When Smart People Make Bad Employees 491
theodp writes "Writing for Forbes, CS-grad-turned-big-time-VC Ben Horowitz gives three examples of how the smartest people in a company can also be the worst employees: 1. The Heretic, who convincingly builds a case that the company is hopeless and run by a bunch of morons; 2. The Flake, who is brilliant but totally unreliable; 3. The Jerk, who is so belligerent in his communication style that people just stop talking when he is in the room. So, can an employee who fits one of these poisonous descriptions, but nonetheless can make a massive positive contribution to a company, ever be tolerated? Quoting John Madden's take on Terrell Owens, Horowitz gives a cautious yes: 'If you hold the bus for everyone on the team, then you'll be so late that you'll miss the game, so you can't do that. The bus must leave on time. However, sometimes you'll have a player that's so good that you hold the bus for him, but only him.' Ever work with a person who's so good that he/she gets his/her own set of rules? Ever been that person yourself?"
Not as smart as you think you are (Score:5, Interesting)
The best people I've worked for were never the smartest. They combined high enough intelligence with wisdom. They were humbled by time. They had learned people skills. And if they had any kind of self-awareness, they were shamed by how much they had acted like assholes when they were younger.
Brilliant Jerks (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm thankfully not smart enough to qualify, but I've worked with both Heretics and Jerks. One of the really nice things I love about my current workplace is their clear and very explicit "no brilliant jerks" policy. "For us, the cost to effective teamwork is too high."
The only time I've ever interviewed someone, walked out of the interview absolutely sure we had to hire them, and been wrong was when we hired one of the three smartest guys I've ever worked with -- who proved to be entirely ineffective in getting anything done because "we have to change everything because you're all a bunch of idiots!"
I have (Score:5, Interesting)
A slight variation on the first one is the “embittered moral drain”. These are people who are brilliant, but for whatever reason have basically committed career suicide. They become bitter and angry, and although they still do their job, they make a huge deal out of every minor mistake made by the company. This kind of thing spreads to those around them and it can really take the fun out of work, which kills productivity.
A forth type I might add is the “unfocused hacker”. These are the guys who treat their job like their hobby. They focus on the stuff that interests them, and ignore the stuff that’s “boring”. They never ask for clarification and just make assumptions when the requirements aren’t clear because they’d rather code than type up an email. If tasked to build a car in 4 months.. they’d spend 3 months designing the coolest, most elegant windshield wiper you’d ever seen.. and then spend the remaining 1 month bodging an old tricycle to meet the requirements. These guys are usually skilled, but unless you keep a really tight leash on them, they make a huge mess.
I’ve also run into the inverse of this list on quite a few occasions “The Dedicated Idiot.”. These are the guys who are really nice people, willing to put in extra time and energy, good team players, but have the slight problem of not being able to actually do their job. No one wants to get rid of this guy he’s really trying but damn is his code terrible and full of bugs and never on time and never quite meets the spec.
Also, what was up with the mixing of “he” and “she”. I don’t know why, but I found this very distracting.
Re:Like astrology .. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there was a time when that was true, but not really any longer. IT isn't quite the basement-dwelling, bitter social outcast draw it once was. Not to sound immodest, but I like to think I'm really good at interacting with users. And for the most part, I feel like my co-workers are pretty good at it too. We have a lot of friends in other departments.
On the other hand, maybe I'm just fooling myself.
The problem aren't these people, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
> However, sometimes you'll have a player that's so good that you hold the bus for him, but only him.' Ever work with a person who's so good that he/she gets his/her own set of rules?
Bad according to whom (Score:4, Interesting)
Short, shameful confession (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been that jerk in the past -- the guy that everyone listened to because I was right and came up with really good software, but people hated dealing with me and basically shut up when I was in the room. I slowly discovered that if I stopped acting like a jerk, people still respected me, but they stopped putting up a fight. People even went out of their way to help me. It was a lot easier to do my job, and I'm convinced that I was actually able to produce better code because of the reduced number of bureaucratic headaches.
I wish I'd figured it out earlier.
Hmm, on the other hand, I was asked to do more stuff because people were less afraid of me. So I guess... be careful what you wish for?
Re:How indispensable is that person? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, i was thinking, all smart people fall under these 3 categories because the person who came up with it is a complete retard. Can't treat people as individuals so i have to generalize the "smart ones" into stupid bins that don't really fit them or what they do. I guess i've never heard of a smart person who has enough social skills to keep his mouth shut when it's important to and get his work done on time and be aware of his surroundings enough to know when disaster is going to strike and even comes up with plans so he can look like a hero every time? Right, cuz you hire smart retards because that's what you're comfortable with.
