Incompetent but Nice(jacobian.org)
jacobian.org
Incompetent but Nice
https://jacobian.org/2023/mar/28/incompetent-but-nice/
371 comments
I used to think the same way as you, and then I started a company and had to pay out of pocket for employees, and the sad truth that I almost hate myself for admitting is that if you have to pick between incompetent but nice, and competent but a jerk, you take the jerk. And yes, multiple people will even quit because you picked the jerk over the nice guy, and I still found it's worth it to take the jerk because of how competency scales. A good/competent software engineer can genuinely do the work of many, many mediocre developers and you're almost always better off with a small number of really solid developers over a large number of nice but mediocre ones.
Now of course we can always exaggerate things to an extreme and compare a racist, sexist, jerk who swears nonstop, to someone who is mildly incompetent, and there are certain principles and boundaries that are worth upholding with respect to how people treat each other regardless of their productivity, but in actuality that's not really the difficult choice you end up facing.
The really difficult choice you end up facing is someone who is nice and gets along with people but is ultimately too dependent on others to do their job versus someone who works independently and does an excellent job but is very blunt and can be an asshole in regards to the expectations they hold others to. Good software developers often expect their peers to also be at a high standard and will speak in very plain, rude, and blunt language if they feel others are not pulling their weight.
And finally, I have observed that in the long run, competent people tend to prefer to work with others whose skill they respect and they feel they can learn from because they're really good at their job, compared to working with someone who is pleasant but is always dependent on others. Being nice is a good short term skill to have, but people get used to those who are nice but they never get used to someone who is incompetent.
Now of course we can always exaggerate things to an extreme and compare a racist, sexist, jerk who swears nonstop, to someone who is mildly incompetent, and there are certain principles and boundaries that are worth upholding with respect to how people treat each other regardless of their productivity, but in actuality that's not really the difficult choice you end up facing.
The really difficult choice you end up facing is someone who is nice and gets along with people but is ultimately too dependent on others to do their job versus someone who works independently and does an excellent job but is very blunt and can be an asshole in regards to the expectations they hold others to. Good software developers often expect their peers to also be at a high standard and will speak in very plain, rude, and blunt language if they feel others are not pulling their weight.
And finally, I have observed that in the long run, competent people tend to prefer to work with others whose skill they respect and they feel they can learn from because they're really good at their job, compared to working with someone who is pleasant but is always dependent on others. Being nice is a good short term skill to have, but people get used to those who are nice but they never get used to someone who is incompetent.
Back when I was a developer, I tended towards the competent jerk. I was pretty good, but not 10x and I was a bit short with people not a raging asshole, though looking back I am ashamed of my behavior. The good thing is that it makes it really easy for me to recognize now.
On my teams, I don’t accept incompetence, so even the nice folks get managed out quickly.
I do have a strategy for handling the 10x assholes, though. We have a difficult problem domain (lots of math and physics) so I need those smart folks. I’m also lucky to have 2 hyper-competent nice devs too. I use them like jiu jitsu gyms use their enforcers.
When an extra aggressive 20 something shows up to a gym and starts making it unsafe to train, the gym will pair them up with a black belt who will humiliate them but be super nice about it and put them in their place.
I do the same. If I see asshole behavior surfacing, I’ll pair them up with my one of my super competent devs and have a them do a in depth code review or something like that.
Most of the time it works and the bad behavior goes away. If that doesn’t work (very rarely), we’ll manage them out.
Sometimes the 10x jerk is a jerk because he’s used to dealing with incompetence. But if you can show them competent-nice behavior, they’ll often pattern match to that.
On my teams, I don’t accept incompetence, so even the nice folks get managed out quickly.
I do have a strategy for handling the 10x assholes, though. We have a difficult problem domain (lots of math and physics) so I need those smart folks. I’m also lucky to have 2 hyper-competent nice devs too. I use them like jiu jitsu gyms use their enforcers.
When an extra aggressive 20 something shows up to a gym and starts making it unsafe to train, the gym will pair them up with a black belt who will humiliate them but be super nice about it and put them in their place.
I do the same. If I see asshole behavior surfacing, I’ll pair them up with my one of my super competent devs and have a them do a in depth code review or something like that.
Most of the time it works and the bad behavior goes away. If that doesn’t work (very rarely), we’ll manage them out.
Sometimes the 10x jerk is a jerk because he’s used to dealing with incompetence. But if you can show them competent-nice behavior, they’ll often pattern match to that.
I'm not sure why a direct communication style is inappropriate. We all learn as developers not to write extra lines of code, to be economical with wire/communication protocols, and to avoid duplicating sources of truth. It's only natural that we extend these principles into our professional communication.
When I use direct language, I am trying to economize the time and energy of everyone listening to me by speaking as clearly and concisely as possible. It's also a style practiced in military communication, where it's taught as the ABCs - accuracy, brevity and clarity. I don't think we as an industry should concede that this style is reserved for jerks.
When I use direct language, I am trying to economize the time and energy of everyone listening to me by speaking as clearly and concisely as possible. It's also a style practiced in military communication, where it's taught as the ABCs - accuracy, brevity and clarity. I don't think we as an industry should concede that this style is reserved for jerks.
It's also a cultural thing.
As a Frenchman, many Americans find my totally France compliant speech a bit rude.
On the other hand, I find their way of calling everyone a "friend" and every single nice things "amazing" extremely annoying.
But if people are adults, having a little friction is not a big deal. We don't need to appreciate all behaviors to live together.
This is something that is well understood in jobs with harsh conditions, but in our very comfy IT jobs, people seem to sweat the small stuff way more.
As a Frenchman, many Americans find my totally France compliant speech a bit rude.
On the other hand, I find their way of calling everyone a "friend" and every single nice things "amazing" extremely annoying.
But if people are adults, having a little friction is not a big deal. We don't need to appreciate all behaviors to live together.
This is something that is well understood in jobs with harsh conditions, but in our very comfy IT jobs, people seem to sweat the small stuff way more.
I want to go on a tangent here and say I completely agree. I don't know how it happened but many people around me now express how they love this or that, most things are amazing or awesome, and they click on heart emojis in Teams on more or less every message. Not sure if it is generational, or cultural or whatever. I can imitate but to me if feels odd. I prefer a more balanced language. Btw I am in a large well known company in Europe with people from all over the world, but quite young for the most part.
It felt odd to me at first too. I think it is to try and build that team culture when people are remote.
Yeah, for me the key thing is professionalism (a loaded word, worth an entire book). If everyone on the team "has it", then whether people are more direct or less direct probably won't matter, because everyone understands their role and their duty, and aligns their behaviours and their interpretations accordingly.
Anecdotally, for every "bad situation" I've ever been in in the workplace, I could point to at least one person who was not being professional.
Many disciplines have a real "culture of professionalism" (and I've operated in these disciplines prior to switching to to eng), but I don't think software engineering has that. I think it's probably related both to the relative abundance of workers without formal instruction, and to the lack of standards across academic programmes / bootcamps etc.
Anecdotally, for every "bad situation" I've ever been in in the workplace, I could point to at least one person who was not being professional.
Many disciplines have a real "culture of professionalism" (and I've operated in these disciplines prior to switching to to eng), but I don't think software engineering has that. I think it's probably related both to the relative abundance of workers without formal instruction, and to the lack of standards across academic programmes / bootcamps etc.
It’s also sign (IMO) of the rapid growth in the field.
When there is a severe shortage of warm bodies and things go up and to the right, a lot of ‘less important’ expectations get overlooked.
When it does that for a long time, people sometimes forget why the original expectations were even there in the first place. Then, when it’s no longer up and to the right, we have to figure it all out again or it falls apart.
Do it enough time and it gets embedded in official professional standards, etc.
That said, I’ve certainly run across many Engineers (with the ring type) that do plenty of unprofessional things. They just figure out how to do them passive aggressively or sidestep what would run afoul of the official standards. But it’s the same thing.
When there is a severe shortage of warm bodies and things go up and to the right, a lot of ‘less important’ expectations get overlooked.
When it does that for a long time, people sometimes forget why the original expectations were even there in the first place. Then, when it’s no longer up and to the right, we have to figure it all out again or it falls apart.
Do it enough time and it gets embedded in official professional standards, etc.
That said, I’ve certainly run across many Engineers (with the ring type) that do plenty of unprofessional things. They just figure out how to do them passive aggressively or sidestep what would run afoul of the official standards. But it’s the same thing.
That's pretty much in line with my observations as well.
It's not to say that accredited engineers are automatically better, or that accredited engineering programmes are perfect, or anything like that. Like you pointed out, there's no shortage of examples/arguments to the contrary. (Personally, my background is medical, so it's a bit different than accredited engineering programmes, but I also am familiar with those having been involved in a bunch of senate-level evaluation of programmes, etc, at my school.)
But I do think accredited programs have certain benefits, and that the software world should pay attention to what other engineering disciplines get right.
It's not to say that accredited engineers are automatically better, or that accredited engineering programmes are perfect, or anything like that. Like you pointed out, there's no shortage of examples/arguments to the contrary. (Personally, my background is medical, so it's a bit different than accredited engineering programmes, but I also am familiar with those having been involved in a bunch of senate-level evaluation of programmes, etc, at my school.)
But I do think accredited programs have certain benefits, and that the software world should pay attention to what other engineering disciplines get right.
I agree with you and can't stand the fake-friendly speak many of my countrymen use. Additionally:
> But if people are adults, having a little friction is not a big deal. We don't need to appreciate all behaviors to live together.
This is, in my opinion, a hilariously French thing to say. Although I am by no means an expert on France I did study the language for many years and lived with a Parisian family for a semester in college, with some travelling to the south. "Everyone is a little bit pissed off at each other, but that doesn't really bother them and they still quite enjoy life" is exactly what I thought of the French. (With the exception of my hometown culture, I preferred life in France to life in the US.)
> But if people are adults, having a little friction is not a big deal. We don't need to appreciate all behaviors to live together.
This is, in my opinion, a hilariously French thing to say. Although I am by no means an expert on France I did study the language for many years and lived with a Parisian family for a semester in college, with some travelling to the south. "Everyone is a little bit pissed off at each other, but that doesn't really bother them and they still quite enjoy life" is exactly what I thought of the French. (With the exception of my hometown culture, I preferred life in France to life in the US.)
> As a Frenchman, many Americans find my totally France compliant speech a bit rude.
I call it exact. But indeed, it takes a little while to get used to it. I recall someone at a tech company here in the Bay with a French manager that thought his manager didn't like him, until he read his feedback during his first performance review.
French Canadians sounds like Americans with accents.
I call it exact. But indeed, it takes a little while to get used to it. I recall someone at a tech company here in the Bay with a French manager that thought his manager didn't like him, until he read his feedback during his first performance review.
French Canadians sounds like Americans with accents.
Your last paragraph is excellent. I never saw it expressed that way. Well said.
Yes, truly amazing! I think we found a real friend in that guy!
I'll also add that it's a class signifier, as much as we're all loath to admit it. The upper-middle and professional classes really don't like direct communication and they have control over key parts of most companies.
This is a great post: I never saw it expressed so clearly.
I am the type of person that loathes office politics, and I am quick to point out when a decision is politically driven to satisfy someone far above us.
Another way to look at indirect comms with senior staff: Behind closed doors they are frequently direct with other senior people. (I had some years in my career where I attended closed door meetings with people more senior than me.) In "public" (speaking with the peons, two levels or lower than them), they appear ultra-indirect, always using company talking points. It is grating and inauthentic to me, but I can assure you that many of them are hiding their true comms style to get rich as a senior manager.
I am the type of person that loathes office politics, and I am quick to point out when a decision is politically driven to satisfy someone far above us.
Another way to look at indirect comms with senior staff: Behind closed doors they are frequently direct with other senior people. (I had some years in my career where I attended closed door meetings with people more senior than me.) In "public" (speaking with the peons, two levels or lower than them), they appear ultra-indirect, always using company talking points. It is grating and inauthentic to me, but I can assure you that many of them are hiding their true comms style to get rich as a senior manager.
What you say about senior people/leadership is pretty accurate, although I'm not sure that the directness is their 'true' comms style. My experience with people at that level is that it's really hard to tell what their true communication style is and they may not have one because they've spent their whole life switching their style to fit the room.
I'd say the difference between a lower-class direct communication style and an upper-class one is that the upper-class can speak indirectly, they choose not to. Whereas the lower-class is gatekept out of such things absent some other influence (institutions, formerly well off family members, etc.) So the professional class uses the register to determine the difference between the guy who's wearing jeans because he grew up in hick country and doesn't own any 'nice' clothes and the guy who's wearing jeans because he's so important he doesn't need to follow the rules.
This is also why there's a lot of friction between the professional classes and engineering. Engineering has status and yet a great deal of them are intractable and refuse to adapt, which reads as "you're beneath me because the rules apply to you but not to me". (Of course the engineers are just like 'the rules are stupid and arbitrary' because class distinctions don't matter a ton to them/us in comparison. Like if there were rules about what language to use depending on your height compared to the other person's. Who cares?) I'd say this happened because techies developed a culture of their own before being subsumed into the dominant socio-economic apparatus.
There are some other differences between lower-class and upper-class direct speech, mostly in diction. I'm very good at code-switching and one of my favorite things to do is find a group of good professional progressives and then call their diversity bluff by deliberately switching from a professional register to a working-class/poor one and watch them try to deal with the cognitive dissonance. It's great fun.
It's also something to watch because as you've noted, those in high places speak differently depending on their opinion of you. It's a good way to figure out what they think of you and it can be really interesting to see what flips them from "this person is a peon/useful for their interchangable ability(abilities) I need at this point" to "this person is unique enough/has enough connections/etc. to be worth cultivating in the future."
I'd say the difference between a lower-class direct communication style and an upper-class one is that the upper-class can speak indirectly, they choose not to. Whereas the lower-class is gatekept out of such things absent some other influence (institutions, formerly well off family members, etc.) So the professional class uses the register to determine the difference between the guy who's wearing jeans because he grew up in hick country and doesn't own any 'nice' clothes and the guy who's wearing jeans because he's so important he doesn't need to follow the rules.
This is also why there's a lot of friction between the professional classes and engineering. Engineering has status and yet a great deal of them are intractable and refuse to adapt, which reads as "you're beneath me because the rules apply to you but not to me". (Of course the engineers are just like 'the rules are stupid and arbitrary' because class distinctions don't matter a ton to them/us in comparison. Like if there were rules about what language to use depending on your height compared to the other person's. Who cares?) I'd say this happened because techies developed a culture of their own before being subsumed into the dominant socio-economic apparatus.
There are some other differences between lower-class and upper-class direct speech, mostly in diction. I'm very good at code-switching and one of my favorite things to do is find a group of good professional progressives and then call their diversity bluff by deliberately switching from a professional register to a working-class/poor one and watch them try to deal with the cognitive dissonance. It's great fun.
It's also something to watch because as you've noted, those in high places speak differently depending on their opinion of you. It's a good way to figure out what they think of you and it can be really interesting to see what flips them from "this person is a peon/useful for their interchangable ability(abilities) I need at this point" to "this person is unique enough/has enough connections/etc. to be worth cultivating in the future."
I'm going off the tangent here. While we're near the topic, I kind of need a AITA style judgment.
A friend of mine felt it was finger-pointing when her coworker said "could you take a look at your commit `abc0123`? because it broke the test `Xyz`". When I saw the screenshot I thought it was direct but professional.
My opinion was dismissed because "yeah you think so because you're a bit socially awkward too"
A friend of mine felt it was finger-pointing when her coworker said "could you take a look at your commit `abc0123`? because it broke the test `Xyz`". When I saw the screenshot I thought it was direct but professional.
My opinion was dismissed because "yeah you think so because you're a bit socially awkward too"
This is just my take, but if the person being rightfully called-out is claiming you are socially awkward, that to me seems a bit tactless, unnecessarily defensive (in the emotionally immature sense), and kinda hypocritical. But hey, I don't know the full story, wasn't there, and don't know the stakes. Might just be the way I see things, though.
We know each other long enough that I don't mind her claiming that I'm socially awkward. It's true after all.
But I agree with the rest of your take.
But I agree with the rest of your take.
> A friend of mine felt it was finger pointing when her coworker said "could you take a look at your commit `abc0123`? because it broke the test `Xyz`". I thought it was direct but professional.
IMO, it was appropriately finger pointing. The person who breaks the build should be the one to fix it - they're the one with the most context.
But also - require tests to pass before a commit is allowed. It makes development so much better.
IMO, it was appropriately finger pointing. The person who breaks the build should be the one to fix it - they're the one with the most context.
But also - require tests to pass before a commit is allowed. It makes development so much better.
I've softened my language a bit over the years from approximately that to something more like:
"Hey, I think commit abc0123 might have broken the build, and it looks like it was yours (link to build results). Would you mind looking at it?"
I give myself a little room for being wrong (sometimes I am), and it comes across as being less of an ass, to which people generally respond positively.
"Hey, I think commit abc0123 might have broken the build, and it looks like it was yours (link to build results). Would you mind looking at it?"
I give myself a little room for being wrong (sometimes I am), and it comes across as being less of an ass, to which people generally respond positively.
Requiring tests to pass before a commit is allowed can be a negative experience as well. For instance if you're handing off a branch to someone else to take over work in progress because you're going on vacation.
Or if you just have the (good) habit of checking in your work in progress code frequently, or daily.
Or if you have several workstations you want to share code on.
