This is yet another post about stereotypical employees/coworkers. I don't like to think of people as hollow stereotypes that someone online can precisely nail down so as to dispense wisdom on dealing with them. Yes, I've worked with lots of people who sort of resemble the stereotypes and I'm sure all of you have, hence the popularity of such posts.
However, I urge everyone to please remember that stereotypes are templates and nobody fits the stereotype exactly. Everyone has something special about them that is worth considering. Just imagine if you do have a "mr. know-it-all" at your work who gets a bit frustrated when you ask him to do important but "boring" things like documentation or protocol compliance. Advice like this will suddenly put this person in your view as negative, despite the fact that "mr. know-it-all" is a very hardworking employee who is extremely loyal to your company. Nobody is perfect and thanks to this new stereotype that you just read about, you cannot help but compare him to the guy that "one everyone has to tiptoe around." Oh how you hate that stereotype and look, this "mr know-it-all" totally fits the description!
You could solve your documentation problem in some other way but once you fire this guy, you got two problems - you don't have a loyal, hardworking, "mr. know-it-all" anymore and you don't have the documentation on what he did and how he did it I'm no managerial-guru but I sure hope nobody starts firing their top tech people because of random posts on the Internet.
Of course, the hypocrisy here among most of us is that when a large company does fire key tech people from their staff, we all come in rallying for support of the tech folks, arguing "how can a company survive if they fire their lead tech!" Well, companies can survive. And yours could too despite the fact that you fired your key tech person as long as you have a good infrastructure in place. However, that doesn't mean your competition won't welcome them with open arms and now you got a third problem.
Exactly. The fun is in dealing with reality, not stereotypes. Life would be so much simpler (and boring) if everyone fit nicely in a little box.
At least in startup mode, where you obsess daily, hourly and minutely (?) about everything: should I fire John? Is John the best producer I ever had? But John just did something amazing yesterday, he saved the day. John is being a pain today. Had lunch with John, what a great guy.
You have to constantly look at the trees, look at the forest, and make choices. Tactical and strategic.
It's the same as parenting by the way. It's easy to read a book and see that by age 2, you should treat you kid in such and such fashion. Great, high-level advice. Except you interact with your kid constantly. When you're in a good mood and when you are not. We are back to tactical and strategy.
Bottom line: hire engineers who have great kids :-)
While I have nothing against the idea of "resolving" jerks/bullies, I think suggesting that deep technical skills and being an unproductive jerk are concomitant is insulting, and dangerously wrong.
Fortunately, this suggestion is made by a marketing guy, and everyone knows they're full of hot air.
"You'll find someone else who really knows this stuff. No doubt about it. And firing one intransigent bully is a lot less painful than shutting down an entire division next year because he paralyzed your decision-making."
Seth states that "Deep technical competency is overrated compared with the ability to make excellent decisions"
I'd rather say technical competency doesn't make up for destroying the team spirit. There are probably several movies, where the coach throws out the star of the team and gets a better overall team afterwards.
On the other hand it is important to know that technical competency is a requirement for excellent decisions.
I can work around bad attitude, but I can't work around incompetence. Besides, you do not gain true technical expertise without the ability to eventually recognize a good solution for one. So while you may encounter initial resistance when you broach a new idea to a good techie (usually because if he's good, he's already given the problem a lot of thought and hence really thinks his is the right solution) if your idea has merit, she will usually come around after cooling down a little. That has been my experience, anyway.
Conversely, if you think your idea is really good and he refuses to come around and is unable to give a logical reason why, then a) he's not really that good or b) he's good but you did not understand what he said.
the thing is, the "he really knows his stuff" guy usually doesn't. He somehow convinced the top guys 5-6 years ago that he did, and now they think he shits gold, when in reality he is very mediocre by current standards
What's worse is that he thinks he shits gold... I've noticed that certain personalities tend to go this way as they learn something well - they use their knowledge it to feel better about themselves, as if the entire point of learning was to make up for insecurities. Once they know enough to sound knowledgeable, they stop learning.
The worst thing about this is, I think, that it becomes impossible to hire people smarter than them.
heh! a guy who makes a living blowing up obvious platitudes into book length anecdote laden "management advice" has a problem with technically sharp people (who as someone pointed out earlier here) he conflates with "bullies" (what an ill defined catchall phrase) and advocates getting rid of them.