Re:Bad according to whom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brilliant Jerks (Score:2, Interesting)
I've worked in a few companies with jerk co-workers. Mostly though, I find co-workers are pretty good. What's poisonous is jerk bosses, who try to push employees that are already self-motivated, or who create such a competitive atmosphere and hire "ambitious" employees, that they become jerks even when they'd be fine outside of the office.
First rule of fixing workplaces: don't let assholes be in charge of them.
Re:Like astrology .. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there was a time when that was true, but not really any longer. IT isn't quite the basement-dwelling, bitter social outcast draw it once was... ....On the other hand, maybe I'm just fooling myself.
Of course you are fooling yourself. Everyone in our IT shop is near-ASD; one more symptom each and we'd all be eligible for disability.
Now don't be moddin' me flamebait, bucko: this works out just fine and we're all pretty chuffed with it.
OCD and high IQ are perfect for the IT work place and we all get along quite well, thank you, when left alone to play with our systems and networks. No one's bothered by the given examples; most think that the heretic would be a fool to think any different, the flake is just ADD/ADHD and just needs a PM to keep on track, and the jerk is really just NLD (possibly Tourette's if he has a tick) and doesn't mean anything nasty by what he says. Besides, it's all quite entertaining as long as there is lots of work to do and the pay checks keep coming in.
As for me, I'm just a freakin' ASD rainbow.
The great thing is, everyone is bright and all dive deep into the knowledge well. The answer to any problem is close at hand. Also, everyone has coping strategies and has learned how to communicate depending on who is being dealt with.
This is just business as usual. ;->
Re:Like astrology .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like astrology .. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In the RARE case where (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps I should elaborate.
I never said anything about forcing bad tools on anyone; that came from your mind, not mine. I'm sorry someone did that to you in the past, but that's irrelevant here. You're projecting, seeing pointy-haired bosses everywhere.
What I will say is that anyone who says "because I like this one OS/development environment/whatever for tasks that I happen to be good at, any other OS/development environment/whatever is always inferior. And so are the people who prefer anything that isn't my pet whatever." That's a hater. And that's someone that doesn't understand that THEIR pet tool is not universal. One of the characteristics of skilled developers and IT people is that they recognize that there is not now, nor ever shall be, one set of software tools that is universally superior in all environments for all purposes. They also recognize that widely-used tools are good for something, otherwise they never would have become widely-used. Another sign of willful ignorance: "If I don't see a good use for something, it doesn't exist, and never did."
As a corollary, sometimes there are excellent reasons why tools that aren't ideal for a specific task are used. Interoperability, licensing constraints, expense, the ability to hire more people who know how to use a wide-spread general-purpose software development tool vs. a hyperspecialized tool... these are all factors that are important in the big picture which a developer or IT person might not see, or might dismiss because it's not their personal problem to solve. It's seldom malice which leads to a directive that "we must use X to make this". Good companies expose those reasons internally, of course, but exposed or not, the reasons are always there.
Or, to restate, anyone who says "All Apple stuff is crap" or "Windows is garbage" or "GCC is the perfect compiler for everything" is willfully ignorant, and is looking to start arguments. Why would anyone hire someone who deliberately wallows in ignorance?
Holding customers in contempt... there's no defense for that. Ever. Customers may not have the extensive education necessary to produce a product, but they're the ones who have to use it, and they're the ones you have to convince to pay for it. The customer is not always right, but they're always the ones you have to take care of (or you don't get paid). A company that doesn't have sympathy for its customers (particularly a company that makes consumer-focused software) is doomed to failure. It's also a personal failing; any time you assume someone who isn't skilled with a given sophisticated tool is an "idiot", you can bet they're trash-talking you and everyone else around you behind their backs. These are the team-breakers. Not cool, not acceptable, not hired.
You accuse me of being pure-dollar. Hardly. The overriding theme here is that I believe that hateful prima donnas do not produce good products, that being a bad person does not make up for good talent, and that the care and feeding of a single superstar at the direct expense of everyone around them is just not worth it. I also feel that treating a hostile-but-talented worker preferentially is unethical, as it directly rewards bad behavior and directly harms others exhibiting good behavior. If I were pure-dollar, I'd be stating "we're not here to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya, and NeckBeard here writes the best code, so suck up his tirades, you average workers". Exactly the opposite. I believe that teams produce winning products, not superstars, and that whenever you have to choose between the single superstar and the hardworking regular team, you choose the team.
Never coddle a jackass, no matter how talented. And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if a jackass working for you comes into contact with an "idiot" customer and behaves... predictably. Your company and your jackass will instantly become a YouTube star, and not in a good way.