Point is that commits should be frequent and requiring tests to pass before you can commit is guaranteed to make sure that commits are infrequent.
I prefer to put "tests must pass before PR can be merged", rather than before commits can be made.
It solves all of those issues.
Or if you just have the (good) habit of checking in your work in progress code frequently, or daily.
Or if you have several workstations you want to share code on.
Point is that commits should be frequent and requiring tests to pass before you can commit is guaranteed to make sure that commits are infrequent.
I prefer to put "tests must pass before PR can be merged", rather than before commits can be made.
It solves all of those issues.
> I prefer to put "tests must pass before PR can be merged", rather than before commits can be made.
I worded it poorly, but this is largely what I meant. Although I was trying to stick to commits on main/master for the repository of record since PRs are a github (and bitbucket?) thing, whereas pre-commit hooks are a git thing.
I worded it poorly, but this is largely what I meant. Although I was trying to stick to commits on main/master for the repository of record since PRs are a github (and bitbucket?) thing, whereas pre-commit hooks are a git thing.
> require tests to pass before a commit is allowed
Agreed.
I did not dig for the deeper context, their org is probably quite dysfunctional.
Agreed.
I did not dig for the deeper context, their org is probably quite dysfunctional.
I send screenshots all the time, though. I feel like it's helpful. But I agree else-thread [1] that "word padding" helps soften what the other may (depending on mood, time of day, kids yelling, and Oh God I am this close to sending up this PR if I can just have time to think) misinterpret and become agitated by.
I think you're fortunate to have someone be able to tell you stuff like that without it offending you [2]. Maybe she needed to vent a little. It's nice to have someone to vent to (within limits).
In a week or so she might come around and agree, yeah we shouldn't break the build--but at the time it was annoying to be told that (due to tone or whatever reason).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367231
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366694
I think you're fortunate to have someone be able to tell you stuff like that without it offending you [2]. Maybe she needed to vent a little. It's nice to have someone to vent to (within limits).
In a week or so she might come around and agree, yeah we shouldn't break the build--but at the time it was annoying to be told that (due to tone or whatever reason).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367231
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366694
If I'm following this correctly, they asked your opinion and then were dismissive of it "because you're socially awkward." If so, they're the assholes.
Surely, they knew you were socially awkward before they asked.
Surely, they knew you were socially awkward before they asked.
Sorry for being unclear. When I wrote "AITA style judgment", I wasn't particularly asking about the interaction between me and her.
But if you find that important, my opinion was unsolicited. She ranted about the coworker in a fb story. I found that unfair and shot her a message.
But if you find that important, my opinion was unsolicited. She ranted about the coworker in a fb story. I found that unfair and shot her a message.
>She ranted about the coworker in a fb story. I found that unfair and shot her a message.
That's not just unfair, that's horribly unprofessional.
That's not just unfair, that's horribly unprofessional.
[deleted]
Context is important. There's a way to say that nicely like sending that person a DM to let them know. And then maybe send a note to the team chat if the rest of the team need to know and it would be a blocker.
But your friend should also have less of an ego about it and accept responsibility.
That being said, I've been in team environments where the language felt personal and like I was being thrown under the bus unnecessarily. So I've been on both sides.
But your friend should also have less of an ego about it and accept responsibility.
That being said, I've been in team environments where the language felt personal and like I was being thrown under the bus unnecessarily. So I've been on both sides.
As far as I can tell that is 1-1 DM.
I see a ChatGPT app here! Nobody sends messages to each other directly, instead everything goes first to the app which reads and rephrases the message in the manner that the intended recipient finds most agreeable - terse and to the point, or long-winded and circumlocutious, plus whatever else fits. The information gets delivered with minimal friction, everyone's happy?
This would be an interesting experiment, anyway.
This would be an interesting experiment, anyway.
Hmm, interesting :) Thank-you. I'm going to try it sometime: the message went through a "persona filter," so my reaction to it can (hopefully) be more moderate too.
> I'm not sure why a direct communication style is inappropriate.
Think of politeness as a social technology that allows large groups of people to live and work in close proximity. It's not that politeness is more efficient - it's clearly less efficient. It's that most people can't psychologically handle too much direct communication.
Think of politeness as a social technology that allows large groups of people to live and work in close proximity. It's not that politeness is more efficient - it's clearly less efficient. It's that most people can't psychologically handle too much direct communication.
This point of view is valid. But it is more complicated in software engineering because
1. autistic-autistic communication works just as well as (if not better than) neurotypical-neurotypical.
2. Being more thing-oriented on the people-things spectrum, our industry attracts more autists.
A culture of NT communication style will probably be more inclusive. NT won't have their ego hurt; autists have to wear the mask elsewhere anyway. But as someone with Asperger's (undiagnosed), I resent this. Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35365508
1. autistic-autistic communication works just as well as (if not better than) neurotypical-neurotypical.
2. Being more thing-oriented on the people-things spectrum, our industry attracts more autists.
A culture of NT communication style will probably be more inclusive. NT won't have their ego hurt; autists have to wear the mask elsewhere anyway. But as someone with Asperger's (undiagnosed), I resent this. Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35365508
As someone considered neurotypical I don't see that comment as being too blunt at all. If anything, I would be grateful that the person went out of their way to find the offending commit.
Thank you for affirming. The thought that I don't have a good enough grasp of what is acceptable (quite literally) shook me.
I wouldn't consider the original wording unacceptable but I would suggest leaning more towards the phrasing foobazgt used a few replies back. Specifically, claiming that X broke Y is likely not fact-based. The facts in such a situation are often: a certain test started breaking in a certain build and the build reports that only one commit is different than the previous build. I would suggest stating that fact instead of inferring that the commit was the reason the build broke. I've seen plenty of instances where it turned out that wasn't the problem. The build infrastructure itself was changed. The reported set of commits versus the previous build was inaccurate. The test was flaky. A third party dependency that the build system didn't insulate itself from was updated. The list goes on.
Allowing for the possibility that we are wrong isn't professional only because it is nice. It is also professional because it is honest and it helps focus the whole team on the facts so that we don't spend our time investigating the wrong thing.
Allowing for the possibility that we are wrong isn't professional only because it is nice. It is also professional because it is honest and it helps focus the whole team on the facts so that we don't spend our time investigating the wrong thing.
Have you ever stewed over something somebody said to you?
Miscommunication or negative comments can have productivity impacts.
Miscommunication or negative comments can have productivity impacts.
"You made a mistake here. Correct it."
"You made a mistake here and need to correct it."
"Please correct this mistake."
"There's a mistake here that needs correcting."
"Can you correct this mistake?"
I'd say the top two are direct and definitely impolite. Number two may seem polite to a direct sort of person, but the blame makes it impolite. Of the latter three I'd say the top one is not only the most concise and direct, but also fairly polite. These last two are more polite, but lack directness.
"You made a mistake here and need to correct it."
"Please correct this mistake."
"There's a mistake here that needs correcting."
"Can you correct this mistake?"
I'd say the top two are direct and definitely impolite. Number two may seem polite to a direct sort of person, but the blame makes it impolite. Of the latter three I'd say the top one is not only the most concise and direct, but also fairly polite. These last two are more polite, but lack directness.
IMO all of this is too brusque.
"Hey - <problem> is causing <symptom>. I think you have context on this - can you drive <solution>?"
We're people. The nuance, tone, and empathy of what we say matters. I know some people will scoff at "coddling" or "beating around the bush". I think these people don't correctly prioritize the outcomes of their communication.
When I talk to someone, my goals are, in this order:
1. That the other person like me and want to continue working happily with me in the future and feel emotionally safe talking to me.
2. Whatever "primary"/immediate outcome I'm shooting for
Paying attention to 1 pays off in the long term. People are happy to work with you and it accelerates how effective you can be because people feel safe with you.
"Hey - <problem> is causing <symptom>. I think you have context on this - can you drive <solution>?"
We're people. The nuance, tone, and empathy of what we say matters. I know some people will scoff at "coddling" or "beating around the bush". I think these people don't correctly prioritize the outcomes of their communication.
When I talk to someone, my goals are, in this order:
1. That the other person like me and want to continue working happily with me in the future and feel emotionally safe talking to me.
2. Whatever "primary"/immediate outcome I'm shooting for
Paying attention to 1 pays off in the long term. People are happy to work with you and it accelerates how effective you can be because people feel safe with you.
"Hey - <problem> is causing <symptom>. I think you have context on this - can you drive <solution>?"
Please don't go around blowing corporate-speak up people's asses like this.
Seriously this a huge waste of time. If I made a typo in some important document or piece of code, just tell me what it was, and I'll fix it.
We're team members after all. Plus we've been spent years at hard technical schools and are used to having our work evaluated and corrected by others. We're not babies.
Granted, your approach is much more applicable (and is arguably necessary) when things are fuzzier, when it's not clear what the root cause is or who (if anyone) is at fault.
Most of the time it isn't though - it's very straightforward, and has nothing to do with ego or blame at all. In these (the vast majority of cases) -- just give me the information so I get through the day, please.
Please don't go around blowing corporate-speak up people's asses like this.
Seriously this a huge waste of time. If I made a typo in some important document or piece of code, just tell me what it was, and I'll fix it.
We're team members after all. Plus we've been spent years at hard technical schools and are used to having our work evaluated and corrected by others. We're not babies.
Granted, your approach is much more applicable (and is arguably necessary) when things are fuzzier, when it's not clear what the root cause is or who (if anyone) is at fault.
Most of the time it isn't though - it's very straightforward, and has nothing to do with ego or blame at all. In these (the vast majority of cases) -- just give me the information so I get through the day, please.
> Granted, your approach is much more applicable (and is arguably necessary) when things are fuzzier, when it's not clear what the root cause is or who (if anyone) is at fault.
But can you always reliably tell? There might be a reason, what looks like a mistake to you, was done in the first place. A reason that’s not obvious to you, because the error is in plain sight and takes up all the space. So, by "blowing corporate-speak up people’s asses", you actually give them a chance to elaborate, without already coming to a conclusion and calling it a day. This is something I'd expect from a senior developer, for instance. I usually frame it as a question, to get an understanding as to why it was done.
And trivial errors like typos in a method name get a comment with a suggestion, that can be applied by the original author in Azure DevOps with a single click.
But can you always reliably tell? There might be a reason, what looks like a mistake to you, was done in the first place. A reason that’s not obvious to you, because the error is in plain sight and takes up all the space. So, by "blowing corporate-speak up people’s asses", you actually give them a chance to elaborate, without already coming to a conclusion and calling it a day. This is something I'd expect from a senior developer, for instance. I usually frame it as a question, to get an understanding as to why it was done.
And trivial errors like typos in a method name get a comment with a suggestion, that can be applied by the original author in Azure DevOps with a single click.
All I can say is that with both experience, and after getting into the groove and flow of working with a particular team - one starts to learn how to read the tea leaves, as it were, and to make reasonably accurate judgement calls about such things.
I'm not saying the "soft, guarded" approach is never suitable; quite often it is.
Most of the time, though -- especially after we've gotten to know the people we work with -- it's more efficient (and genuinely less distracting / bothersome to the other party) to just get to the point.
I'm not saying the "soft, guarded" approach is never suitable; quite often it is.
Most of the time, though -- especially after we've gotten to know the people we work with -- it's more efficient (and genuinely less distracting / bothersome to the other party) to just get to the point.
I think devs are often prone to misjudging that though. Especially when there's a power imbalance. A senior or staff engineer talking to a junior or mid-level ALWAYS needs to be cognizant of the effect your actions and words have on other people.
"after we've gotten to know"
In my experience, once you've built solid rapport, you generally can always be less direct.
"hey man did you just deploy xyz? I noticed there's some weird error prints, wanted to make sure you saw"
"yeah thanks, just saw them a minute ago, already on it"
There's no need to be highly structured or direct, just a small nudge/hint/check, and they know you have their best interests at heart and aren't upset or annoyed.
"after we've gotten to know"
In my experience, once you've built solid rapport, you generally can always be less direct.
"hey man did you just deploy xyz? I noticed there's some weird error prints, wanted to make sure you saw"
"yeah thanks, just saw them a minute ago, already on it"
There's no need to be highly structured or direct, just a small nudge/hint/check, and they know you have their best interests at heart and aren't upset or annoyed.
"Hey man did you just deploy xyz? I noticed there's some weird error prints, wanted to make sure you saw"
That sounds totally great of course. What I'm concerned about is when people think they need to get all long-winded and and jargon-y to avoid sounding "blunt". Per the example in the ancestor comment which tipped this all off (slotting your values in):
"Hey - it seems the XYZ deployment is causing some weird error prints. I think you might have the context on this - can you drive a solution?"
That sounds totally great of course. What I'm concerned about is when people think they need to get all long-winded and and jargon-y to avoid sounding "blunt". Per the example in the ancestor comment which tipped this all off (slotting your values in):
"Hey - it seems the XYZ deployment is causing some weird error prints. I think you might have the context on this - can you drive a solution?"
Even if your teammates don't need this, writing this way is a useful skill when dealing with vendors or other 3rd parties whose culture you don't know, and you don't want to give them an excuse to prioritise someone else's ticket
Let's circle back to this question.
It starts well, with "X is causing Y", and reminds me of a framework we had at one of my previous jobs - behaviour -> impact -> outcomes (or options?). It's a model to provide developmental feedback, but can be useful to frame other situations. In this case:
"System X is currently way behind our target uptime. As you know, this was caused by the introduction of feature X which your team worked on recently. We need to get back on track and meet our SLOs before it starts impacting revenue."
Tells them everything they need to know. You shared the necessary info and actions to be taken are obvious, but adding a "we need you to focus on this and take the lead on fixing it" will not sound aggressive.
The approach you mentioned is very cloudy in comparison, "driving" something is not a clear outcome, "you have context" is soft blaming. It's just a very polished "it's your fault, fix your shit", and it would sound exactly like that to me. It's precisely the kind of beating around the bush that people scoff at. The message itself can be a lot better.
It starts well, with "X is causing Y", and reminds me of a framework we had at one of my previous jobs - behaviour -> impact -> outcomes (or options?). It's a model to provide developmental feedback, but can be useful to frame other situations. In this case:
"System X is currently way behind our target uptime. As you know, this was caused by the introduction of feature X which your team worked on recently. We need to get back on track and meet our SLOs before it starts impacting revenue."
Tells them everything they need to know. You shared the necessary info and actions to be taken are obvious, but adding a "we need you to focus on this and take the lead on fixing it" will not sound aggressive.
The approach you mentioned is very cloudy in comparison, "driving" something is not a clear outcome, "you have context" is soft blaming. It's just a very polished "it's your fault, fix your shit", and it would sound exactly like that to me. It's precisely the kind of beating around the bush that people scoff at. The message itself can be a lot better.
I think your pattern looks very effective. I never considered that the side effect of #1 is to create a psychologically safe environment.
Not to take anything away from your post, but I have noticed that a few people lean very heavily on #1 to get people to do a lot of #2 for them. In return, they are "always busy" and cannot help. I struggle the most with these people. I am sucker for #1, as I am human after all.
Not to take anything away from your post, but I have noticed that a few people lean very heavily on #1 to get people to do a lot of #2 for them. In return, they are "always busy" and cannot help. I struggle the most with these people. I am sucker for #1, as I am human after all.
[deleted]
I have similar sounding goals except my first goal is this instead:
1. That the other person know they are valued by me as a person and feel safe talking with me.
It shifts the goal from one that is about me to one that is about them. And that is really what I want. It's not to be liked but for them to feel valued.
1. That the other person know they are valued by me as a person and feel safe talking with me.
It shifts the goal from one that is about me to one that is about them. And that is really what I want. It's not to be liked but for them to feel valued.
Generally
"Is this a mistake?"
Is largely sufficient and a smart person will fix it.
All the five examples are too direct and in case there was no mistake which happens most often than not with competent teams, will leave a sour aftertaste to everyone.
"Is this a mistake?"
Is largely sufficient and a smart person will fix it.
All the five examples are too direct and in case there was no mistake which happens most often than not with competent teams, will leave a sour aftertaste to everyone.
I agree, but it's not direct. And the OP wanted direct.
I think you're confusing direct and confrontational. All five of your phrasings are combative and lack specificity (and so does the GP's questioning phrase). Simply saying or asking "this is a mistake" is not identifying the problem at all.
Maybe you implied there would be more context than just that one phrase, but in the interest of furthering the discussion, these phrasings are all better than your examples, and still very direct:
- "This approach fails under conditions A or B"
- "This code seems to assume X, where is this validated?"
- "How does this code handle condition Y?"
- "This code delivers the wrong result under condition Z"
- "This does not do what's specified in the ticket: it should do S, not P"
Maybe you implied there would be more context than just that one phrase, but in the interest of furthering the discussion, these phrasings are all better than your examples, and still very direct:
- "This approach fails under conditions A or B"
- "This code seems to assume X, where is this validated?"
- "How does this code handle condition Y?"
- "This code delivers the wrong result under condition Z"
- "This does not do what's specified in the ticket: it should do S, not P"
None of these would qualify as a good code review though. The reviewer needs to put in the work - explain in a concrete way what the problem is (and be right), and offer possible and correct solutions.
"This will cause a problem if there are a large number of records in the table because it loads all the records at once. A memory efficient way to iterate this data is ...". is a good comment.
"This will cause a problem if there are a large number of records in the table because it loads all the records at once. A memory efficient way to iterate this data is ...". is a good comment.
Not necessarily. There can be so many different things happening here.
