The real problem with jerks is that "you get what you role model". If you have senior technical people acting like jerks and getting away with it, you have junior people concluding that being a jerk is the way to get a leadership position. That creates a toxic workplace over the long haul. Jerk-like behavior is a performance management issue and managers that don't confront it dig their own grave.
Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
131–140 of 243 posts
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should reword your question as it's not a realistic scenario. Engineers freely choose to learn Java and apply to Java job postings, and if that's not the case I doubt they'd be vocal against the "value" of Java.
You seem like you're imagining a very ideal world. I personally know many engineers who joined a company for one reason, then the team/company began a new project and migrated to Java. I have seen people argue about the choice of underlying technology in code reviews. And if you think my specific scenario was unrealistic, then perhaps attempt to understand it as a general example of "something that is obvious to you…
I see your point.
Still that's quite an extreme case. Devs regularly questioning a programming language is not a code-review problem, or a should-I-be-a-jerk problem.
It's more like the problem that you escalate to the CTO (with argumentation!). Or you can pick your battles and move to a saner company.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#133Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. Letting brilliant jerks ruin it for others is a management problem, not a brilliant jerk problem. However, professionalism is a two way street. Bobs and Alices that make professional salaries can be expected to improve, though the professionals that work with them should make so…
Hiring brilliant jerks is fundamentally a decision that comes down to the specific situation and imo it should rest with the hiring manager. I strongly disagree. The benefits of having a brilliant jerk mostly accrues to the team he is on. The costs are felt throughout the company. Therefore the hiring manager is motivated to hire and try to manage the jerk, and has an incentive to avoid truly accepting how damaging t…
You're right.
The person managing the jerk should have 'skin in the game' with everyone the jerk interacts with or else the manager can (and will) game the system.
I once managed someone with a terrible reputation (because I got a great rate on him) and made sure I was his only conduit to anyone else. After a few weeks of the arrangement, it became easier for me to work with him - he appreciated the arrangement and was very productive.
At the end of the day, he wasn't a bad/evil person. He just didn't get along with people, he didn't have much patience, and he was profoundly disagreeable and situations that work for most people didn't work for him.
Ultimately, I was able to find an accommodation for him and get him to contribute to the company. It's a shame that we think of 'accommodations' as outside the scope of regular businesses or as something for defective people but the reality in most functioning workplaces is that we're all accommodated and we should all accommodate others.
The single mom on my team isn't defective, but we need to change the arrangement a bit away from convention to make sure she can put in her best work.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#134I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! I work in an environment when very small percentage of people know what are they doing. and people that know what is going on do not speak up because they are frustrated and know probably nothing will change. in this environment I do speak up whenever I get a chance and I've been in arguments with managers 3 4 level above me. everybody else wants to be…
I appreciate it when people tell me that I'm wrong in a respectful manner and with solid reasoning to back it up. It's impossible to be right 100% of the time, and the only way to improve is when someone or something points out when you've erred. If Alice was respectful and knew when to let things go in the example, I would want her as a teammate any day of the week.
It seems the gut reaction in tech is that conflict is bad, but conflict is inevitable. It is better to respectfully resolve conflicts than try to avoid them at all costs IMO
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#135This doesn't pass the Torvald test. i.e. Would your startup hire Linus if he hadn't yet created linux and git?
Linus is brilliant for sure, but bottom line is that you're very unlikely to run into a Linus when you're allowing a brilliant jerk into your organization. It's like yeah, a basketball team can deal with an abrasive, competitive maniac when it's Michael Jordan, but how many Michael Jordans are out there? You're more likely to be dealing with a skilled but replaceable jerk than you are to be dealing with a one-of-a-kind superstar.
Even then, having a jerk superstar in a software dev shop might still be a net negative. If that person causes a lot of turnover, missed deadlines, or drags down everyone else's productivity, their brilliance may not make up for it.
