SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
AnonTechie writes "In business, intelligence is always a critical element in any employee, because what we do is difficult and complex and the competitors are filled with extremely smart people. However, intelligence isn't the only important quality. Being effective in a company also means working hard, being reliable, and being an excellent member of the team. Companies where people with diverse backgrounds and work styles can succeed have significant advantages in recruiting and retaining top talent over those that don't."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Deal With the Brilliant Jerks You Work With
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...."
-- Thomas J. Kopp
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday February 28 2014, @11:42AM
There's a very simple way of dealing with brilliant jerks: don't hire them. People who can't work well in a team are rarely useful, and they'd have to be pretty exceptional to offset the productivity loss that the people around them suffer. It's only worth it if you have a team containing one brilliant jerk and a few dozen drooling morons (who cause a net productivity gain when they work less), and in that case you'd be better off firing the whole team and getting a handful of moderately competent people who work well together.
One of the things I've seen repeatedly since I came to Cambridge is that the people who, judged on their achievements over a period of decades, truly deserve to be called brilliant, are usually the ones that collaborate the best. They understand that someone else can often find the thing that's obviously (although not to them) wrong with their first idea, which leads them to the second or third iteration, which becomes the one that they're famous for.
When we hire new people, the top criterion is 'would you like to work with this person?' We expect that new people will do good work, but will also make everyone else's work a little bit better as a result of their interactions. People who can only do the first are much less valuable.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @12:44PM
Very well put :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khakipuce on Friday February 28 2014, @01:16PM
The problem seems to be that a lot of the people doing the hiring cannot tell the difference between genuinely good and bluff and bluster. They are the same people who think a gold plated gizmo, or something with an expensive logo is better than one that doesn't have these things.
So along come two candidates, one who is quiet, considerate, thoughtful and one who is objectionable, loud, massively opinionated and, just like the sports-car* they want to buy they hire the obnoxious one. Turns out to just be loud, noisy and keeps breaking down...
*obligatory car analogy
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @02:11PM
Depending on your goals, thise things may be better. For example, if the main reason you buy your sound system is not to have the best sound, but to impress your audiophile friend, then buying those monster cables may well be the right choice.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 28 2014, @04:23PM
Exactly. And if your goal in interviewing is to get a job with a manager who's a clueless moron, then being able to bullshit a lot will help you a lot more than being highly competent.
If companies don't like this, then maybe they should learn to do a better job hiring good managers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Friday February 28 2014, @02:20PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 28 2014, @03:34PM
I've seen organizations in which the prospective employee's would-be boss has absolutely no say in whether somebody is hired. Heck, I've been in that exact position: the CEO of a startup I was working for hired his drinking buddy, came in the next day and told me "Guess what? You have a new person in your department. He's arriving in 30 minutes." (Leaving me minimal time to scrounge up a computer for him to use.) The employee in question not only had no skills in the job the CEO had hired him to do, he had never claimed to have those skills.
Needless to say, I'd already begun making plans to move on from that company.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 28 2014, @04:05PM
What you're saying is true, but it's not foolproof. Often a candidate can interview well, pass tests, and still turn out to be a nightmare. They can even show up with a strong portfolio, and turn out to be a nightmare. The point I was trying to make, and the lesson that I learned the hard way, is that if a hire turns out to be a brilliant jerk it's not worth the time and trouble to try to get them to work out. Fire them and try again. That might sound harsh, but I have a company to run and products to get out the door and the livelihoods of everyone else in the organization depend on that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gander on Friday February 28 2014, @02:08PM
Alas, there is a trend to be looking for "superstar" employees of all stripes. Companies have this perception that if they just hire A players, regardless of how poor their people skills are, and how inflated their self-worth, that the business will benefit from them.
Bullshit. Every one of these people turn out to be far more damaging to the organization. Yet the number of job postings looking for "rockstar" status people astounds.
(Score: 1) by skullz on Friday February 28 2014, @04:00PM
That's why I put "uber guru ninja pirate" on my resume, so they know I'm not one of "those".
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday February 28 2014, @05:22PM
Really? I have *checks the front page* "a Swarm of Circus Midgets" in mine. :-)
(Score: 1) by rev0lt on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:56AM
Most companies looking for "rockstars" are startups. They need to ship product to appease investors, even if it is a working prototype. Genuine rockstars won't last in this kind of environment, because sooner or later they will get bored with their work and move on. But while that doesn't happen, they really build the product together and are able to push it to the next level. That will give management time to actually build a good, cohesive team that can either gradually rewrite the platform or maintain the good bits, while keeping business deadlines and pleasing investors.
I'm astonished no post I've seen mentions this, since it is pretty old hat if you manage development teams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by BradleyAndersen on Friday February 28 2014, @03:33PM
this.