The commenter might overlook something. So the word will might not be a good choice. You can say could or can.
The second sentence is not free from this either. If the commenter did indeed overlook something and the code was specifically written as it was on purpose with full knowledge of what might happen, then this can come across as quite condescending. As in "you dumb-eff don't even know how to read a large table efficiently. Here I'll show you how exactly to do it sigh". And the author will think "what an a-hole, does he think I don't know how to do this? What a dumb-eff".
Without knowing the exact example you were thinking of one could at least rewrite it to "One possible optimization I can think of would be to do X".
Now your PR author might say "Aah you're right, I copied this code from place A quickly to prototype this and forgot to come back and do it properly for the large amount of data we expect in Prod. That X approach is pretty neat. I usually prefer Y. Look here I pushed a change. Let me know what you think".
The commenter might overlook something. So the word will might not be a good choice. You can say could or can.
The second sentence is not free from this either. If the commenter did indeed overlook something and the code was specifically written as it was on purpose with full knowledge of what might happen, then this can come across as quite condescending. As in "you dumb-eff don't even know how to read a large table efficiently. Here I'll show you how exactly to do it sigh". And the author will think "what an a-hole, does he think I don't know how to do this? What a dumb-eff".
Without knowing the exact example you were thinking of one could at least rewrite it to "One possible optimization I can think of would be to do X".
Now your PR author might say "Aah you're right, I copied this code from place A quickly to prototype this and forgot to come back and do it properly for the large amount of data we expect in Prod. That X approach is pretty neat. I usually prefer Y. Look here I pushed a change. Let me know what you think".
Can you elaborate as to why the first two are impolite? They seem like statements of fact followed by a directive. I don't think directives should be phrased as requests (which are possible to politely decline). These are commands, what's wrong with phrasing them as such?
> Can you elaborate as to why the first two are impolite?
The "YOU caused a problem", not "I see a problem".
The "YOU caused a problem", not "I see a problem".
Again, that's a statement of fact. Why is it impolite? What's wrong with being directly told you've caused a problem? Especially if you in fact have.
> What's wrong with being directly told you've caused a problem?
There's nothing "wrong" with being impolite, it's just impolite to be impolite.
> Why is it impolite?
It feels impolite to me therefore it is impolite. Trying to parse out my feelings the best I can come up with is that the phrasing highlights the subordinate nature of the person being directed relative to the person directing by focusing on the person and the mistake prior to the task.
https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html
> Contextual and co-textual factors
> • The extent to which the behavior is positively or negatively valued in the relevant culture;
Making a mistake is negatively valued in most cultures, especially when it needs to be corrected.
> • The extent to which face or sociality rights are exposed;
Highlighting subordination and superordination exposes sociality rights.
> • The degree of intentionality ascribed to the actor(s);
The personal "you" can be, though may not be, seen to impute a degree of intentionality.
Additionally:
> (2) [rude behavior] does not utilise politeness strategies whetre they would be expected, in such a way that the utterance can only almost plausibly be interpreted as intentionally and negatively confrontational. (Lakoff, 1989: 103)
> (5) Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2). (Culpeper, 2005a: 38)
> impoliteness <versus rudeness> occurs when the expression used is not conventionalised relative to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee’s face… but no face-threatening intention is attributed to the speaker by the hearer. (Terkourafi, 2008: 70)
There's nothing "wrong" with being impolite, it's just impolite to be impolite.
> Why is it impolite?
It feels impolite to me therefore it is impolite. Trying to parse out my feelings the best I can come up with is that the phrasing highlights the subordinate nature of the person being directed relative to the person directing by focusing on the person and the mistake prior to the task.
https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/politeness/impoliteness.html
> Contextual and co-textual factors
> • The extent to which the behavior is positively or negatively valued in the relevant culture;
Making a mistake is negatively valued in most cultures, especially when it needs to be corrected.
> • The extent to which face or sociality rights are exposed;
Highlighting subordination and superordination exposes sociality rights.
> • The degree of intentionality ascribed to the actor(s);
The personal "you" can be, though may not be, seen to impute a degree of intentionality.
Additionally:
> (2) [rude behavior] does not utilise politeness strategies whetre they would be expected, in such a way that the utterance can only almost plausibly be interpreted as intentionally and negatively confrontational. (Lakoff, 1989: 103)
> (5) Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2). (Culpeper, 2005a: 38)
> impoliteness <versus rudeness> occurs when the expression used is not conventionalised relative to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee’s face… but no face-threatening intention is attributed to the speaker by the hearer. (Terkourafi, 2008: 70)
Wouldn't professionalism dictate that your management of your own feelings in the face of simple factual statements is your own responsibility? What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context.
If the goal of an organization is to accomplish the objective in the most efficient way, doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Isn't it (much) more efficient to just communicate directly and clearly, an leave feelings-management to listeners? Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
If the goal of an organization is to accomplish the objective in the most efficient way, doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere? Isn't it (much) more efficient to just communicate directly and clearly, an leave feelings-management to listeners? Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
> Wouldn't professionalism dictate
No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones.
> What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context.
Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them.
> doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere?
Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management.
> Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between.
In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp.
Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management.
And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
No, this is called being a grown up in all contexts, not just professional ones.
> What's impolite in a social context isn't the same as what's impolite in a professional context.
Professional contexts are subsets of social contexts. They aren't special. The only thing that can make any context special are the meanings of individual behaviors the actors within that context have mutually negotiated between them.
> doesn't this sort of feelings-management interfere?
Of course not. A typical person can work more effectively when they personally don't have to actively manage their emotional responses to others. This is facilitated by non-superficial politeness all around. Because it is a natural response to ruminate, for periods of time that are disproportionate to the event, on how others have treated us (common in relatively social animals, and possibly non-animal organisms), it is far more efficient to manage politeness than to count on emotional self-management.
> Isn't this why militaries all over the world do this? Shouldn't we all learn from their example?
You can be rude, not just impolite, in particular instances in civilian life without getting most people het up about it. But these instances are few and far between.
In militaries people are explicitly taught that their life absolutely depends on this rote learning and immediate response to shouted orders. Additionally, the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality, just basic functionality. Theoretically systems exist in the military to prevent cronyism and other forms of privilege; everyone is treated the same, or at least has the same opportunities. This itself minimizes the rudeness bias. More importantly, when off duty, or on duty but not actively engaged in an exercise, officers and senior non-coms are less direct and do a lot of feelings management. Military life is not boot camp.
Even with all of that, in Vietnam at least, grunts did kill their officers at times. Active shooter situations are extraordinarily bad, and a lot of work goes into preventing and managing them. Being polite is one part of this management.
And plenty of people don't have the mindset for the military, and know this, and purposefully avoid joining the military because of this. You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
> to ruminate .. on how others have treated us
Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed.
Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like.
> the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality
The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there.
Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation).
> You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.
Right, but my initial point is that any reasonable rumination on a statement of fact followed by a directive concludes with the assessment that nothing inappropriate happened. If you are at fault, and are subordinate, then the communication was appropriate. If you're not, then a simple refutation of the factual claim is all that's needed.
Shouldn't we expect people to be fundamentally reasonable in this way, even if some people have a hard time with it? I would say that is what striving for excellence looks like.
> the military doesn't care as much about optimal functionality
The military certainly does care about optimal functionality, since the price of failure (losing battles/wars) is cataclysmic. I'd say that (winning) militaries are among the most efficient human organizations out there.
Vietnam was staffed by conscripts who, importantly (and rightly), didn't believe in the objective they were forced to fight for. It's not a situation with any good outcomes, and is wildly different from a volunteer army (or corporation).
> You can't eliminate them from the civilian workforce.
I'm not suggesting we do, only that we as an industry endeavour to elevate our standards of professionalism by emulating some of the most professional organizations out there (militaries, intelligence organizations, industry leaders, etc.). All of these organizations are characterized as "toxic" in wider circles specifically for the traits that allow them to succeed.
You missed various less-direct but often just as effective kinds of questions:
“Can you find the mistake here?”
“Is there a mistake here?”
“Could there be a mistake here?”
“Did you test this part?”
Better still is to be specific:
“What happens if «specific edge case»?”
“I did it that way one time, but ran into «concrete problem».”
“Your way here works just as well, but doesn’t match our conventions.”
“Can you find the mistake here?”
“Is there a mistake here?”
“Could there be a mistake here?”
“Did you test this part?”
Better still is to be specific:
“What happens if «specific edge case»?”
“I did it that way one time, but ran into «concrete problem».”
“Your way here works just as well, but doesn’t match our conventions.”
I can't imagine how much time you must have available to be able to respond to an error with:
> Could there be a mistake here?
in place of simply correcting and then getting back on track with actually solving a presumably difficult problem. <<The Zone>> is a fleeting thing, especially with two programmers. Such nebulous, passive language seems like a guaranteed way to disrupt any kind of flow state.
> Could there be a mistake here?
in place of simply correcting and then getting back on track with actually solving a presumably difficult problem. <<The Zone>> is a fleeting thing, especially with two programmers. Such nebulous, passive language seems like a guaranteed way to disrupt any kind of flow state.
I have no problem with directness, but I think sometimes people hide behind that to excuse their own bad behavior. Direct is short and to the point. When someone writes a long response that really digs into someone it is often because they want to make that person look bad. Humiliation is a bad teacher for most people.
Those hyper-competent nice devs can turn incompetent engineers into competent ones, though, and have such a huge impact on work culture that they bring everyone else up with them too. A lot of incompetence can just be inexperience, not understanding what the priorities are and getting overwhelmed.
I have never found this to be the case. It is almost always a combination of low ability to learn anything, needing to be told exactly what to do frequently, and eating up lots of other people's time, and none of this improves over time. The other situation I've seen is people who basically do little to no work and make no attempt to really hide it. I've never seen either of these situations resolved successfully, no matter how many times they are moved around, or coached, or allowed to eat up the time of those who get things done.
You are hinting about an important third trait: persistence (effort). I am not the nicest person, nor the smartest, but I am very persistent. This can make-up for other shortfalls. When hiring, if I cannot find highly competent, then I will sacrifice some niceness for more persistence. Never hire people who are low effort / not persistent. Some much of office work is "following up" to make sure that things are completed -- non-managers included. People with low effort will frequently complete tasks to 80-90%, then need to be managed across the finish line.
Edit
About: <<needing to be told exactly what to do frequently, and eating up lots of other people's time>>
I recommend that you Google: youtube casino blueberry muffin
Watch that two minute clip. It ends with this quote: <<Like everything else in this place, if you don't do it yourself, it never gets done.>>
I often mutter "blueberry muffins" to myself when it is easier to do it myself than ask someone (multiple times) to do it, and the results will be incomplete or low quality.
Edit
About: <<needing to be told exactly what to do frequently, and eating up lots of other people's time>>
I recommend that you Google: youtube casino blueberry muffin
Watch that two minute clip. It ends with this quote: <<Like everything else in this place, if you don't do it yourself, it never gets done.>>
I often mutter "blueberry muffins" to myself when it is easier to do it myself than ask someone (multiple times) to do it, and the results will be incomplete or low quality.
> and none of this improves over time.
That doesn't match what I've observed.
There's an initial phase where a new hire, no matter the level, will require hand-holding, especially if transitioning to a new language of level of abstraction.
Not seeing any improvement points at either a completely broken onboarding process, or sub-par candidates. There's a chance you simply have a poor hiring pool. I recall a story someone told me a while ago. Software business that did local CoL/prevailing wages. Hired an intern one summer that was just running around in circles around the other, more senior devs. Useless to say they loved him and the next summer they tried to get him back, even offering a signing bonus for an internship (something they considered unheard of) but he was already at a large search engine company down in the Bay. You can guess the comp was probably already 3x what his previous job was offering. Of course, he wouldn't return.
There's a whole class of engineers were completely invisible to most companies, even if they are in the same "local market" (Some use the term "dark matter devs" but I know it has another meaning). These guys tend to fly under the radar quite a bit. If you are in a tier 2 market or company, your chances of attracting one are close to nil. Because they are extremely valuable, they don't interview a lot and tend to hop between companies where they know people (or get fast tracked internally).
FAANG companies have internship pipelines, with bonus for returning interns. These guys are off the market years before they even graduate.
That doesn't match what I've observed.
There's an initial phase where a new hire, no matter the level, will require hand-holding, especially if transitioning to a new language of level of abstraction.
Not seeing any improvement points at either a completely broken onboarding process, or sub-par candidates. There's a chance you simply have a poor hiring pool. I recall a story someone told me a while ago. Software business that did local CoL/prevailing wages. Hired an intern one summer that was just running around in circles around the other, more senior devs. Useless to say they loved him and the next summer they tried to get him back, even offering a signing bonus for an internship (something they considered unheard of) but he was already at a large search engine company down in the Bay. You can guess the comp was probably already 3x what his previous job was offering. Of course, he wouldn't return.
There's a whole class of engineers were completely invisible to most companies, even if they are in the same "local market" (Some use the term "dark matter devs" but I know it has another meaning). These guys tend to fly under the radar quite a bit. If you are in a tier 2 market or company, your chances of attracting one are close to nil. Because they are extremely valuable, they don't interview a lot and tend to hop between companies where they know people (or get fast tracked internally).
FAANG companies have internship pipelines, with bonus for returning interns. These guys are off the market years before they even graduate.
The sort of competence I think about is more of an innate ability to learn and figure out things on your own. Some people simply cannot do this. They need very specific instructions and hand holding.
They won't read documentation. They won't Google for an answer. They won't look at error logs. They won't browse around in the code to see what other people have done similarly. They won't look at the git history.
You can build experience by doing these things, even if you don't have any. If you are inexperienced and don't at least try to do them... well... that's incompetence.
They won't read documentation. They won't Google for an answer. They won't look at error logs. They won't browse around in the code to see what other people have done similarly. They won't look at the git history.
You can build experience by doing these things, even if you don't have any. If you are inexperienced and don't at least try to do them... well... that's incompetence.
As long as it's the latter - inexperience - yes. But a lot of the time it's just the aptitude and that cannot be taught (easily). I've seen my fair share of experienced, nice people with less that good aptitude for the job. A year later being nice and teaching, I see marginal improvement at a huge cost. It's not worth it at least in startups. I've also seen many young devs with the right aptitude but no knowledge/experience and they've turned out to be assets within a short period of time.
It depends on the source of your competency.
If you came by your understanding through bone-headed determination, you might have an inkling of how to explain concepts to someone who just doesn't seem to get it.
If you are someone who just 'got it', your ability to teach someone who doesn't might be the limiting factor.
If you came by your understanding through bone-headed determination, you might have an inkling of how to explain concepts to someone who just doesn't seem to get it.
If you are someone who just 'got it', your ability to teach someone who doesn't might be the limiting factor.
Kinda sounds like what a buddy told me about Michael Jordan vs Steve Kerr.
Not saying Jordan can't make a good coach, but someone like Kerr apparently was better able to coach due to being a specialist and knowing what the roles were and understanding his limits, whereas Michael Jordan – not to say he in any way lacked basketball IQ – just had an order of magnitude more talent than even the cream of the crop (arguably), and was better suited to execution.
Goes without saying though that Jordan was known to just be utterly ruthless on the court, being unnecessarily cruel, and always needing to dominate and win. Which is fun and entertaining as an audience with a bit of distance, but I personally wouldn't enjoy having to be near that kind of personality.
Not saying Jordan can't make a good coach, but someone like Kerr apparently was better able to coach due to being a specialist and knowing what the roles were and understanding his limits, whereas Michael Jordan – not to say he in any way lacked basketball IQ – just had an order of magnitude more talent than even the cream of the crop (arguably), and was better suited to execution.
Goes without saying though that Jordan was known to just be utterly ruthless on the court, being unnecessarily cruel, and always needing to dominate and win. Which is fun and entertaining as an audience with a bit of distance, but I personally wouldn't enjoy having to be near that kind of personality.
I’ve not found that they can
be taught. An inexperienced person may lack the knowledge of what to do but they can learn to ask, to read a book, to follow the state-of-the-art. An incompetent person will decide they know what to do (or wrongly conclude that that no one can possibly know what to do) and charge off in the wrong direction at 1000 miles per hour.
> A lot of incompetence can just be inexperience, not understanding what the priorities are and getting overwhelmed.
This is the job of the manager to resolve. If that person really is incompetent rather than merely unfamiliar with the work, the manager has access to assets such as hyper-competent nice people for mentoring the less-competent, and should coordinate between the mentor and mentee to lift people out of incompetency.
This is the job of the manager to resolve. If that person really is incompetent rather than merely unfamiliar with the work, the manager has access to assets such as hyper-competent nice people for mentoring the less-competent, and should coordinate between the mentor and mentee to lift people out of incompetency.
Both competence and social skills are trainable. A specific shop may not be able to train both, but there are shops that can train at least one of the above.
My last job I could take the most incompetent beginner and make them productive. In my current one, I really can only train that social skill side.
Obviously tail behavior on either end may make training not worth it.
My last job I could take the most incompetent beginner and make them productive. In my current one, I really can only train that social skill side.
Obviously tail behavior on either end may make training not worth it.
>My last job I could take the most incompetent beginner and make them productive. In my current one, I really can only train that social skill side.
The problem is not the incompetent beginner. The incompetent beginner has potential for future competence.
Incompetent seniors are a bigger issue, since their future potential is usually limited, and they might still have sway due to their seniority. This is especially bad in big bureaucratic companies.
The problem is not the incompetent beginner. The incompetent beginner has potential for future competence.