And who's to say that the brilliant but somewhat difficult developer can't be reformed into someone who treats people better? Why should any company have to accept someone behaving like that in return for their skills? Maybe someone like Linus would totally be more diplomatic if he had to fit in at a company with a 'no brilliant jerks' policy.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#136The situation I've encountered is a jerk who was actually fairly mediocre in his abilities but whose bully characteristics and brash confidence had led many of the non-technical people in the company to believe he was extremely skilled. I think one reason people become bullies is because they know they can't back up their decisions with skill. Linus is brash, but is quite able to work well with people and has the res…
This is certainly a problem I’ve seen. One employee was hated by almost all the technical people because he was a jackass and couldn’t work with others. He wanted everything done his way and wasn’t interested in the opinions of others (except as they may bolster how great his ideas were). The truth is he wasn’t very good, at least not to the degree he tried to present. Some of management loved him because he worked s…
There are Jerks and Non-Jerks. Also Brilliant Folks and Averae Joes(?). I dont know why we tend to club two different qualities and consider them as a single entity. The question should be, "This employee is a jerk, what to do about it" rather than, "This employee is a brilliant jerk, should we tolerate it". There are enough brilliant people who are excellent human beings with no failings and plenty of mediocre bullies. The employee should conform to common sense behaviour which is compliant to their corporate culture like most tech workers do.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#137Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Letting brilliant jerks ruin it for others is a management problem, not a brilliant jerk problem. Great comment of an instance. The class: "Letting ruin it for others is a management problem, not an problem." I have rarely run into the "brilliant jerk" problem. I have almost always run into the "incompetent manager" problem. "Incompetent Managers in Engineering". Now there's an article I'd really like to read.
There are people, including highly skilled, who are not jerks and are not destroying anything to others. There are even people who are not jerks despite management itself being evil. Management has part of blame, but jerk is responsible for his own behavior. Jerk is responsible for what strategies he choose to look brilliant. (And people with autism don't count as jerks unless they are. Most of them are willing to st…
You're right that productive people are productive despite being jerks, not because they're jerks. And sure, cast as much judgement on jerks as you feel is proper.
But most people are pretty set in their ways. Everyone who yells at cashiers when they're 40 has done so before, they've probably faced some consequences for their actions and the behavior persists so either you need to be more persuasive than the totality of their lived experience or you can adjust your sails.
If we can accept people who miss work for sick kids, we can accept jerks. But we don't have to accept either. Everything is subservient to money. You can simply pay for excellent people, but some corporations need to compete elsewhere.
I wouldn't pay a jerk as much as a team player (all other things equal), but for the right price I'd put up with the headaches. That's the right call for me, it's not the right call for others. What's important is that corporations and managers get creative about making things work for people.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#139I am an Alice and I need some feedback as why is it a bad thing! I work in an environment when very small percentage of people know what are they doing. and people that know what is going on do not speak up because they are frustrated and know probably nothing will change. in this environment I do speak up whenever I get a chance and I've been in arguments with managers 3 4 level above me. everybody else wants to be…
You are wrong because you are ineffective. You want a good thing: you want your environment to change for the better. But if you find yourself getting into arguments with managers, then you are probably not effectively changing minds, and you will get frustrated. You already sound frustrated. Speaking the truth straight out can feel good, but it is rarely a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, back up, and start with t…
I've given advice to young professionals in the past in this same vein. I ask, "What magic is it that people love good ideas, yet, you have a good idea and no one listens to you?"
The answer boils down to this: if you have a good idea but people are rejecting it, find a new way to talk about it.
Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering
#140I was so Alice for much of my career. I know this is going to sound totally cliche because this book get's recommended everywhere, but How to Win Friends and Influence People really did help me.
Do you feel like you've made lasting changes as a result of the book, or is it just another choice you can choose to do in a social interaction? *By lasting changes I mean, do you feel like you've changed and valued being more sociable?
yes, I can now hold down small talk conversations, ask people about their lives, be interested in them and remember to ask follow up questions next time I see them.
I will ask questions about the outcomes of an approach rather than making statements about it so that I make sure we both are working with the same information.
basically it's made my life a lot less stressful, and my discussions with colleagues much more productive