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

Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

retrospective.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 279 posts

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#21

Post by omni »

EpicEng wrote: post #14

No they don't; mediocre 'nice guys' do though. Every 'brilliant jerk' I've worked with and led has been a net positive over the long haul. Every mediocre nice guy has been dead weight that costs everyone around them time. I'll take the brilliant jerk any day. They can simply deliver in ways that others cannot.

> I'll take the brilliant jerk [over the mediocre nice guy] any day.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman. I'd rather take neither of them and fill my team with adequate-to-exceptional devs who also happen to be decent human beings.

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#23

Post by funkymike »

On the subject of making code reviews a positive experience I think it has been helpful where I work to explicitly discuss code reviews. What makes a good code review vs. a bad one. For example the idea that code review comments should be based on the substance of the code rather than style.

This stuck out to me as I tend to be very critical in code reviews, which I think made other developers uncomfortable. By talking about it though I was able to soften my approach. I was also able to make sure my language came across as reviewing the code, not the developer.

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#24

Post by Waterluvian »

beachy wrote: post #13

> A “No Jerks” Policy Must Be Built Into Your Culture. It is entirely possible to be extremely passionate (and even brilliant) without being a jerk. A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels. Following simplistic rules like this is usually what leaves us knee deep in the proverbial. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never worked with anyone who's as much of a jerk as described in the ar…

Hey that's me!

I had a frustrating moment the other day where a colleague said that

  float(5)
was more explicit and personally preferred in Python than a literal

  5.0
I realised I was being pedantic but I genuinely believed in "good craftsmanship" when I really pushed him to change it.

I need to get better at this because the social friction I caused may cost more than the poor craftsmanship. But the other part of me is thinking, "c'mon man... Seriously?"

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#25

Post by dcposch »

beachy wrote: post #13

> A “No Jerks” Policy Must Be Built Into Your Culture. It is entirely possible to be extremely passionate (and even brilliant) without being a jerk. A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels. Following simplistic rules like this is usually what leaves us knee deep in the proverbial. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never worked with anyone who's as much of a jerk as described in the ar…

> Brilliant jerks are often to be found at the beating heart of successful software.

Exhibit 0: Linus Torvalds

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#27

Post by w00tw00tw00t »

to call anyone a "jerk" is something that only jerks do, but everyone looks at themselves as holier than thou. We're all flawed in some way. Labeling people (or attacking people) as "jerks" is in profound violation the principle of non-violent communication, to say the least, and, by the way, so is down-voting those who are critical of the prevailing opinion here without a civil counter argument ;-)

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#28

Post by kurthr »

beachy wrote: post #13

> A “No Jerks” Policy Must Be Built Into Your Culture. It is entirely possible to be extremely passionate (and even brilliant) without being a jerk. A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels. Following simplistic rules like this is usually what leaves us knee deep in the proverbial. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never worked with anyone who's as much of a jerk as described in the ar…

I agree... usually when a truly brilliant developer is causing more harm than good, it's because they aren't being effectively managed. That doesn't mean managing them is easy, but you want to pick and choose what problems you give them, who they work with, and how they work with customers. Of course, that's not my job :^)

Re: Brilliant Jerks Cost More Than They Are Worth

#29

Post by JoshTriplett »

beachy wrote: post #13

> A “No Jerks” Policy Must Be Built Into Your Culture. It is entirely possible to be extremely passionate (and even brilliant) without being a jerk. A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels. Following simplistic rules like this is usually what leaves us knee deep in the proverbial. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never worked with anyone who's as much of a jerk as described in the ar…

> In my experience, talented developers are usually intelligent enough that they can make up for their shortcoming in the social area by consciously adapting their behaviour.

That's orthogonal to the issue mentioned in the article. For the purposes of "not being a jerk", it doesn't matter if that comes naturally or if you have to devote conscious effort to it; only the resulting behavior matters.

> Brilliant jerks are often to be found at the beating heart of successful software.

Survivorship bias. Strange policies or properties are often found in successful companies/projects, who often write up articles about them as though those policies contributed to their success, never considering the possibility that they succeeded in spite of them. The same goes for jerks: some companies/projects succeed in spite of the jerks in (or running) them.

Post reply on HN