Incompetent seniors are a bigger issue, since their future potential is usually limited, and they might still have sway due to their seniority. This is especially bad in big bureaucratic companies.
[deleted]
That sounds like a really good place to work, I'm not a jerk, but I want to be a team with "hyper-competent" devs and a good management, are you hiring? if so please ping me root#at#jpg.computer.
Good software developers often expect their peers to also be at a high standard and will speak in very plain, rude, and blunt language if they feel others are not pulling their weight.
Speaking bluntly isn't what is meant by being an asshole/jerk.
What we're talking about here is the completely gratuitous, "I'm so valuable here that I can get away with it" abusive behavior that has no correlation with performative ability.
Speaking bluntly isn't what is meant by being an asshole/jerk.
What we're talking about here is the completely gratuitous, "I'm so valuable here that I can get away with it" abusive behavior that has no correlation with performative ability.
Yes you have a point, but it's like either we're discussing something obvious and trivial, like a caricature of a person who is just complete asshole abusive toxic diva, or we're discussing the real grey area that is genuinely difficult to deal with.
Luckily I've never hired a completely abusive and gratuitous but competent asshole but yes, I would fire that person as a matter of principle regardless of how competent they are.
But come on, are we really discussing that scenario or are we discussing the much more common scenario like someone who is about as much of an asshole as 2010s Linus Torvalds? Someone who is really competent but gets very impatient with others, has no problem stating rudely that your work is bad, that you keep making the same tiring mistakes over and over again, that you should know how to do certain things by now, that you're expected blah blah blah.
I think that's the more interesting and worthwhile discussion to have and it's the case where for my company, I decided I'll take the asshole over the nice guy.
Luckily I've never hired a completely abusive and gratuitous but competent asshole but yes, I would fire that person as a matter of principle regardless of how competent they are.
But come on, are we really discussing that scenario or are we discussing the much more common scenario like someone who is about as much of an asshole as 2010s Linus Torvalds? Someone who is really competent but gets very impatient with others, has no problem stating rudely that your work is bad, that you keep making the same tiring mistakes over and over again, that you should know how to do certain things by now, that you're expected blah blah blah.
I think that's the more interesting and worthwhile discussion to have and it's the case where for my company, I decided I'll take the asshole over the nice guy.
If they really are a 2010 Linus Torvalds, you just might have a case of keeping them on the team. Unfortunately, 99.99 percent of the people who seem to be trying to be this archetype -- just aren't.
Or we're discussing the real grey area that is genuinely difficult to deal with.
What's so difficult to deal with? You make it plain and clear to them that their competence absolutely does not give them a pass for bad behavior. And that under no circumstances will it be allowed to continue.
I've never hired a completely abusive and gratuitous but competent asshole but ... I decided I'll take the asshole over the nice guy.
What? Mealy-mouthed / "strategically nice, but selectively an asshole" is the most common type actually - and still an asshole.
Or we're discussing the real grey area that is genuinely difficult to deal with.
What's so difficult to deal with? You make it plain and clear to them that their competence absolutely does not give them a pass for bad behavior. And that under no circumstances will it be allowed to continue.
I've never hired a completely abusive and gratuitous but competent asshole but ... I decided I'll take the asshole over the nice guy.
What? Mealy-mouthed / "strategically nice, but selectively an asshole" is the most common type actually - and still an asshole.
>What's so difficult to deal with?
Respectfully, if you think dealing with people is as simple as delivering ultimatums about their behavior then you likely have not dealt with leading teams of highly skilled professionals.
Respectfully, if you think dealing with people is as simple as delivering ultimatums about their behavior then you likely have not dealt with leading teams of highly skilled professionals.
The behaviors you are describing (and tacitly defending) - continually getting impatient with, and browbeating (not just criticizing) others - are those of overgrown kidults, basically. Not highly skilled professionals.
Those behaviors manifest when you work in high performance environments.
Yeah, if you're on the sidelines in an over-funded environment with little connection to the performance of the business, then you can play tea-party and be nice, and inclusive, and oh so delightful.
But when you've got a critical deadline you need to meet, and some fuckhead decided he was going to slack and cause the rest of us to have to pick up his end of things due to shear caprice, there's going to be strong language thrown around about the situation -- where all patience has already been exhausted weeks ago.
Same shit happens in the Boy Scouts, same shit happens in the military, same shit happens in boardrooms, same shit happens everywhere people go to get stuff done.
Yeah, if you're on the sidelines in an over-funded environment with little connection to the performance of the business, then you can play tea-party and be nice, and inclusive, and oh so delightful.
But when you've got a critical deadline you need to meet, and some fuckhead decided he was going to slack and cause the rest of us to have to pick up his end of things due to shear caprice, there's going to be strong language thrown around about the situation -- where all patience has already been exhausted weeks ago.
Same shit happens in the Boy Scouts, same shit happens in the military, same shit happens in boardrooms, same shit happens everywhere people go to get stuff done.
[When someone does something stupid, and then people get angry]
That's not what we're talking about here.
But rather: the type of people who basically prefer to be assholes, on general principle. Even when no one is messing up and everything is going perfectly fine.
That's not what we're talking about here.
But rather: the type of people who basically prefer to be assholes, on general principle. Even when no one is messing up and everything is going perfectly fine.
Then we're talking past each other because our experiences are at odds.
I have never met, what I imagine is, a gratuitous asshole in the workplace.
I've met people who were just all-around cantankerous assholes outside of work, but I quickly distance myself from them.
Maybe it's because I've never worked in a corporate environment -- but only small, close-knit teams where that shit isn't tolerated. Or maybe I've just been lucky, I don't know.
I have never met, what I imagine is, a gratuitous asshole in the workplace.
I've met people who were just all-around cantankerous assholes outside of work, but I quickly distance myself from them.
Maybe it's because I've never worked in a corporate environment -- but only small, close-knit teams where that shit isn't tolerated. Or maybe I've just been lucky, I don't know.
Yes. You’re lucky. They exist, and my first rule of start-ups is “no assholes”.
I’ve encountered true jerks who naturally gravitate towards anger and abuse, and I’ve even worked for a couple of them. It’s quite difficult. When it takes someone energy to keep from getting angry, that’s a dangerous boss to have.
Conversely, what I have encountered more frequently over time is people taking firm refusal to give them what they want (e.g., sign off on a design) as meanness. Firm assertiveness has been conflated with aggression in some contexts. It’s a losing game to be put in an environment with technically weak people where accusations of meanness for holding to organizational standards are given weight. B-players will eventually recognize the crack in the incentive model and get ahead via complaints instead of competence.
There was a point where Jeff Bezos advocated truth-seeking over social cohesion regularly for Amazon, and it resulted in a bruising but brutally effective culture able to attack numerous hard problems effectively.
“Affable” can only get people so far in a productive enterprise, but it’s just no fun to work with a jerk. Jerks and mediocrity are both ways to kill teams.
I’ve encountered true jerks who naturally gravitate towards anger and abuse, and I’ve even worked for a couple of them. It’s quite difficult. When it takes someone energy to keep from getting angry, that’s a dangerous boss to have.
Conversely, what I have encountered more frequently over time is people taking firm refusal to give them what they want (e.g., sign off on a design) as meanness. Firm assertiveness has been conflated with aggression in some contexts. It’s a losing game to be put in an environment with technically weak people where accusations of meanness for holding to organizational standards are given weight. B-players will eventually recognize the crack in the incentive model and get ahead via complaints instead of competence.
There was a point where Jeff Bezos advocated truth-seeking over social cohesion regularly for Amazon, and it resulted in a bruising but brutally effective culture able to attack numerous hard problems effectively.
“Affable” can only get people so far in a productive enterprise, but it’s just no fun to work with a jerk. Jerks and mediocrity are both ways to kill teams.
Yeah the corporate world is absolutely full of such people.
Granted, it usually isn't premeditated; it's more likely to be of the reactive / passive sort. Some form of: "Oh I'm having a bad day, so I'm going to spontaneously get salty at you over something completely non-consequential, or in fact, over an outright, and frankly pretty thick-headed misunderstanding on my part. Not that I'll ever apologize, though. Oh and good luck trying to go over my head to get one out of me."
That sort of thing. Less frequently, outright nasty and career-damaging (and sometimes health-damaging) stuff happens too.
Such that at some point, one realizes that, to a large extent -- putting up with this nonsense is what the gig is all about, and what you're essentially getting paid for.
Granted, it usually isn't premeditated; it's more likely to be of the reactive / passive sort. Some form of: "Oh I'm having a bad day, so I'm going to spontaneously get salty at you over something completely non-consequential, or in fact, over an outright, and frankly pretty thick-headed misunderstanding on my part. Not that I'll ever apologize, though. Oh and good luck trying to go over my head to get one out of me."
That sort of thing. Less frequently, outright nasty and career-damaging (and sometimes health-damaging) stuff happens too.
Such that at some point, one realizes that, to a large extent -- putting up with this nonsense is what the gig is all about, and what you're essentially getting paid for.
[deleted]
If they've got the skills of a 2010s Linus Torvalds, why are they working for you?
Because interest rates are now nonzero so they couldn't get their startup funded without a string of successes to point to?
I wouldn't be so sure about that, speaking directly/bluntly often gets you labeled as a jerk these days. I'm over it though, people are going to hear what they need to hear, whether that makes me a jerk or not.
> Speaking bluntly isn't what is meant by being an asshole/jerk.
That's not what you meant. That is what a lot of other people mean.
That's not what you meant. That is what a lot of other people mean.
I would replace "a lot of" with "some".
And as with a lot of things, some people are simply wrong. Because that's not what the commonly accepted definitions of those terms are held to mean.
And as with a lot of things, some people are simply wrong. Because that's not what the commonly accepted definitions of those terms are held to mean.
> What we're talking about here is the completely gratuitous, "I'm so valuable here that I can get away with it" abusive behavior that has no correlation with performative ability.
Can you give a concrete example of this behavior? I'm sure I can think of some, but I'd like to be more clear on what you had in mind.
Can you give a concrete example of this behavior? I'm sure I can think of some, but I'd like to be more clear on what you had in mind.
This comment a few branches over describes a fairy typical example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363501
Then there are all kinds of examples not specific to matters of pure and simple rudeness (e.g. all manner of politicking, manouevring and bad-mouthing that goes on), as well as not defending / standing up for others when you should, etc.
There have been plenty of serious articles written about this topic; the search term to look for would be "workplace hygiene", which is the somewhat more formal description. ("Toxic work environments", "workplace bullying" also work but tend to be more second-hand, and sometimes spammy).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35363501
Then there are all kinds of examples not specific to matters of pure and simple rudeness (e.g. all manner of politicking, manouevring and bad-mouthing that goes on), as well as not defending / standing up for others when you should, etc.
There have been plenty of serious articles written about this topic; the search term to look for would be "workplace hygiene", which is the somewhat more formal description. ("Toxic work environments", "workplace bullying" also work but tend to be more second-hand, and sometimes spammy).
> competent people tend to prefer to work with others whose skill they respect and they feel they can learn from because they're really good at their job
Amen.
The #1 "perk" any company can offer is working with a skilled, competent team.
Birds of a feather will flock together.
Amen.
The #1 "perk" any company can offer is working with a skilled, competent team.
Birds of a feather will flock together.
In my experience teams taking on significant challenges benefit from having a range of contributors. Thoroughbred racers have their place, but there are times when having a big and heavy load puller or even a small donkey or pony is just the right fit.
The really fast moving types don't like finishing every detail of the test suite or documentation and get bored with customer feedback and meetings. They are super mega A grade ten plus ex contributors and they know what that entails, so they are always on the forefront picking up the best tools, honing them as needed, and then moving on. They know how to take credit for their lead also.
Meanwhile more modest contributors handle details and it is less easy to quantify the value of actually running through the product with customers and finding critical bugs, catching embarrassing errors in documentation, or filling in important missing test cases and so on. Some products do okay without all the i dotting and t crossing, but too much reliance on the cutting edge of tech leadership tends to show up over time in tech debt and accumulated bug overhead.
As is said, you may be capable of great things, but life consists of small things.
The really fast moving types don't like finishing every detail of the test suite or documentation and get bored with customer feedback and meetings. They are super mega A grade ten plus ex contributors and they know what that entails, so they are always on the forefront picking up the best tools, honing them as needed, and then moving on. They know how to take credit for their lead also.
Meanwhile more modest contributors handle details and it is less easy to quantify the value of actually running through the product with customers and finding critical bugs, catching embarrassing errors in documentation, or filling in important missing test cases and so on. Some products do okay without all the i dotting and t crossing, but too much reliance on the cutting edge of tech leadership tends to show up over time in tech debt and accumulated bug overhead.
As is said, you may be capable of great things, but life consists of small things.
What hasn’t been mentioned at this point in the conversation is that 0.1x incompetence is much more common than problematic jerks.
It’s not apples to oranges. Both should be removed, and if you have to take one or the other (and only one of each) the jerk is the bigger issue.
If you normalize the jerk level down so that the jerks are as common as the 0.1x developers, I’d take those mild jerks any day.
It’s not apples to oranges. Both should be removed, and if you have to take one or the other (and only one of each) the jerk is the bigger issue.
If you normalize the jerk level down so that the jerks are as common as the 0.1x developers, I’d take those mild jerks any day.
The only competent jerk I ever worked near (different part of a very multi-disciplinary org) probably wasn't that competent. That is, they had a habit of belittling other people's opinions and performances, but they were eventually fired for running a system outside of safe bounds, ultimately destroying some equipment and product. They were not as brilliant as they thought themselves to be, and eventually that disconnect caught up with them. It's only hubris if you're wrong.
I have known a lot of insufferable people who were the only person at the company who could do what they did, but they weren't brilliant, per se. They just focused on building a moat rather than building a community. And because of that, they never really progressed past the little niche they had made for themselves (and the organization didn't need them to, so it was fine). The brilliant asshole recognizes the utility of at least having other brilliant assholes around, and so invests at least some effort in baseline social grace.
I'd wager that there's something akin to the Dunning-Kruger "mount stupid" at work here. That is, your probability of being a jerk peaks at some slightly above-average level of competence, but tapers off as competence increases, because the confidence becomes justified. Confidence can be abrasive, but hubris is always caustic.
I have known a lot of insufferable people who were the only person at the company who could do what they did, but they weren't brilliant, per se. They just focused on building a moat rather than building a community. And because of that, they never really progressed past the little niche they had made for themselves (and the organization didn't need them to, so it was fine). The brilliant asshole recognizes the utility of at least having other brilliant assholes around, and so invests at least some effort in baseline social grace.
I'd wager that there's something akin to the Dunning-Kruger "mount stupid" at work here. That is, your probability of being a jerk peaks at some slightly above-average level of competence, but tapers off as competence increases, because the confidence becomes justified. Confidence can be abrasive, but hubris is always caustic.
Incompetent people are a negative multiplier to productivity.
If your productivity is way negative, just hire one more very, very incompetent person then.
Funny, but people sum not multiply
Systems (set up by people) can definitely multiply. Say a well-oiled review, CI+CD, deployment system can def multiply everyone's productivity by some margin (e.g. 1.2x). So if someone improves this system, it can definitely multiply everyone's in the team's productivity.
We can’t truly test the edge of this function without finding the most least competent person ever. They’re like a perfect anti-classifier!
I’ve actually worked with people who were so persistently wrong that we could generally take their assertion or approach (and they’d almost always be the first to raise a finger to start dropping knowledge on us) as definitely not the right answer, thinning the search space by one option.
It was actually kind of amazing. The one (seriously, one) time one was right about something, the room was stunned.
That said, they did not increase productivity, so we need to search for someone more perfect…
I’ve actually worked with people who were so persistently wrong that we could generally take their assertion or approach (and they’d almost always be the first to raise a finger to start dropping knowledge on us) as definitely not the right answer, thinning the search space by one option.
It was actually kind of amazing. The one (seriously, one) time one was right about something, the room was stunned.
That said, they did not increase productivity, so we need to search for someone more perfect…
One of the hidden downsides of this approach that I never see discussed: The competent jerk that chases off employees is going to shape your codebase and company in their image. This isn't something that may be immediately apparent, but when you start running into design walls where said competent jerk does not want to budge, then the costs of having such a person become a major problem. Especially if they decide to leave and take their knowledge of the system with them.
> The really difficult choice you end up facing is someone who is nice and gets along with people but is ultimately too dependent on others to do their job
Importantly, getting rid of someone like this can actually _improve_ productivity
Importantly, getting rid of someone like this can actually _improve_ productivity
This 1000%. It's incredible how just being mediocre leads to so much pain down the road from wasted effort and bad design.
with a lot of hesitation and even regret I agree with this assessment.
obviously, it's a matter of degree, but competence means paying customers because their output is externally visible and incompetence - nice or not - doesn't.
obviously, it's a matter of degree, but competence means paying customers because their output is externally visible and incompetence - nice or not - doesn't.
Very useful perspective
"Incompetent nice people, as long as they are not so incompetent to be a liability can at least contribute to a strong team culture and make good competent people want to show up."
I think incompetent nice people completely destroy team culture. Competent jerks are also a problem but at least they get something done. The IT department at my company used to be full with very nice people that got absolutely nothing done (it's a bit better now). They talked nice, were good at meetings and really good at dinners after work. But at some point deadline pressure kicks in and you realize that you have to do their work if you want to finish. It causes a lot of resentment. Even worse is when nice incompetent people are gatekeepers for something you need (in this case security policies) and block your ability to make decisions.
