox PARC is a better example: how many members of the team can you name, yet the set the UI standard for years.
- moe 17y ago
  Imagine a team of Linus, RMS, JWZ, and Miguel de Icaza; probably a pretty ineffective team I doubt that. One common attribute of great hackers is that they remain effective even in the face of personal disagreements. The LKML is a good place to witness that in the wild. If they fail to compromise they would probably simply divide the problem space according to the individual strengths and preferences...
  - strlen 17y ago
    Agreed: Key thing is that RMS and JWZ did build something together at one point, their views just diverged later (GNU/Lucid/XEmacs emacs split). And of course, just typing this post I am using work of all of these: Firefox (JWZ heritage), on Linux (Linus), using GTK (Miguel), compiled with gcc (RMS).
- BrandonWatson 17y ago
  Exactly...the TEAM must work well together. It matters a lot.
  - lnguyen 17y ago
    Required case study: USA Olympic Basketball Dream Teams
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      Care to explain for the sports-impaired amoungst us?
      - allenp 17y ago
        The example is that just putting a bunch of the best basketball players on a team doesn't mean they will succeed - the 2004 USA Olympic team had some of the best basketball players in the world on it, and they still only got 3rd place. The common thinking is that each superstar on the team wanted/was used to being in the spotlight and was unable to share/coordinate their efforts effectively.
DannoHung 17y ago
Maybe the term "rockstar" is where the trouble lies. Because, I don't know about you guys, but when I think rockstar, I don't necessarily think about virtuoso performers capable of creating masterful artwork. I usually think about burning out by their 30's, trashing hotel rooms, refusing to work because the mic settings are incorrect. I think what everyone's trying to get at is, "consummate professional devoted to their field." The sort of person who, in an academic setting, might obtain a PhD and publish, or at the very least an engineer who reads technical journals and contributes, either to newsletters or publications, or as a member of a professional society; someone who considers personal improvement necessary to do their job as best they can. I think even if you're looking to hire someone to work on your CRUD PHP webapp, that's the sort of attitude you need, regardless of their actual experience.
- moe 17y ago
  I fully agree. Further I'd argue that even for your CRUD PHP webapp you ideally want the guy who, first thing, explains to you why doing it in PHP is a bad idea and how he'll do it with a more powerful tool in a day - rather than the guy who will just nod and then go off to blindly beat "something" into shape in a week. Both candidates will deliver the first iteration of your "simplest thing that could possibly..." within a reasonable timeframe. But their respective effectiveness will diverge dramatically starting from the second iteration...
  - strlen 17y ago
    Problem is a young hacker with no formal experience (but who is nonetheless bright and talented), won't have the leverage to sell the higher-ups on using a more powerful technology.
    - dangoldin 17y ago
      That's why the higher-ups need to be open to disagreement and be able make decisions based on information. At the same time, the young hacker should have enough communication skills to be able to convince the higher-ups that it is in their interest to use a new technology. The higher-ups should be able to convince him why that may not work, either for tech or business reasons. Seems there are a lot of "shoulds" in there but that's why management isn't easy.
BrandonWatson 17y ago
You'll find that I believe VCs say many things that don't necessarily make sense. They do invest in people, but really, they invest in teams. That team has to work well together. I very much believe that a solid team of developers (not a huge team) is WAY more than the sum of it's parts. There is not enough that can be said about a great team dynamic of very good programmers over bad or even typical team dynamic of "rockstars." Further, rockstars, in my experience, tend to exacerbate organizational dynamic issues.

by moe 17y ago

strlen 17y ago

> That's why a very small group of "rockstars", or even an individual, can run circles around mediocre teams of any size. They can (and do) in the case of a true technology company. Lot of early stage Internet start-ups aren't yet technology companies (the modus operandi is "do the simplest thing that could possibly" vs. "build a technological advantage that others can't").

moe 17y ago
I'd argue that "building the simplest thing that could possibly" is amongst the hardest tasks available. A veteran has an arsenal of tools and knows which shortcuts to avoid even under pressure. An aspiring hacker usually has a single tool and under pressure will take all shortcuts he can find.