A platitude about platitudes: they don't apply universally. If I find myself in a management position where this situation occurs, I would not be so hasty to fire. There's more legwork involved to make a prudent choice in this situation than Seth lets on to. I'm just sayin'...
Wow. This is one of the worst pieces of advice I've ever heard.
Don't hire him in the first place, maybe. But once he's there, if you don't have a replacement already lined up and combat-tested, firing him can easily shut down your company.
I agree with this. There should be no place for pains in the asses, no matter how smart they think they are. I remember when I was interviewing (seems so long ago), I got to interview with one of these kinds of guys. I felt so belittled after the process. Even though I liked the company (and found the best HR I've ever seen!!)--I said no to their offer. Not the team I want to be on.
Ability to make excellent decisions comes from deep technical competency. Firing the guy who knows something about stuff leaves behind a bunch of guys who are not very likely to make the excellent decisions you are looking forward to.
But there are people who _pretend_ to have deep technical competence.
Some people are worth 10 average people (some people are worth 100). If you want your startup to outcompete, you need them. You may have to put up with some amount of shit, but hiring talent is a non-negotiable requirement for business success.
That's true. It's also true that a single person can destroy the productivity of 10 other people no matter how talented and motivated those other 10 are. I think that is the point the article is trying to make.
Well, I thought that the cornerstone quote of the article was this:
"Deep technical competency is overrated compared with the ability to make excellent decisions and to create a culture where forward motion is valued and personal initiative is rewarded."
And, on average, I don't find that deep technical competency is overrated compared to...well, he's talking about social skills here.
At every stage of the hiring and interview and HR process, the deck is stacked in favor of social skills and social advantages. Is it better to be 25% more competent or to be 6 foot 3 inches tall at a job interview? The answer is unfortunately the second a lot of the time.
Yes, there are cases where one bad apple spoils the bunch and you need to get rid of him. In my experience, the bad apples are far more likely to be managers than technical people (think about it: what sort of person wants to boss others around?).
I see a much larger risk, for a medium-sized to large company, of driving out technical expertise by focusing too much on interpersonal skills. In fact, this may be exactly why larger companies tend to stagnate.
Smaller companies that survive more than a year or two already know how to focus on talent.
But what is a Talented employee if he is close minded, dissects ever little decision, and only implements what he thinks is right according to his experience?
And frankly I do not see the case where one person is worth 100 randomly picked persons in his field.
> And frankly I do not see the case where one person is worth 100 randomly picked persons in his field.
There's a rather famous list of 5000 German physicists who signed a petition stating that Einstein's theories were junk.
I don't know how many other physicists Germany had at the time but surely that tells us something about the odds of randomly picking 100 German physicists who were collectively "worth" one Einstein.
This is going slightly offtopic, but since you're bringing up this example, can I ask you for a link/citation for that list of physicists? I'm a bit surprised by the story, since Einstein's work was I believe internationally recognised almost immediately.
(Nevertheless, the man was probably worth quite a number of randomly chosen peers indeed :))
I don't know about those 5000 physicists against Einstein, but:
> Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html
However, I urge everyone to please remember that stereotypes are templates and nobody fits the stereotype exactly. Everyone has something special about them that is worth considering. Just imagine if you do have a "mr. know-it-all" at your work who gets a bit frustrated when you ask him to do important but "boring" things like documentation or protocol compliance. Advice like this will suddenly put this person in your view as negative, despite the fact that "mr. know-it-all" is a very hardworking employee who is extremely loyal to your company. Nobody is perfect and thanks to this new stereotype that you just read about, you cannot help but compare him to the guy that "one everyone has to tiptoe around." Oh how you hate that stereotype and look, this "mr know-it-all" totally fits the description!
You could solve your documentation problem in some other way but once you fire this guy, you got two problems - you don't have a loyal, hardworking, "mr. know-it-all" anymore and you don't have the documentation on what he did and how he did it I'm no managerial-guru but I sure hope nobody starts firing their top tech people because of random posts on the Internet.
Of course, the hypocrisy here among most of us is that when a large company does fire key tech people from their staff, we all come in rallying for support of the tech folks, arguing "how can a company survive if they fire their lead tech!" Well, companies can survive. And yours could too despite the fact that you fired your key tech person as long as you have a good infrastructure in place. However, that doesn't mean your competition won't welcome them with open arms and now you got a third problem.