My conclusion is that both nice and incompetent people and competent jerks need to be removed if you want to have a strong team. But if I have to choose I'll take a competent jerk because I can get at least something. Incompetent people are useless.
I think incompetent nice people completely destroy team culture. Competent jerks are also a problem but at least they get something done. The IT department at my company used to be full with very nice people that got absolutely nothing done (it's a bit better now). They talked nice, were good at meetings and really good at dinners after work. But at some point deadline pressure kicks in and you realize that you have to do their work if you want to finish. It causes a lot of resentment. Even worse is when nice incompetent people are gatekeepers for something you need (in this case security policies) and block your ability to make decisions.
My conclusion is that both nice and incompetent people and competent jerks need to be removed if you want to have a strong team. But if I have to choose I'll take a competent jerk because I can get at least something. Incompetent people are useless.
Follow up: I have seen a mass exodus of a high performance team because of a single competent jerk that was allowed to wreck havoc.
I have also seen an entire smallish company nearly completely collapse into itself because being a competent jerk basically became normal operating procedure and you either adapted or were bullied out of the company. Eventually the only people left were bullies and none of them could work together well enough to deliver.
I have never seen an incompetent nice employee ever do anything so damaging.
I have also seen an entire smallish company nearly completely collapse into itself because being a competent jerk basically became normal operating procedure and you either adapted or were bullied out of the company. Eventually the only people left were bullies and none of them could work together well enough to deliver.
I have never seen an incompetent nice employee ever do anything so damaging.
Worst case scenario that i've seen with 'incompetent nice' is when somehow a team was composed of only such people. Nothing they made worked, but because they were all nice it couldn't really be admitted that it was because of their incompetence, so other competent people were pulled in to help, but then under incompetent leadership, so they were rendered ineffective.
> but then under incompetent leadership, so they were rendered ineffective
This made me realise that I'm pretty tolerant of incompetence so long as it's junior to me (where I can help them improve). But make me work for somebody incompetent and I will call them out on it, escalate it to their manager if need be, and leave pretty quickly if the situation isn't remedied.
This made me realise that I'm pretty tolerant of incompetence so long as it's junior to me (where I can help them improve). But make me work for somebody incompetent and I will call them out on it, escalate it to their manager if need be, and leave pretty quickly if the situation isn't remedied.
You pretty much described most of Big Tech.
> I have never seen an incompetent nice employee ever do anything so damaging.
bullshit. how many incidents are due to incompetence? how many alerts were just forgotten? how many customers churn because of low quality ux? how many additional incompetent employees were hired because your nice friend let them through? incompetence erodes culture, leads to bureaucracy and the slow death of a company.
bullshit. how many incidents are due to incompetence? how many alerts were just forgotten? how many customers churn because of low quality ux? how many additional incompetent employees were hired because your nice friend let them through? incompetence erodes culture, leads to bureaucracy and the slow death of a company.
> I have never seen an incompetent nice employee ever do anything so damaging.
They tend to climb management chain and then you are left with leaders who can't understand anything, that is by far worse than what any competent jerk can accomplish.
They tend to climb management chain and then you are left with leaders who can't understand anything, that is by far worse than what any competent jerk can accomplish.
Is it? What happens when you need feature XYZ, and the competent jerk puts down their foot and says the system can't support said feature because of the way he drove the team to design it? Then you're left with a dilemma where you either lose your talent or lose the feature.
This kind of thing was something I saw when I did contract work because said competent jerks knew they could get their way.
This kind of thing was something I saw when I did contract work because said competent jerks knew they could get their way.
A know-nothing hands-on manager is a real headache, but a hands-off one may just let a team do their own thing?
That can work short term if the team is still full of competent people, but wont work long term since the manager is in charge of hiring, firing and promoting people.
I've seen multiple competent people quit the team, citing overwork and team's inability to deliver results.
The reason that more than half of the team were "incompetent but nice". They'd take weeks to do what other team members would do in days, and would require a lot of support too. But they'd still take headcount spots, so the team could not hire more people without firing someone first, and everyone was so nice....
The reason that more than half of the team were "incompetent but nice". They'd take weeks to do what other team members would do in days, and would require a lot of support too. But they'd still take headcount spots, so the team could not hire more people without firing someone first, and everyone was so nice....
I left because of "incompetent nice" people as I was tired of the never-ending torrent of incompetent nonsense I had to deal with and I felt the end-product just wasn't very good or something I was proud of.
"Jerk" is really too rough of a classifier; someone who communicates a bit like a jerk but is fundamentally well-meaning is someone I can work with; if you have a daily working relationship you can learn to just read over the snark or whatever.
Someone who insists on their view being forced through and will bully, insult, or use other tactics to do so is something I have a lot more problems with, as are the "this is the one true correct way and if you don't see my brilliance then you are most likely mentally retarded and should visit a hospital for an examination" type of people.
"Jerk" is really too rough of a classifier; someone who communicates a bit like a jerk but is fundamentally well-meaning is someone I can work with; if you have a daily working relationship you can learn to just read over the snark or whatever.
Someone who insists on their view being forced through and will bully, insult, or use other tactics to do so is something I have a lot more problems with, as are the "this is the one true correct way and if you don't see my brilliance then you are most likely mentally retarded and should visit a hospital for an examination" type of people.
The WORST damage can be caused in socialization not performance.
But the most common damage is done by performance not in socialization.
But the most common damage is done by performance not in socialization.
Masses of incompetent people are the very reason why dealing with most large companies and their products and services is such a nightmare.
I think there is a simpler explanation: nobody knows how to run a large organization.
Large organizations are effectively superintelligences, but extremely dysfunctional ones. As soon as someone figures out how to share information and coordinate work in a large group of people, we will get our technological singularity. Even without any AI.
Large organizations are effectively superintelligences, but extremely dysfunctional ones. As soon as someone figures out how to share information and coordinate work in a large group of people, we will get our technological singularity. Even without any AI.
I’ve seen “incompetent but nice” people destroy entire companies, as in those companies no longer exist.
>I have also seen an entire smallish company nearly completely collapse into itself because being a competent jerk basically became normal operating procedure and you either adapted or were bullied out of the company. Eventually the only people left were bullies and none of them could work together well enough to deliver.
This sounds like many American police departments.
This sounds like many American police departments.
One of the few very real regrets I have about the way we've run our business is not getting rid of a brilliant asshole sooner. It was boggling:
a) How good he was. Just like really really good quality of work.
b) How bad he was. Crying client. Regularly destroying team morale and productivity with incredible drama.
a) How good he was. Just like really really good quality of work.
b) How bad he was. Crying client. Regularly destroying team morale and productivity with incredible drama.
> One of the few very real regrets I have about the way we've run our business is not getting rid of a brilliant asshole sooner.
If you can't isolate the brilliant asshole in a back office somewhere, you need to get rid of them.
I'm always amazed when brilliant assholes are allowed to directly manage customer relations or co-workers.
If you can't isolate the brilliant asshole in a back office somewhere, you need to get rid of them.
I'm always amazed when brilliant assholes are allowed to directly manage customer relations or co-workers.
I’ve had a BA working for me and leading a team. It was one of the highest performing teams I’ve ever had in my org (because everyone was hand-picked/self-selected into that team).
It’s not realistic to build teams like this and this team fell apart/could not be sustained when one of the key members eventually left. But they seemed happy and delivered like crazy.
It’s not realistic to build teams like this and this team fell apart/could not be sustained when one of the key members eventually left. But they seemed happy and delivered like crazy.
I think incompetent but nice can also lead to morale problems. Not as bad as the jerk situation, but eventually everyone notices this one person who does no work but is still getting paid. Which can lead to jealously and feelings of unfairness.
"Doing no work" would be great. Understanding the commit they made last thing on Friday, which is incomprehensible and has broken your work, is not so great.
In my last job, I worked with three incompetents, none of whom were jerks, in a team of ten. I reckon the rest of us had to do twice the work to navigate their mistakes.
This is the "Please stop writing code" syndrome.
In my last job, I worked with three incompetents, none of whom were jerks, in a team of ten. I reckon the rest of us had to do twice the work to navigate their mistakes.
This is the "Please stop writing code" syndrome.
It is a balancing act for sure.
I think the term "jerk" is underspecified in these types of conversations. The "competent jerks" in the minds of the "pro competent jerk" people are not the same that the "anti competent jerk" people are thinking of. I suspect these groups would agree in many cases on whether to keep someone who is competent but excessively blunt (without malice), and whether to fire someone who is competent but tears down their coworkers with political games. Both of those people might fall under the heading of "jerk", making it too broad a category to base sweeping predetermined choices on.
"Incompetent nice people, as long as they are not so incompetent to be a liability"
This is veering into tautological territory but "not competent enough to be useful" is where my personal definition of "incompetent" would land. ;)
I also don't want competent jerks but... neither end of this spectrum is good.
(IMO the real trick is that neither of these scales (either competence or jerkhood) is universally the same across companies. Different people interact in different ways, and different teams have different problems to solve. Putting up with bad fits on your team for too long hurts your team regardless of the precise sort of bad fit. If you've tried to coach them on what's needed for months on end already with no luck, you have to make a hard decision, and "no action" isn't actually avoiding that decision.)
This is veering into tautological territory but "not competent enough to be useful" is where my personal definition of "incompetent" would land. ;)
I also don't want competent jerks but... neither end of this spectrum is good.
(IMO the real trick is that neither of these scales (either competence or jerkhood) is universally the same across companies. Different people interact in different ways, and different teams have different problems to solve. Putting up with bad fits on your team for too long hurts your team regardless of the precise sort of bad fit. If you've tried to coach them on what's needed for months on end already with no luck, you have to make a hard decision, and "no action" isn't actually avoiding that decision.)
Minuscule side note: a lot of competent jerk are just immature and fearful young dudes who fall into the "people can respect, accept (maybe even love) me if I'm infallible on that one thing". I was like that, and recently I ran into 20yos who had the exact same psychology.
That's because that works. Many, many people get excluded from social interactions, and have to compensate somehow. Getting excluded from social stuff means lots of time on hand ... which makes competence possible.
And again, competence is a necessary precondition. No social skills but competent can work. Whatever you want in terms of social skills but not competent is a 100% guaranteed failure. That doesn't mean competent assholes can't fail, but they don't absolutely have to fail.
And again, competence is a necessary precondition. No social skills but competent can work. Whatever you want in terms of social skills but not competent is a 100% guaranteed failure. That doesn't mean competent assholes can't fail, but they don't absolutely have to fail.
> Incompetent nice people, as long as they are not so incompetent to be a liability can at least contribute to a strong team culture and make good competent people want to show up.
Until everybody realizes they are working harder to compensate for the dead wood on the team. The first person I ever fired was "incompetent, but nice", one of my team members said "We can always find someone who is nice AND can do the job to replace them" and that stuck with me for a long time.
Until everybody realizes they are working harder to compensate for the dead wood on the team. The first person I ever fired was "incompetent, but nice", one of my team members said "We can always find someone who is nice AND can do the job to replace them" and that stuck with me for a long time.
At the end of the day the nice incompetent kills morale. You can only carry water for someone so much. We all have our own work to do, fixing Jimmy's fuckups gets real old real quick, no matter how nice they are. You need to cut the nice incompetents or the competents are going to leave to work with other competents.
I dunno, what if we considered that competent jerks could be put on an improvement plan as well? Some people come off as jerks because they're unaware, not ill-intentioned. Even straight up racists etc. can mostly learn and would be more than willing to given a real opportunity without constant judgement and shaming.
If not being a jerk is such an important part of performance, maybe more company resources can be put into mental health, etc... just as training on the job skills is seen as an investment, so could that.
It's funny/strange/interesting how social skills are something that you're constantly judged on yet there are very few resources to help people with. Needing help with it is treated as more shameful than needing help with the technical aspects... at least the technical aspects were at some point explicitly taught to people!
There are some just straight up incorrigible narcissists and psychopaths, but there aren't that many, and TBH, they usually tend to have some of the best social skills... probably they're upper management already.
If not being a jerk is such an important part of performance, maybe more company resources can be put into mental health, etc... just as training on the job skills is seen as an investment, so could that.
It's funny/strange/interesting how social skills are something that you're constantly judged on yet there are very few resources to help people with. Needing help with it is treated as more shameful than needing help with the technical aspects... at least the technical aspects were at some point explicitly taught to people!
There are some just straight up incorrigible narcissists and psychopaths, but there aren't that many, and TBH, they usually tend to have some of the best social skills... probably they're upper management already.
The flip side of this is that people will also leave because they get frustrated by having to either clean up after or repeatedly bail out the "incompetent but nice" folks, and will leave for that reason too.
And if you don't do it cheerfully, day after day, week after week, sacrificing lunches, nights and weekends, missing piano recitals and skipping vacations... you'll become somebody else's anecdote about a "brilliant jerk".
A players attract A players, but A players also push out B players
if you're tolerating < A players, you might want to take a hard look at yourself.
if you're tolerating < A players, you might want to take a hard look at yourself.
There are companies that are viable businesses but that can't afford a team of A players.
Part of 'competence' in a professional work setting has to do with getting along with other people, at least to the minimal extent necessary to get a job done. A 'competent jerk' is incompetent, in other words, at least when it comes to some aspects of the job.
If their job requires a lot of communication with other people, then they're definitely grossly incompetent. If their job can be done mostly in isolation, well, they're only minimally incompetent, and maybe that can be brought along, give them a thick-skinned assistant or manager and only have them talk to that person, etc.
However, it's probably easier to train people with poor social skills in the art of getting along with others in the workplace, then it is to train those with poor grasp of complex technologies to understand them, let alone in resolving difficult bugs or finding creative solutions to novel problems.
If their job requires a lot of communication with other people, then they're definitely grossly incompetent. If their job can be done mostly in isolation, well, they're only minimally incompetent, and maybe that can be brought along, give them a thick-skinned assistant or manager and only have them talk to that person, etc.
However, it's probably easier to train people with poor social skills in the art of getting along with others in the workplace, then it is to train those with poor grasp of complex technologies to understand them, let alone in resolving difficult bugs or finding creative solutions to novel problems.
a competent jerk is rare, statistically.
a nice and incompetent one is common, if anything, they tend to produce more bugs then they can fix.
if I'm the boss, I will hire a competent jerk and manage him/her well, instead of feeling good with a few incompetent nice guys while the company will sink, soon or later.
the keyword is to survive you have to be competent, other things(nice vs jerk) is secondary, and that's a management's job to "fix", the incompetent-but-nice is nearly impossible to fix to me.
a nice and incompetent one is common, if anything, they tend to produce more bugs then they can fix.
if I'm the boss, I will hire a competent jerk and manage him/her well, instead of feeling good with a few incompetent nice guys while the company will sink, soon or later.
the keyword is to survive you have to be competent, other things(nice vs jerk) is secondary, and that's a management's job to "fix", the incompetent-but-nice is nearly impossible to fix to me.
Depends if we're talking manager or IC.
A competent jerk IC can be put in a corner and be productive. More or less.
That said, fire jerks and incompetent people.
A competent jerk IC can be put in a corner and be productive. More or less.
That said, fire jerks and incompetent people.
> will take someone nice and incompetent every day of the week over a competent jerk.
Not that simple.
On an easy going project, deadlines far enough, work well defined, people know their parts, yeah you'd like a nice person on the team to have lunch with and share cat videos.
In a project with your ass on the line, real $$$ at stake, you presenting progress to management every week for a visible real promotion path, I'd bet you want a competent person regardless of how foul the language or body odor. Niceness just doesn't matter.
the $hit gets real when you find out, said competent person is just an imposter.
But there is a sweet spot though, keep the competence high, and turn the niceness knob high and low as convenient. At work, being nice is just an act after all. People can and will see through the act, but they themselves are guilty too, you're not offending anyone
Not that simple.
On an easy going project, deadlines far enough, work well defined, people know their parts, yeah you'd like a nice person on the team to have lunch with and share cat videos.
In a project with your ass on the line, real $$$ at stake, you presenting progress to management every week for a visible real promotion path, I'd bet you want a competent person regardless of how foul the language or body odor. Niceness just doesn't matter.
the $hit gets real when you find out, said competent person is just an imposter.
But there is a sweet spot though, keep the competence high, and turn the niceness knob high and low as convenient. At work, being nice is just an act after all. People can and will see through the act, but they themselves are guilty too, you're not offending anyone
Robert Sutton wrote a book about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule
Edit: Interestingly, depressed people can also bring down team morale.
Edit: Interestingly, depressed people can also bring down team morale.
Yeah, I'd agree with this. Of course, both the 'brilliant jerk' and 'incompetent but nice' folks are a liability in the long run (they both drive away genuinely nice, talented contributors), but the jerk tends to drive them away more quickly, and they also tend to discourage less competent people from getting better at their job too.
And that eventually leads a team or group to stagnate. The only people who will stick around are either jerks themselves, or generally lack a back bone.
And that eventually leads a team or group to stagnate. The only people who will stick around are either jerks themselves, or generally lack a back bone.
I think the key question is whether they are nice, incompetent AND teachable, because if the person can get where you need them with some coaching, then it is not a wasted effort.
Yes, having someone nice who constantly screws up, messes up public pages, deletes data, delays releases for months with dumb mistakes.
What a genius decision.
What a genius decision.
> Incompetent nice people, as long as they are not so incompetent to be a liability can at least contribute to a strong team culture and make good competent people want to show up.
