Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

brendangregg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 243 posts

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#211

Post by shifter »

auggierose wrote: post #146
valuearb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be a superior engineering contributor unless you are honest with everyone, from superiors to peers, to reports. The key is how you present information. I just proactively scheduled a 1-1 with a Sr VP three levels above me for later this month to cover an important topic. This is what I want to tell them: Our core customer facing application is shit. The contractors who wrote it cut tons of corners and the m…

I can't see this meeting ending well. Better in parallel look for a job opportunity with less than three layers of management above you.

It depends on the exec. Most that I know like rough, raw feedback.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#212

Post by cperciva »

shifter wrote: post #210
cperciva wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torvalds never pounce on someone out on tail end of the patch chain. He comes down hard on those that have been in charge of maintaining major sections of the kernel for years, and should know what is expected of them. I don't think that's necessarily good enough. Even if he is personally restrained in whom he acts like a jerk towards, his behaviour establishes norms within the project and contributes to how other pe…

> Project leaders need to set good examples Why? Are we Puritans now?

It has nothing to do with puritanism. If project leaders don't set good examples, people "lower down" in the hierarchy will also act like jerks, and the project will lose potential contributors as a result.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#214

Post by forcedin2jerk »

forcedin2jerk wrote: post #164

I once left the most toxic organization I could ever imagine. I was initially very excited to work with people so experienced, but I slowly learned it was just people experienced with being jerks for decades with minimal brilliance to accompany. I turned into an Alice trying to deal with at-best-mediocre/at-worst-negligent Bobs. The article has nailed things pretty accurately, except that the ability of the Bobs was…

Just so anyone reading can take something away that might be useful if they find themselves in a similar situation... In the first one, I became a hardcore Alice, specifically got promoted because of it, and the jerkiness on all fronts accelerated. There are cultures where jerks thrive.

Another culture I’ve previously worked in appreciated people that could “level” their brilliant jerks because management didn’t want to replace them (growth stage -> acquisition). I’ve found sometimes people turn into brilliant jerks, and it’s allowed/tolerated, in part due to compensation inequality. These people were hired at a lower salary for whatever reasons, and in exchange received freedom to be a brilliant jerk because they became hard to replace at a certain price. The jerks in question were working their butts off to move up, which never happened in any significant way. So there can definitely be multiple sides as to why someone is behaving like a jerk.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#215

Post by johnsonjo »

an_d_rew wrote: post #71
fhood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong because the vast majority of people take criticism personally. It turns out that when you tell people they are wrong and present them with reasons they are wrong, a surprising number of people double down. I'm sure you have heard this before, but you have to make them think it was their idea. Edit Source: I make this mistake all the god damn time, and never realize it until the person breaks and finally…

Agree totally. In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors. But we aren't, not even close. (And I would argue that that's a good thing, but that discussion is waaaaay out of scope). As soon as you accept that humans, including yourself, primarily make _emotional_ decisions and not rational ones, it becomes easier to steer decisions in a healthy manner.

> In an idealized "intellectual-only" world, humans would be Spock-like and be pure rational actors.

I used to think more along these lines. I heard someone recently talk about Spock and Captain Kirk and their approaches to different situations, and he said that most people think Spock must always be right due to his logical side. He then said that many times Kirk’s more human emotional approach actually worked out better in the end. Obviously you need a balance. Things should be logically thought out but sometimes you need to act out of empathy and sympathy towards others even when it might not make that much sense.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#216

Post by whataretensors »

GVIrish wrote: post #135
whataretensors wrote: post #19

This 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-ki…

The opposing viewpoint is that you can't dissect a person like that. It could be Linus' abrasiveness that makes him an amazing engineer.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#217

Post by rhizome »

s73ver_ wrote: post #158
digi_owl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus Torvalds have gotten an undeserved reputation because it is oh so easy for the online tech media to take emails out of context. Whenever he brings out the harsh words, it is because someone has been stalling and deflecting about breaking some core rule for kernel development. Torvalds never pounce on someone out on tail end of the patch chain. He comes down hard on those that have been in charge of maintaining…

Not really. In what context is saying that someone should be 'retroactively aborted' a perfectly fine thing to say?

In a humorous context, of course. I mean think about it.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#218

Post by alexashka »

csours wrote: post #148
alexashka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things can be terrible because some people don't know how to act. Things can also be terrible because some people don't know how to do the job properly. It is a lot easier to find a yes-man/woman than a brilliant anyone. Companies are ruined by mediocrity far more than they're ruined by 'brilliant jerks' bullying the company into non-existence. Who'd you rather have as your surgeon - a brilliant jerk the nurses have…

> "a brilliant jerk the nurses have to put up with, or a nice guy/lady who screws up sometimes but will feel really bad about it afterwards and will write you a hand-written apology." The brilliant jerk will have set a precedent in the operating room that leads to people not questioning their decisions, even when they are wrong, leading to uncaught mistakes. The most brilliant jerk will sometimes slip up. [0] See als…

Great, we agree to hire people who are good at their job, and then train them to be effective at communication with others.

I didn't see that in the article. All I saw was a witch hunt.

A witch hunt (aka don't hire them witches) because the witches are disturbing the health of the village.

It's stone-age thinking - I've heard of a story about a brilliant jerk, his name was Jesus Christ.

The irony of a Christian nation calling for excommunication of those most resembling their savior is really something.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#219

Post by alexanderstears »

watwut wrote: post #198
alexanderstears wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the person has a kid that's sick as often as the jerk is a jerk (read - a majority of the time), you won't be so thrilled about picking up their slack. There are people who have chronicly sick kids and you have to believe that it affects their productivity / affects them every single day. And the situations aren't perfectly analogous with respect to the intention behind leaving work for a sick kid, or being a jerk…

People with kids have lower salaries and are passed for promotions. People (women mostly) expected to have kids or suspect of wanting to be with kids at least some of the time too. Jerks affect productivity of those around, people who were bacstabbed, people who were not told information, people who were lied about, people who were smeared (including professional reputation aka calling good ideas stupid to get domina…

I live in a country with reasonable abortion access and adoption laws - every parent is a parent by choice. I'm not sure that every jerk is as accountable for their behavior.

Re: Brilliant Jerks in Engineering

#220

Post by RGS1811 »

1001101 wrote: post #63

Google has an interesting philosophy on this: """ Cosgrove asked them to elaborate on the idea: "exile the knaves, but fight for the divas." Rosenberg said maintaining Google's collaborative culture requires weeding out and getting rid of the knaves: Employees who lack integrity, who are jealous of their peers, take credit for others' work, and think only of themselves. "Nice humble engineers have a way of becoming i…

I've been in a non-tech work environment (specifically, publishing) where management followed this philosophy. In that case it yielded a disgruntled workforce with terrible leadership who were variously ignored and exploited by the divas. Ultimately the place would have done better with a boatload of knaves and no more than 2 divas.
Post reply on HN