prewett 17y ago

Whether the team is more or less than the sum of the parts depends on how well the team works together. A team of good programmers who value each other and work to improve each other will cause each other to be better than if they were all alone. A team of rockstar programmers who get into lots of design conflicts will be less effective. Imagine a team of Linus, RMS, JWZ, and Miguel de Icaza; probably a pretty ineffective team. But how about Kerninghan, Ritchie, and Thompson? From their writings/interviews they seem like good people who became great because they worked together as a team. Or maybe Xerox PARC is a better example: how many members of the team can you name, yet the set the UI standard for years.

moe 17y ago
Imagine a team of Linus, RMS, JWZ, and Miguel de Icaza; probably a pretty ineffective team I doubt that. One common attribute of great hackers is that they remain effective even in the face of personal disagreements. The LKML is a good place to witness that in the wild. If they fail to compromise they would probably simply divide the problem space according to the individual strengths and preferences...
- strlen 17y ago
  Agreed: Key thing is that RMS and JWZ did build something together at one point, their views just diverged later (GNU/Lucid/XEmacs emacs split). And of course, just typing this post I am using work of all of these: Firefox (JWZ heritage), on Linux (Linus), using GTK (Miguel), compiled with gcc (RMS).
BrandonWatson 17y ago
Exactly...the TEAM must work well together. It matters a lot.
- lnguyen 17y ago
  Required case study: USA Olympic Basketball Dream Teams
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    Care to explain for the sports-impaired amoungst us?
    - allenp 17y ago
      The example is that just putting a bunch of the best basketball players on a team doesn't mean they will succeed - the 2004 USA Olympic team had some of the best basketball players in the world on it, and they still only got 3rd place. The common thinking is that each superstar on the team wanted/was used to being in the spotlight and was unable to share/coordinate their efforts effectively.

DannoHung 17y ago

Maybe the term "rockstar" is where the trouble lies. Because, I don't know about you guys, but when I think rockstar, I don't necessarily think about virtuoso performers capable of creating masterful artwork. I usually think about burning out by their 30's, trashing hotel rooms, refusing to work because the mic settings are incorrect. I think what everyone's trying to get at is, "consummate professional devoted to their field." The sort of person who, in an academic setting, might obtain a PhD and publish, or at the very least an engineer who reads technical journals and contributes, either to newsletters or publications, or as a member of a professional society; someone who considers personal improvement necessary to do their job as best they can. I think even if you're looking to hire someone to work on your CRUD PHP webapp, that's the sort of attitude you need, regardless of their actual experience.

moe 17y ago
I fully agree. Further I'd argue that even for your CRUD PHP webapp you ideally want the guy who, first thing, explains to you why doing it in PHP is a bad idea and how he'll do it with a more powerful tool in a day - rather than the guy who will just nod and then go off to blindly beat "something" into shape in a week. Both candidates will deliver the first iteration of your "simplest thing that could possibly..." within a reasonable timeframe. But their respective effectiveness will diverge dramatically starting from the second iteration...
- strlen 17y ago
  Problem is a young hacker with no formal experience (but who is nonetheless bright and talented), won't have the leverage to sell the higher-ups on using a more powerful technology.
  - dangoldin 17y ago
    That's why the higher-ups need to be open to disagreement and be able make decisions based on information. At the same time, the young hacker should have enough communication skills to be able to convince the higher-ups that it is in their interest to use a new technology. The higher-ups should be able to convince him why that may not work, either for tech or business reasons. Seems there are a lot of "shoulds" in there but that's why management isn't easy.

BrandonWatson 17y ago

You'll find that I believe VCs say many things that don't necessarily make sense. They do invest in people, but really, they invest in teams. That team has to work well together. I very much believe that a solid team of developers (not a huge team) is WAY more than the sum of it's parts. There is not enough that can be said about a great team dynamic of very good programmers over bad or even typical team dynamic of "rockstars." Further, rockstars, in my experience, tend to exacerbate organizational dynamic issues.