Hard disagree. They demotivate the competent. People start to wonder if they can perhaps slack off and be nice instead of delivering...
Hard disagree. They demotivate the competent. People start to wonder if they can perhaps slack off and be nice instead of delivering...
> I will take someone nice and incompetent every day of the week over a competent jerk.
I won't. I had this dilemma before. And I chose to take incompetent people. My life became miserable. I don't care about people being rude. I feel uncomfortable with people who would like to be rude but can't because they think it's inappropriate or w/e other thing they tell themselves. Somehow, they are more disgusting than people who are open about what they think.
Plenty of posters on moderated Web user boards belong to that later category: they'd like to be rude, but try to formally obey the rules of the board and still be rude. Just enough for the moderator not to ban them.
Same kind of people who'd delete complaints about their crappy program on a public bug tracker claiming the ticket author violated their code of conduct.
---
I don't like to teach. Some people get off on telling juniors what to do. Most those that I saw teaching did it to feel important in their own eyes, beside the eyes of the junior.
But when I made the mistake of agreeing to hire incompetent people, the amount of chores increased by a lot in my life. I'm also not the one to force my convictions on those I have to teach, but that led to the "students" making bad choices when it comes to the tools they decided to use. Before they've made their choice, I made it clear that if they chose tools different from those I use, it becomes their problem. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be able to deal with that problem. And so their productivity was in the negative. They would still be unable to accomplish even very basic tasks, but they would also drag me down by trying to make me solve their problems with the tools I advised against.
Instead of just being able to split the work somewhat evenly, I couldn't trust juniors to do things that required independent research -- they felt overwhelmed at such tasks and, if assigned one, would just waste my time by scheduling meetings with me to "discuss" their objectives, where, essentially, they'd expect me to do their work for them and dumb it down so that they could also understand what's being done.
I also had to report to my boss on the progress my assigned juniors were making. I felt guilty that they didn't do squat, but at the same time felt like I might become the reason for firing them, and I didn't want to be that person either. Yet, at the same time, I didn't want to do stuff like taking over their branch and finishing their task, both because I think that not even the worst programmer deserves that and because, on a personal level, I didn't want to upset them -- after all, they were nice. It's harder to be a jerk to nice people.
I won't. I had this dilemma before. And I chose to take incompetent people. My life became miserable. I don't care about people being rude. I feel uncomfortable with people who would like to be rude but can't because they think it's inappropriate or w/e other thing they tell themselves. Somehow, they are more disgusting than people who are open about what they think.
Plenty of posters on moderated Web user boards belong to that later category: they'd like to be rude, but try to formally obey the rules of the board and still be rude. Just enough for the moderator not to ban them.
Same kind of people who'd delete complaints about their crappy program on a public bug tracker claiming the ticket author violated their code of conduct.
---
I don't like to teach. Some people get off on telling juniors what to do. Most those that I saw teaching did it to feel important in their own eyes, beside the eyes of the junior.
But when I made the mistake of agreeing to hire incompetent people, the amount of chores increased by a lot in my life. I'm also not the one to force my convictions on those I have to teach, but that led to the "students" making bad choices when it comes to the tools they decided to use. Before they've made their choice, I made it clear that if they chose tools different from those I use, it becomes their problem. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be able to deal with that problem. And so their productivity was in the negative. They would still be unable to accomplish even very basic tasks, but they would also drag me down by trying to make me solve their problems with the tools I advised against.
Instead of just being able to split the work somewhat evenly, I couldn't trust juniors to do things that required independent research -- they felt overwhelmed at such tasks and, if assigned one, would just waste my time by scheduling meetings with me to "discuss" their objectives, where, essentially, they'd expect me to do their work for them and dumb it down so that they could also understand what's being done.
I also had to report to my boss on the progress my assigned juniors were making. I felt guilty that they didn't do squat, but at the same time felt like I might become the reason for firing them, and I didn't want to be that person either. Yet, at the same time, I didn't want to do stuff like taking over their branch and finishing their task, both because I think that not even the worst programmer deserves that and because, on a personal level, I didn't want to upset them -- after all, they were nice. It's harder to be a jerk to nice people.
If the only constant in the equation is you, maybe you should re-evaluate your assumptions? I am unable to determine if this was a on-time event for you or if this is an ongoing problem, so this is a question not a judgement.
I never tried to generalize this. This was just a report of how I see the problem. In response to the comment that described their personal attitude. I wrote it to illustrate that there are concerns other than those voiced in the top comment. This would offer the author an insight into how others have dealt with the situation they found themselves.
I don't see why based on above I need to reevaluate something about myself? Which part?
I don't see why based on above I need to reevaluate something about myself? Which part?
You cant have a company full of nice and incompetent people. Useless people can only be allowed in certain numbers.
Didn't work where I worked/lived/experienced.
There is no incompetent nice. They are usually "nice" but they end up wasting significant time as they try to "show off their work".
There is also no competent jerk. There is bad management. Not everyone wants to train juniors or deal with them on a daily basis. There is also a set of people who wouldn't mind telling snarky comments to each other; and another set of people sensitive to any gesture you make. Put every set separate from the other.
tl;dr; There is only competent nice and incompetent jerk. Otherwise, it's a management failure.
There is no incompetent nice. They are usually "nice" but they end up wasting significant time as they try to "show off their work".
There is also no competent jerk. There is bad management. Not everyone wants to train juniors or deal with them on a daily basis. There is also a set of people who wouldn't mind telling snarky comments to each other; and another set of people sensitive to any gesture you make. Put every set separate from the other.
tl;dr; There is only competent nice and incompetent jerk. Otherwise, it's a management failure.
I was this person! I was eager and kind. But I was incompetent. I was a graduate of the first ever cohort of the first ever coding bootcamp. The teachers were great, but they didn’t check in on me or have evaluations. I left not really being able to do…anything.
But I got a job as a Ruby developer from resourcefulness and eagerness. It was a great company. It was clear, however, that I wasn’t pulling my weight when the intern was technically running circles around me. They do the only right thing. They made some “bare minimum” requirements in the form of an evaluation and gave me three weeks to complete it. I couldn’t do it. I was getting much better by the end of the three weeks thanks to a coworker who decided to mentor me, but it was past my ability level. When this was clear and they were firing me I said to the CTO “you can fire me, but I am getting good at learning, so I am going to just study really hard and reapply in 3 months and you’ll have to give me another chance!” I said this in a motivated way, not an insane person way. He decided he would find another spot to put me in the company.
He ended up putting me on the technical integrations team. The other person on that team was an incredibly kind human who loved teaching people. It was perfect for me. I ended up performing super well in that role and became very good at it. It was a win/win for the organization.
I will tell you one thing, however. The weeks before they gave me that evaluation were the most stressful weeks of my life. I was waking up in the middle of the night immediately stressed. It feels terrible to be bad at your job. It felt so freeing to be given the evaluation. Because it was cut and dry. I could do it or I couldn’t, but at least there would be finality. It is kind to not let someone flounder in a role that is past their abilities. I am grateful he found another spot for me to fit at the company. That CTO has passed now at a young age, but I owe my career to him recognizing my passion and finding another spot for me. Thanks Brandon Dewitt!
But I got a job as a Ruby developer from resourcefulness and eagerness. It was a great company. It was clear, however, that I wasn’t pulling my weight when the intern was technically running circles around me. They do the only right thing. They made some “bare minimum” requirements in the form of an evaluation and gave me three weeks to complete it. I couldn’t do it. I was getting much better by the end of the three weeks thanks to a coworker who decided to mentor me, but it was past my ability level. When this was clear and they were firing me I said to the CTO “you can fire me, but I am getting good at learning, so I am going to just study really hard and reapply in 3 months and you’ll have to give me another chance!” I said this in a motivated way, not an insane person way. He decided he would find another spot to put me in the company.
He ended up putting me on the technical integrations team. The other person on that team was an incredibly kind human who loved teaching people. It was perfect for me. I ended up performing super well in that role and became very good at it. It was a win/win for the organization.
I will tell you one thing, however. The weeks before they gave me that evaluation were the most stressful weeks of my life. I was waking up in the middle of the night immediately stressed. It feels terrible to be bad at your job. It felt so freeing to be given the evaluation. Because it was cut and dry. I could do it or I couldn’t, but at least there would be finality. It is kind to not let someone flounder in a role that is past their abilities. I am grateful he found another spot for me to fit at the company. That CTO has passed now at a young age, but I owe my career to him recognizing my passion and finding another spot for me. Thanks Brandon Dewitt!
Loved reading this, and then pleasantly surprised at seeing the name at the end, though I probably shouldn't be. Everyone I've come across who met Brandon always seems to have a story of his kindness.
Mine was much smaller, just having a genuine chat with him at a hiring event without knowing who he was at the time, but it left a lasting impression. Gone too soon, unfortunately.
Mine was much smaller, just having a genuine chat with him at a hiring event without knowing who he was at the time, but it left a lasting impression. Gone too soon, unfortunately.
If you tell this story from a different perspective though it could easily be about how companies discriminate against introverts, or how connections matter more than competence. Which are common complaints about how many companies operate. I’d say this story is the perfect illustration of the counterpoint to those arguments, which is that social skills are probably the greatest predictor of success in most roles, even technical ones.
Yeah, I mean, being fun/exciting to be around is kind of a valuable asset.. sucks if ya don't have it..
How neurotypical of you
Okay, but being able to work with other people is a job qualification like being able to code in Python. Not all jobs are Python jobs, but if you need a Python developer, you should hire someone who knows (or can learn) Python.
As someone with ADHD, I'm a solid IC and thrive at mentorship, but do not put me in an organizational role. I'm not qualified, and never will be. I still need hacks and workarounds sometimes to get the right code written at the right time, but I can do it with a bit of understanding and accommodation. The same doesn't apply to jobs that expect order out of chaos. (I'm better at going the other way, by the state of my office.)
I'll agree in principle that we can and should make space in tech for people who for whatever reason really just want to be code factories with as little human interaction as possible, but most jobs are always going to have some degree of social interaction as a requirement.
That said, "sucks if ya don't have it" is indeed a callous way of addressing the problem.
As someone with ADHD, I'm a solid IC and thrive at mentorship, but do not put me in an organizational role. I'm not qualified, and never will be. I still need hacks and workarounds sometimes to get the right code written at the right time, but I can do it with a bit of understanding and accommodation. The same doesn't apply to jobs that expect order out of chaos. (I'm better at going the other way, by the state of my office.)
I'll agree in principle that we can and should make space in tech for people who for whatever reason really just want to be code factories with as little human interaction as possible, but most jobs are always going to have some degree of social interaction as a requirement.
That said, "sucks if ya don't have it" is indeed a callous way of addressing the problem.
> I'll agree in principle that we can and should make space in tech for people who for whatever reason really just want to be code factories with as little human interaction as possible
I’m actually not saying that at all. I think people with severely underdeveloped social skills, such as many of the people who identify themselves as introverts in HN threads, are not qualified to do most jobs in any organisation. There are people who operate as little isolated code factories, but their deficiencies come at a massive cost to the organisation and everybody around them.
I’m actually not saying that at all. I think people with severely underdeveloped social skills, such as many of the people who identify themselves as introverts in HN threads, are not qualified to do most jobs in any organisation. There are people who operate as little isolated code factories, but their deficiencies come at a massive cost to the organisation and everybody around them.
What a heartwarming success story :) Username checks out!
Thanks for saying that. It made me go back and look at the username only to see it’s somebody I worked with, but I had no idea of his backstory.
I don’t know who you are, but :wave:
Seems like the solution is to try giving such person another role in the company. They will remain nice, but they get the second chance to become competent at something else.
Out of interest, how did you get the job in the firs place? As in, how was the interview process?
There was a billboard on the side of i15 that was a puzzle. I completed the puzzle.
One option: be extremely open to them doing something else at the company. Most people would have to drop acid to hit this level openness. “Put him in marketing? But he’s a software engineer!” Well, apparently he’s not, or least not the kind you want. And don’t half ass it and have them split time or do the old role on the new team. The easiest way would be to look down a list of open jobs and seriously consider them for like 30 seconds each. It’ll be a brutal 10 minutes of focus, but only 10 minutes.
I’ve almost never seen this job switch in a company work, but I’ve almost never seen it attempted. I have seen it work many times between companies. Everyone who switches careers does it.
I think there’s a hang up around “incompetence”. Maybe it’s something inherent to the person, but you don’t have much evidence for that. The evidence is the person/job pair. So, switch up the job if the person seems good.
Sometimes when I’ve struggled with a role that doesn’t feel right and I start blaming myself I think “Not everyone can do this. What if some super smart, healthy, well adjusted person was in this role but was this bad at it. What would he do?” I imagine some baseball player, marketing genius, or renowned writer and that he ended up in this job instead of that one. I guess he’d leave? I’ve actually struggled to come up with an answer but it feels important.
I’ve almost never seen this job switch in a company work, but I’ve almost never seen it attempted. I have seen it work many times between companies. Everyone who switches careers does it.
I think there’s a hang up around “incompetence”. Maybe it’s something inherent to the person, but you don’t have much evidence for that. The evidence is the person/job pair. So, switch up the job if the person seems good.
Sometimes when I’ve struggled with a role that doesn’t feel right and I start blaming myself I think “Not everyone can do this. What if some super smart, healthy, well adjusted person was in this role but was this bad at it. What would he do?” I imagine some baseball player, marketing genius, or renowned writer and that he ended up in this job instead of that one. I guess he’d leave? I’ve actually struggled to come up with an answer but it feels important.
Or do the obvious: move them into management. This sounds snarky, but I'm not being sarcastic. Part of management is making people feel happy and supported, and you don't need the same level of competence in management that you do in IC work (or rather you need a different set of competencies, which they may have).
This right here. I personally know several examples; people who were not really incompetent, but were not up to the generally expected level of work of an IC. They became excellent managers.
That's the idea behind the Dilbert comics [1]!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle
The Dilbert comics assume people moved to management due to incompetence will remain incompetent in a leadership role. This is a big leap - people management is a separate skillset, and in fact it's less likely a 10x programmer will also be a 10x manager. For the same reason that Shohei Ohtani is a unicord - it's hard to find someone who is a superlative performer in 2 sets of skills compared to just 1.
It does not sound snarky, it sounds right. Promoting a stereotypical fantastic engineer into management is a great way to waste their talent. Promoting a people person into a management role will make them happier and the team happier. The only thing that saddens me about this approach is that middle managers can earn more than senior engineers in tech companies, and sometimes becoming a manager or a lead is seen as a natural career progression path.
Promoveatur ut amoveatur, a time-tested strategy.
You don’t want too many incompetent people in management. This will result in your competent ICs becoming incredibly frustrated, leaving you with only the incompetent remaining. Good luck fixing that.
That can actually be a great solution.
It's way better than management with no technical skills whatsoever.
It's way better than management with no technical skills whatsoever.
Agreed. People who are "technical-enough to understand software but don't have quite the right mindset to write it well, but everybody likes working with them" are often excellent in developer-adjacent roles like business analyst. They grok the system well-enough to be able to talk requirements and work with both developers and stakeholders, and can go to bat for their team and win the stakeholders over when it's a case of "okay the developers think they have a neat way to meet your needs but it's not exactly what you asked for what do you think of this???"
I hate to admit that that’s who I am. I made a pretty OK career as Product Manager / Head of Product.
And I can tell that beeing nice is super important here as I deal daily with anything from customer, CEO, difficult stakeholders, sales and co.
So no I don’t think beeing incompetent but I had not the patience and grit for software development although I loved it.
Edit: Typo
So no I don’t think beeing incompetent but I had not the patience and grit for software development although I loved it.
Edit: Typo
Nothing to "hate to admit" there. A good product manager is worth their weight in gold, especially one with enough knowledge of what's going on under the hood to understand the technical tradeoffs the developers are making in order to meet requirements.
Patience/grit in a very specific way.
I don’t know who I’m quoting. But being able to stare at a screen for hours is the key. Relentlessly technical? Stubborn hacker?
It’s definitely not an intelligence thing. Being smart helps, but the amount of time you can passionately power through figuring out technical minutiae is often the limiting factor.
I don’t know who I’m quoting. But being able to stare at a screen for hours is the key. Relentlessly technical? Stubborn hacker?
It’s definitely not an intelligence thing. Being smart helps, but the amount of time you can passionately power through figuring out technical minutiae is often the limiting factor.
> but I’ve almost never seen it attempted
The vast majority of people don't want to have a different job than the one they signed up for.
If you sign up for engineering, you don't want sales. And vice versa. 99% of the time.
The vast majority of people don't want to have a different job than the one they signed up for.
If you sign up for engineering, you don't want sales. And vice versa. 99% of the time.
This has not been my experience - I have known a number of people that were in engineering and were asked to try sales and really enjoyed it. I've known fewer (only one that I can think of) that went the other direction. The best CEO I ever worked with had a real talent for getting people into the right jobs where they could be successful (which solves the "incompetent but nice" problem because "incompetent" is a function of the job they are being asked to do), which was sometimes a very different role than they originally signed up for. People stayed longer and were happier when they were in roles where they could be successful. It is unfortunate that many managers are hesitant to move people into different jobs than they originally signed up for. If the alternative is firing them because they aren't competent, finding a place where they can be successful is a much better option.
People also don’t want to be fired. I think there’s a lot of value left on the table from people getting fired from jobs and getting similar jobs somewhere else that they’re also not great at because they can’t break out of a self image.
You'd think so, but not really
More engineer than salesman, I see
More empiricist than theorist.
It's rare because it is usually illegal if they don't consent to a role change which is out of job description and not clearly a promotion (it's called constructive dismissal, an otherwise deviously clever way of forcing someone to quit instead of having to fire them)
I don't know that constructive dismissal raises to the level of 'illegal', it's effectively the same as firing them.
I mean if you do this, and they quit and file for unemployment, it's the same outcome as if you fired them right?
I mean if you do this, and they quit and file for unemployment, it's the same outcome as if you fired them right?
No, if they quit they can’t file for unemployment.
It’s illegal in Canada I don’t know about other countries. Quitting is not the same as firing, no.
It’s illegal in Canada I don’t know about other countries. Quitting is not the same as firing, no.
I think your framing makes it seem like the negative impact of failure comes just from the judgement of others - I'd say it's much easier to build a positive self-image if you remove yourself from the environment in which you were found to be unfit.
I’m not sure what you mean. Is it that these people wouldn’t have a positive self image if they were in a role that’s a bad fit?
Sometimes I’ve thought of that and realized how it would be wrong to label them as incompetent when they’d be a star at something else. Other times I imagine they’d somehow still have high self esteem and handle this situation super well and I try to figure what that would look like.
Sometimes I’ve thought of that and realized how it would be wrong to label them as incompetent when they’d be a star at something else. Other times I imagine they’d somehow still have high self esteem and handle this situation super well and I try to figure what that would look like.
Making a job for a person is something that should be done rarely surely? Getting a person for a job is better approach.
If you’re “making” a job, it’s not going to work.
Compared to a new candidate, you’re getting tighter ranges on their attributes and different means. Skill is more known and expected lower. Personal compatibility is more known and expected higher. You also save a one time cost of interviewing and onboarding.
You should not usually do this. It’s just an option to consider.
Compared to a new candidate, you’re getting tighter ranges on their attributes and different means. Skill is more known and expected lower. Personal compatibility is more known and expected higher. You also save a one time cost of interviewing and onboarding.
You should not usually do this. It’s just an option to consider.
These discussions usually focus on incompetent developers, but in my experience there are way more incompetent managers/product people. I have run into multiple socially skillful liberal arts majors with zero experience or interest in tech working as pms. They don't understand the work enough to actually be effective, but while the developers do the work they are in meetings with managers all day, and consequently are the ones to get promoted to management. Then when it comes time to hire, they hire more people like themselves and the cycle repeats.
They are never held accountable for hiring a bunch of pms instead of developers. If something fails, some hapless junior dev will get sacrificed for being "incompetent" when in reality the problem was management.
They are never held accountable for hiring a bunch of pms instead of developers. If something fails, some hapless junior dev will get sacrificed for being "incompetent" when in reality the problem was management.
This is why this discussion is usually fruitless, it assumes a situation which never exists (this idea that people are hiring incompetent but nice devs over the reverse, or vice versa entirely). But what is a reality, is that without a competent manager, your entire team of variable competency is being set up for failure.
No, the reality is that there are many more incompetent nice people than competent jerks, and management is not the factor. My experience has been that despite the few jerks, 98% of the people on every team and every company are nice and well-intentioned. Then within the huge majority of nice people, there's always some who just don't move the ball forward, no matter the task put to them. And they sit on the same team with others who do get good (or great) work done. It's the manager who is now incompetent because some people can't ever get out of first gear?
> It's the manager who is now incompetent because some people can't ever get out of first gear?
Yes. Using your own words "no matter the task put to them". So who is in charge of assigning tasks? How does this person assign tasks? When tasks fail to hit deadlines due to incompetent members, what happens who handles that?
You're right that there are many more incompetent nice people in general, but management is the only factor.
Incompetent team members can learn and grow from their much more competent counterparts, but not when the manager is incompetent. The manager has to actively be aware of member strengths and weaknesses to know where to assign them for best maximizing their value to the company. Without this, even competent members will wind up burning out very quickly and leaving.
Yes. Using your own words "no matter the task put to them". So who is in charge of assigning tasks? How does this person assign tasks? When tasks fail to hit deadlines due to incompetent members, what happens who handles that?
You're right that there are many more incompetent nice people in general, but management is the only factor.
Incompetent team members can learn and grow from their much more competent counterparts, but not when the manager is incompetent. The manager has to actively be aware of member strengths and weaknesses to know where to assign them for best maximizing their value to the company. Without this, even competent members will wind up burning out very quickly and leaving.
I agree that there's a ton of incompetent managers. The standard failure model for managers is not contributing anything of value. But I think you're way off base to say that management is the only factor that decides whether an engineer (we're talking about software, right?) is productive or not. Explain why a team has 5 awesome engineers who get a ton done, 8 who do just fine, and the one who everyone likes but everyone also knows they're not contributing much -- and they're all under the same manager.
I find the total lack of personal responsibility in discussions like this to be downright shocking. Again, I don't disagree that a manager can be useless, and even do active harm to a team and individuals (seen this many many times). But the notion that an individual who isn't pulling their weight, it's 100% the manager's fault... I fail to see how that could be remotely true as a general rule.
I find the total lack of personal responsibility in discussions like this to be downright shocking. Again, I don't disagree that a manager can be useless, and even do active harm to a team and individuals (seen this many many times). But the notion that an individual who isn't pulling their weight, it's 100% the manager's fault... I fail to see how that could be remotely true as a general rule.
You forget management chooses who they work with, and chooses the parameters (like pay, perf, who is in the team to begin with, how the team is split ...).
You're complaining that a manager can't be held responsible for the consequences of the most important decisions they make. I don't agree.
You're complaining that a manager can't be held responsible for the consequences of the most important decisions they make. I don't agree.
I think you're overestimating how much control of those parameters managers usually have. The employee was often hired years before by someone else, etc. And it's not so easy to move people around between orgs -- say you have someone on your team who isn't doing great, but they might be good in a very different team... it's not trivial to just move them there. There might not be headcount over there, they might not actually need help, they may be concerned by the employee's current low performance and not want to risk it. There's a number of complications.
But, this was the statement I took issue with:
> management is the only factor
Managers should certainly be accountable for the actions they take or fail to take in 1) evaluating performance, 2) providing continuous and constructive guidance, 3) raising concerns if performance is poor, and 4) taking active steps to communicate and work with employee to improve if performance is poor. If you don't spot problems or ignore them, you're not doing your job as a manager.
But the original statement from parent comment was: The employee bears no responsibility, and it's the manager's fault if someone isn't delivering. ??
But, this was the statement I took issue with:
> management is the only factor
Managers should certainly be accountable for the actions they take or fail to take in 1) evaluating performance, 2) providing continuous and constructive guidance, 3) raising concerns if performance is poor, and 4) taking active steps to communicate and work with employee to improve if performance is poor. If you don't spot problems or ignore them, you're not doing your job as a manager.
But the original statement from parent comment was: The employee bears no responsibility, and it's the manager's fault if someone isn't delivering. ??
> But the original statement from parent comment was: The employee bears no responsibility, and it's the manager's fault if someone isn't delivering. ??
A lot of employees feels the problems that lead to them not delivering are completely outside their control. In the cases I've seen this, they're mostly right.
Some are outside problems, true, problems outside of work. But mostly, they either have bullshit jobs, or are being sabotaged.
So they don't feel very responsible. A lot of them tried feeling responsible, and doing something, but were punished for this. Most compensate by moving on, which can mean a new job, but mostly it means just stopping to care about their job.
A lot of employees feels the problems that lead to them not delivering are completely outside their control. In the cases I've seen this, they're mostly right.
Some are outside problems, true, problems outside of work. But mostly, they either have bullshit jobs, or are being sabotaged.
So they don't feel very responsible. A lot of them tried feeling responsible, and doing something, but were punished for this. Most compensate by moving on, which can mean a new job, but mostly it means just stopping to care about their job.
Yep. I've seen it happen many times. (A good PM is worth their weight in gold though.)
This is a good time to bring up General H¹²
His quadrant scheme was Clever vs. Stupid and Hardworking vs. Lazy
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
[1] what short name would you use for "General Kurt Gebhard Adolf Philipp Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord"?
[2] opposed to hitler, btw
His quadrant scheme was Clever vs. Stupid and Hardworking vs. Lazy
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
[1] what short name would you use for "General Kurt Gebhard Adolf Philipp Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord"?
[2] opposed to hitler, btw
An extended writing on this idea, the Gervais principle: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
[1] The Hammer
The problem with Nice/Jerk is it's purely subjective. Whenever you hear a peer review that says "They're a jerk" you, as a people leader, need to be very on guard about the situation
1. The person making the claim maybe poorly calibrated, burnt out, or have an ego
2. In so far as peers compete for political will and promotions they have a vested interest to use whatever weapons they can against others, subjective / data free ones are the low hanging fruit
3. The person being called a jerk maybe desperately trying to fix something -- the tech debt, the broken culture, overwork/oncall etc. attacking their character in this scenario is the work equivalent of victim blaming
The truth is it's maddening being the only (or minority) competent ones in the room, and with apathetic peers suddenly you're the jerk because they'd rather rest and vest than do effortful things to improve the situation.
In my matrix doing the job is the base line. Can you do the job? Are you doing the job well? Are you not being blatantly terrible? (disagreeable is fine, abusive is not) Veing able to do the job is necessary, else there's not point carrying your dead weight.
1. The person making the claim maybe poorly calibrated, burnt out, or have an ego
2. In so far as peers compete for political will and promotions they have a vested interest to use whatever weapons they can against others, subjective / data free ones are the low hanging fruit
3. The person being called a jerk maybe desperately trying to fix something -- the tech debt, the broken culture, overwork/oncall etc. attacking their character in this scenario is the work equivalent of victim blaming
The truth is it's maddening being the only (or minority) competent ones in the room, and with apathetic peers suddenly you're the jerk because they'd rather rest and vest than do effortful things to improve the situation.
In my matrix doing the job is the base line. Can you do the job? Are you doing the job well? Are you not being blatantly terrible? (disagreeable is fine, abusive is not) Veing able to do the job is necessary, else there's not point carrying your dead weight.
So, you are explaining that the person that says "they're a jerk" is, basically, a jerk. So you are saying "they're a jerk". So what you say should be apply to you?
There is also the possibility that maerF0x0 has found himself surrounded by the people the article is pointing at a lot in his professional life.
And the possibility that the author of this article has found himself surrounded by people like maerF0x0 ...
The point is that it's a very subjective measure and, like all subjective measures, require a great deal of care when acting upon its signals.
I don't think many realise but most people are incompetent sometimes. We all go through phases of varying productivity and it can swing from one extreme to the other. It happens when people have kids, discover hobbies, get burnt out, have an existential crisis etc. At any one time 1/10 usually-good people will be like this.
An effective strategy for dealing with this in an organisation is to move quick and minimise damage. When the shit hits the fan and this starts causing problems, its usually not because a person didnt do any work, but because they did crap work that burdened others. This is especially difficult in engineering. You can identify this and get them off the line quickly, then take the time to figure out whats happening and assist them back on track.
The development of a culture that doesn't incentive people to hoard power helps, the last thing you want is a person performing badly to be in some critical role. People should be able to back down / step up depending on their current "phase"
An effective strategy for dealing with this in an organisation is to move quick and minimise damage. When the shit hits the fan and this starts causing problems, its usually not because a person didnt do any work, but because they did crap work that burdened others. This is especially difficult in engineering. You can identify this and get them off the line quickly, then take the time to figure out whats happening and assist them back on track.
The development of a culture that doesn't incentive people to hoard power helps, the last thing you want is a person performing badly to be in some critical role. People should be able to back down / step up depending on their current "phase"
Beware the incompetent, their powers are hidden, and you can't imagine what they will do to survive.
Source: decade+ consulting in govt.
Source: decade+ consulting in govt.
>govt.
So far in this thread I've only seen mention of:
But I as well as family and friends have also encountered the other variations, and more often than rarely. Incidentially a close relative has just had this experience in a public sector job (Health Care, Europe):
Person in question is
- "I'll have to fire either You or the full rest of the team, but as I need hands I have only one option."
(I have seen flavours of this happening in big private enterprises too, so it's not reserved for public/govt. jobs IMHO)
So far in this thread I've only seen mention of:
- INcompetent and nice
- competent and NOT nice
But I as well as family and friends have also encountered the other variations, and more often than rarely. Incidentially a close relative has just had this experience in a public sector job (Health Care, Europe):
Person in question is
- competent and nice (as regards to her field of work and work ethic)
- INcompetent and NOT nice
- INcompetent and nice
- "I'll have to fire either You or the full rest of the team, but as I need hands I have only one option."
(I have seen flavours of this happening in big private enterprises too, so it's not reserved for public/govt. jobs IMHO)
truth. ran into countless managers who are utterly incompetent but have a stranglehold over their position. of the few i got to know well, it seems intentional. they know they can't win on the competence axis, so they find their way into hiring roundtables, diversity groups, afterwork events, support critical initiatives, etc.
Yeah, I wish incompetent jerks were fired quickly. Working in finance has taught me they rarely are.
Yes, but that's government for you.
A government is just a very big organization. Armies are big organizations, corporations are usually mid sized, small firms are small.
There is no magic border that separates these entities, and no the fact that some are for-profit and some are not doesn't change much the day-to-day life of a cog in the machine.
There is no magic border that separates these entities, and no the fact that some are for-profit and some are not doesn't change much the day-to-day life of a cog in the machine.
"Incompetent" is very broad. I think you're going to let go of anyone who is somehow totally incompetent so I'm not sure that's a real case.
I think most of the time though, someone who appears incompetent is suffering from one of three things.
1) They are being tasked with things that simply don't align with their talents. For example, there are certain tasks which are just very mathy. You can pass college calculus and still suck pretty bad at lots of math. This is a case where someone else should be doing this task.
2) They are being tasked with problems which are out of their present ability to breakdown and solve. Essentially, they haven't learned to be an engineer.
3) They have a skills gap (as mentioned in the article they need to get better with a specific tool).
I think the thing that happens by far the most with people who get managed out is that they are a #2 but people try to help them as if they are a #3.
I have been in a situation many times where I have seen other leads giving tasks to their junior engineers and then getting frustrated when their subordinates don't make progress. They try to help by pointing them to tutorials, docs, etc. but what these people often need is someone to sit with them for a significant amount of time and demonstrate how one breaks a problem down, builds small pieces that demonstrate functionality and then put those pieces together into a solution.
This is expensive because it takes time. And it takes time from some of the most skilled people on the team. As often as I have seen people fail a team, I've seen teams fail people. A Pluralsight subscription is not a substitute for mentorship. Talking about networking and career planning is not mentorship (yes I believe it is important too).
I think most of the time though, someone who appears incompetent is suffering from one of three things.
1) They are being tasked with things that simply don't align with their talents. For example, there are certain tasks which are just very mathy. You can pass college calculus and still suck pretty bad at lots of math. This is a case where someone else should be doing this task.
2) They are being tasked with problems which are out of their present ability to breakdown and solve. Essentially, they haven't learned to be an engineer.
3) They have a skills gap (as mentioned in the article they need to get better with a specific tool).
I think the thing that happens by far the most with people who get managed out is that they are a #2 but people try to help them as if they are a #3.
I have been in a situation many times where I have seen other leads giving tasks to their junior engineers and then getting frustrated when their subordinates don't make progress. They try to help by pointing them to tutorials, docs, etc. but what these people often need is someone to sit with them for a significant amount of time and demonstrate how one breaks a problem down, builds small pieces that demonstrate functionality and then put those pieces together into a solution.
This is expensive because it takes time. And it takes time from some of the most skilled people on the team. As often as I have seen people fail a team, I've seen teams fail people. A Pluralsight subscription is not a substitute for mentorship. Talking about networking and career planning is not mentorship (yes I believe it is important too).
I think an increasingly common example of your "1)" scenario is when backend-heavy engineers are given frontend-heavy workloads, or vice-versa.
I know I've struggled in such a situation.
I say it will become increasingly common because I believe the gap between frontend and backend is growing, as frontend and backend stack choices become more complex and diverse.
The breadth of knowledge required to be a true "full stack" engineer is a multiple of what it used to be. A lot of folks calling themselves full stack engineers are kidding themselves, IMHO. I don't really see folks excelling at both aspects. Usually they excel at one half (at best) and are just slapping together sloppy crap on the other end.
I know I've struggled in such a situation.
I say it will become increasingly common because I believe the gap between frontend and backend is growing, as frontend and backend stack choices become more complex and diverse.
The breadth of knowledge required to be a true "full stack" engineer is a multiple of what it used to be. A lot of folks calling themselves full stack engineers are kidding themselves, IMHO. I don't really see folks excelling at both aspects. Usually they excel at one half (at best) and are just slapping together sloppy crap on the other end.
> I think you're going to let go of anyone who is somehow totally incompetent so I'm not sure that's a real case.
It's so hard even in that case, though. And I don't just mean hard from an HR/legal standpoint (which it is). Letting someone go (and the performance improvement plan that leads to that, and the Serious Concerns conversation before that) are all exhausting, emotionally draining, and difficult from the manager's side. You like this person. This person is trying. You want to help this person. You don't want them to have to go home and tell their spouse they were fired, if there's anything you can do to get them on track. And so there's a long road ahead before making the cut.
Maybe it's easier if someone is truly 100% incompetent, but usually there's something there that will make the manager want to believe in them.
It's so hard even in that case, though. And I don't just mean hard from an HR/legal standpoint (which it is). Letting someone go (and the performance improvement plan that leads to that, and the Serious Concerns conversation before that) are all exhausting, emotionally draining, and difficult from the manager's side. You like this person. This person is trying. You want to help this person. You don't want them to have to go home and tell their spouse they were fired, if there's anything you can do to get them on track. And so there's a long road ahead before making the cut.
Maybe it's easier if someone is truly 100% incompetent, but usually there's something there that will make the manager want to believe in them.
> but what these people often need is someone to sit with them for a significant amount of time and demonstrate how one breaks a problem down, builds small pieces that demonstrate functionality and then put those pieces together into a solution.
And what if this is done repeatedly for the junior engineer, and yet any initiative they show after that is still negligible?
And what if this is done repeatedly for the junior engineer, and yet any initiative they show after that is still negligible?
Then they are one of the exceptions?
I had to lay off an employee who was incompetent but nice. She was constantly anxious and paralyzed by blockers. I did everything I could to reduce her stress levels, give her mentors, ensure her work was reasonable and achievable. She could not make forwards progress unless she had a pair programmer basically doing the work for her.
She was in the wrong job at the wrong time. She didn't have the skillset to have a successful start. Her work patterns were unhealthy and ineffective. She couldn't learn how to unblock herself within the org, and became paralyzed by stress.
We had multiple people to compare her against who did not suffer from any of these challenges. I am sure she can find a job that will work for her, as she was nice and did have successful moments, but a fresh start was clearly needed.
She was in the wrong job at the wrong time. She didn't have the skillset to have a successful start. Her work patterns were unhealthy and ineffective. She couldn't learn how to unblock herself within the org, and became paralyzed by stress.
We had multiple people to compare her against who did not suffer from any of these challenges. I am sure she can find a job that will work for her, as she was nice and did have successful moments, but a fresh start was clearly needed.
For much of my career I fell into the incompetent but nice bucket. It turns out it was/is ADHD. I would be very interested in my new job, but after a few months I'd make no progress, have no outdoor and couldn't really put my finger on why. After multiple such jobs I ended up quite depressed, that certainly doesn't help with productivity.
Unfortunately, ADHD is not temporary. Most places will eventually let you go when you don't perform. The article is extremely generous in stating that firing is not the right choice, but for someone who is severely and permanently impaired I don't really know what the solution is either...
Unfortunately, ADHD is not temporary. Most places will eventually let you go when you don't perform. The article is extremely generous in stating that firing is not the right choice, but for someone who is severely and permanently impaired I don't really know what the solution is either...
To expand on this, part of ADHD is a disorder in "executive function". Attention, focus, impulse control, working memory, and flexibility are all part of that. Those are also all the things that make someone a worker with reliable output. (Or in different contexts: a competent student, parent, or partner)
And like you mentioned, it's not that folks with ADHD don't want to be reliable, it's that their brains are fundamentally different. They might not be informed about any of this either, and are then left to wonder why they can't do the things they want to do.
There are things that help though, similar to the way insulin helps those with diabetes, or how glasses help those with bad vision. There are medications, therapy, and mental tools.
I'd recommend those that may suspect something like this in themselves to talk to a doctor about it. A diagnosis and treatment could change your life. It changed mine.
And like you mentioned, it's not that folks with ADHD don't want to be reliable, it's that their brains are fundamentally different. They might not be informed about any of this either, and are then left to wonder why they can't do the things they want to do.
There are things that help though, similar to the way insulin helps those with diabetes, or how glasses help those with bad vision. There are medications, therapy, and mental tools.
I'd recommend those that may suspect something like this in themselves to talk to a doctor about it. A diagnosis and treatment could change your life. It changed mine.
I can relate to this. I know people who might call me "incompetent but nice" after having worked with me when my mental health was really bad. Figuring out how to work through my ADHD (and, manage to get real work done even when things get rough) is a constant battle.
For me solution was to always seek something new. For now is product management - I think it's a good choice for ADHD people. And yes ADHD is permanent but anxiety and depression can be treated - and often they are bigger problem than ADHD itself.
Neil Gaiman has a similar formulation with three criteria instead of two:
"People keep working, in a freelance world, and more and more of today's world is freelance,
- because their work is good, and
- because they are easy to get along with, and
- because they deliver the work on time.
And you don't even need all three. Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. They'll forgive the lateness of the work if it's good, and if they like you. And you don't have to be as good as the others if you're on time and it's always a pleasure to hear from you."
https://www.uarts.edu/neil-gaiman-keynote-address-2012
"People keep working, in a freelance world, and more and more of today's world is freelance,
- because their work is good, and
- because they are easy to get along with, and
- because they deliver the work on time.
And you don't even need all three. Two out of three is fine. People will tolerate how unpleasant you are if your work is good and you deliver it on time. They'll forgive the lateness of the work if it's good, and if they like you. And you don't have to be as good as the others if you're on time and it's always a pleasure to hear from you."
https://www.uarts.edu/neil-gaiman-keynote-address-2012
What is "nice", anyway?
We're all characters. At the end of the day, some people do need to be treated a little bit differently. It's not "unfair"/"unjust", it's just called being human.
If you fire everyone who isn't some homogenous nice person we'll have pretty boring teams.
Who hasn't worked with someone a little brash, a little odd, a little immature, but if you actually took the time to get to know them is a pretty good person overall?
I worked with an engineer who clipped his nails at his desk and took his coffee into the bathroom. Socially, he could be rude. Professionally, he did not take criticism well, and liked to do things "his" way. But he was also generous with his time if you needed help. If you broached things very delicately, he could take some feedback. He was given projects to work on that allowed him to work pretty independently. And his rudeness was probably just social awkwardness, as he could be alright if you had a chat with him one-on-one.
It didn't destroy team morale. Everyone recognised he was different. He wasn't a jerk, he just had autism and/or anxiety.
Someone once said to me "meet people where they are at".
We're all characters. At the end of the day, some people do need to be treated a little bit differently. It's not "unfair"/"unjust", it's just called being human.
If you fire everyone who isn't some homogenous nice person we'll have pretty boring teams.
Who hasn't worked with someone a little brash, a little odd, a little immature, but if you actually took the time to get to know them is a pretty good person overall?
I worked with an engineer who clipped his nails at his desk and took his coffee into the bathroom. Socially, he could be rude. Professionally, he did not take criticism well, and liked to do things "his" way. But he was also generous with his time if you needed help. If you broached things very delicately, he could take some feedback. He was given projects to work on that allowed him to work pretty independently. And his rudeness was probably just social awkwardness, as he could be alright if you had a chat with him one-on-one.
It didn't destroy team morale. Everyone recognised he was different. He wasn't a jerk, he just had autism and/or anxiety.
Someone once said to me "meet people where they are at".
> People who are good at the work but not very nice are the “brilliant asshole” archetype. I could write quite a bit about how our industry mostly gets this archetype wrong – spoiler alert: they mostly don’t exist – but that’s another article.
I would really like to see that article, because I've personally worked with a few brilliant jerks in my time. I'm still friends with most of them to this day. I guess I'm just good at working with them and ignoring their jerkiness, so I keep ending up working with them?
I'm not sure why the author says this but I've seen quite a few in my day.
I would really like to see that article, because I've personally worked with a few brilliant jerks in my time. I'm still friends with most of them to this day. I guess I'm just good at working with them and ignoring their jerkiness, so I keep ending up working with them?
I'm not sure why the author says this but I've seen quite a few in my day.
These are usually people that are high in Openness, low in Agreeableness and with above-average Psychoticism. I have more than a few friends that fall into this category (they're very difficult to find!), and they're all brilliant at whatever they decide to do. But they're very likely to not take your well-meaning advice, likely to think that you must be missing some context, and after that would still like you to know what they think about [X]. There's definitely some that are neurodiverse, but there are others that are very neurotypically successful. You can entice both of these with weird theories and conjectures, and it's necessary to at least know where their worldview leads but knowing the "base" of their worldview.
People of this kind are really only interesting when one has the bandwidth for long, potentially uncomfortable discussions, and when one is about as smart as the other guy.
People much smarter that average usually don't have the narc-y vibe (although I'm sure there's tons of them in academia) and they usually fall under the "Nice" category. Many of these people get looked over because normal people have a very difficult time understanding what they're saying, and are hence liable to putting them in the "incompetent" category.
People of this kind are really only interesting when one has the bandwidth for long, potentially uncomfortable discussions, and when one is about as smart as the other guy.
People much smarter that average usually don't have the narc-y vibe (although I'm sure there's tons of them in academia) and they usually fall under the "Nice" category. Many of these people get looked over because normal people have a very difficult time understanding what they're saying, and are hence liable to putting them in the "incompetent" category.
> narc-y vibe
I don't understand. Narcotics vibe?
...as for the rest of your post the carricature that you're painting looks awfully close to ... ME. I'm quite surprised by this as I always had the perception that I was "nice" regardless if I was "competent" in my current endeavour or not.
True, I veritably thrive in the company of highly competent people with a very direct manner of speech (even as direct as to be bordering on rude/sarcasm). I've always phrased it like "I like geeks". Over the years such company has not been the typical company for me so I've worked in roles where others were less than competent too - also in roles where I was the incompetent person (typically in intro while learning).
Being exposed to multiple types of colleagues and work roles/environments throughout some decades has allowed me to "soften up" some and if I may say so myself I tend to get along very well with "the normies" these days.
I see it as, like, people have priorities. And for a lot of people what they do on the job is not a priority in any other respect than to raise the financial means for whatever they do outside of work.
So they will (deliberately or not) aim for a competence/productivity level somewhere above the level that leads to layoffs but not much more. If they're intelligent that is.
And, saying this I also have to state that it seems like competence/productivity and intelligence need not be correlated that much.
I don't understand. Narcotics vibe?
...as for the rest of your post the carricature that you're painting looks awfully close to ... ME. I'm quite surprised by this as I always had the perception that I was "nice" regardless if I was "competent" in my current endeavour or not.
True, I veritably thrive in the company of highly competent people with a very direct manner of speech (even as direct as to be bordering on rude/sarcasm). I've always phrased it like "I like geeks". Over the years such company has not been the typical company for me so I've worked in roles where others were less than competent too - also in roles where I was the incompetent person (typically in intro while learning).
Being exposed to multiple types of colleagues and work roles/environments throughout some decades has allowed me to "soften up" some and if I may say so myself I tend to get along very well with "the normies" these days.
I see it as, like, people have priorities. And for a lot of people what they do on the job is not a priority in any other respect than to raise the financial means for whatever they do outside of work.
So they will (deliberately or not) aim for a competence/productivity level somewhere above the level that leads to layoffs but not much more. If they're intelligent that is.
And, saying this I also have to state that it seems like competence/productivity and intelligence need not be correlated that much.
Narc = narcissistic.
And yes, you sound like the kind of people I was describing, but you seem to be very conscentious and don't have executive dysfunction. Some of these people have (at times) crippling executive dysfunction owing to their extreme stubbornness, so if you were to ask two different people about them you'd get completely different opinions. Someone would say the guy was the dumbest idiot ever, a complete bore; the other would say that he was so very charming and full of wit. It's somewhat like a child's view of the world, giving up on keeping a mask, being direct and growig in a more organic fashion without looking for "anchors" for "self-growth".
And yes, you sound like the kind of people I was describing, but you seem to be very conscentious and don't have executive dysfunction. Some of these people have (at times) crippling executive dysfunction owing to their extreme stubbornness, so if you were to ask two different people about them you'd get completely different opinions. Someone would say the guy was the dumbest idiot ever, a complete bore; the other would say that he was so very charming and full of wit. It's somewhat like a child's view of the world, giving up on keeping a mask, being direct and growig in a more organic fashion without looking for "anchors" for "self-growth".
not OP. But in my experience there's a big gray area between "Brilliant/Nice" and "Brilliant/Asshole" quadrant where people who are very direct, have less patience for incompetence, or hold their coworkers to high standards go.
IMO these are the best people because they intervene before a company or team veers too far off course.
IMO these are the best people because they intervene before a company or team veers too far off course.
>I guess I'm just good at working with them and ignoring their jerkiness, so I keep ending up working with them?
This is definitely a skill. You can have, what seems to be, a bunch of jerks working together but they all have thick-skin so being a jerk to one another doesn't really affect any of them. Effectively hiring for this team is an exercise in finding people who think like they do.
Good meshing of personalities can override the predictions of the incompetent/niceness matrix in the article.
This is definitely a skill. You can have, what seems to be, a bunch of jerks working together but they all have thick-skin so being a jerk to one another doesn't really affect any of them. Effectively hiring for this team is an exercise in finding people who think like they do.
Good meshing of personalities can override the predictions of the incompetent/niceness matrix in the article.
I once worked with a "director of support" who was incompetent but nice. I was a lead developer. The problem was the director of support tried to treat me like level 2 support, they wouldn't do any problem solving, they wouldn't get clear explanation of problems from customers, they wouldn't collect the information we needed. (It was a small startup and "director of support" was a 1 person department with an outsourced assistant.)
But, this person was very, very nice to everyone. It made it harder to see the problem.
How I solved this: I sat down with the person and "explained common sense." I pointed out that, when they were on the phone with the customer, the customer wanted them to solve our problem. They needed to be an expert in our product so that they could do their best to solve the customer's problem on the phone without 4-6 back and forth. I also pointed out that it was very embarrassing for us to ask for "obvious" information after the initial support contact, when they knew that I would ask for "obvious" information. (Like a clear explanation of the problem, or just very basic clarifying questions.)
I then pointed out a very clear example where the director of support really dropped the ball. The customer was trying to share something and was typing in the wrong email address. I simply shouldn't have been involved, because the kind of troubleshooting I was doing was something that the "director of support" should be knowledgeable enough to diagnose, understand, and figure out.
They quit the next day.
But, this person was very, very nice to everyone. It made it harder to see the problem.
How I solved this: I sat down with the person and "explained common sense." I pointed out that, when they were on the phone with the customer, the customer wanted them to solve our problem. They needed to be an expert in our product so that they could do their best to solve the customer's problem on the phone without 4-6 back and forth. I also pointed out that it was very embarrassing for us to ask for "obvious" information after the initial support contact, when they knew that I would ask for "obvious" information. (Like a clear explanation of the problem, or just very basic clarifying questions.)
I then pointed out a very clear example where the director of support really dropped the ball. The customer was trying to share something and was typing in the wrong email address. I simply shouldn't have been involved, because the kind of troubleshooting I was doing was something that the "director of support" should be knowledgeable enough to diagnose, understand, and figure out.
They quit the next day.
Incompetent but Nice people I've worked with:
1. Nice, but clearly (in retrospect unfortunately) had some kind of executive function disorder like ADHD. I fired them and, later, helped them get their next job which they excelled at. They bought me a beer when they got promoted.
2. Really Nice, just had terrible long term memory, would constantly forget critical details about what they were working on. They wrote everything down but couldn't process it into long term memory, they would even forget they wrote it down. Could fix small bugs all day but couldn't work on anything that required multiple days of effort as they would forget everything by the next morning.
3. Really Nice, could not work remote. Sort of combo of the first two, bad memory and bad focus.
4. Really Nice, worked with them at a previous company, totally burnt out before coming in at the new place. I literally could not believe it was their code that a co-worker was complaining about and had to check the commit logs. Actually, this has happened twice to me.
In general, the bigger problem is nice but on the threshold between good and competent ... those people stay on forever and can drain a lot of resources as you try to move them fully into the "nice and competent" category.
1. Nice, but clearly (in retrospect unfortunately) had some kind of executive function disorder like ADHD. I fired them and, later, helped them get their next job which they excelled at. They bought me a beer when they got promoted.
2. Really Nice, just had terrible long term memory, would constantly forget critical details about what they were working on. They wrote everything down but couldn't process it into long term memory, they would even forget they wrote it down. Could fix small bugs all day but couldn't work on anything that required multiple days of effort as they would forget everything by the next morning.
3. Really Nice, could not work remote. Sort of combo of the first two, bad memory and bad focus.
4. Really Nice, worked with them at a previous company, totally burnt out before coming in at the new place. I literally could not believe it was their code that a co-worker was complaining about and had to check the commit logs. Actually, this has happened twice to me.
In general, the bigger problem is nice but on the threshold between good and competent ... those people stay on forever and can drain a lot of resources as you try to move them fully into the "nice and competent" category.
Interesting that you had to fire the person with ADHD. I guess you can't exactly talk to them about being medicated.
I didn't know they had ADHD at the time (still don't know for sure), this was almost 30 years ago so ADD wasn't really well know at the time, they may also have not known they had this issue either.
I've always liked working with competent jerks, by which I mean "more competent than me". I assume their jerk-ness isn't that they blame me for their mistakes - but no CJ has ever done that to me (only incompetent jerks).
I have very limited experience of running organisations. But I think that if your organisation is small, then it can't afford incompetent people, even if they're nice. That means that I think that to run a small organisation, you have to be a jerk, otherwise you're incompetent.
I failed to sack a probationary employee before the probabtion period ended; I thought he would come up to scratch. Also, I had no taste for sacking people. I was wrong, and I cost the company money. I was nice, and I should have been a jerk. Ergo, I'm not competent to run a small organisation.
[Edit] Incompetent people, however nice, are a permanent drag on everything. If they can't be taught, then they have to be removed. You can't make your other staff carry them forever.
I have very limited experience of running organisations. But I think that if your organisation is small, then it can't afford incompetent people, even if they're nice. That means that I think that to run a small organisation, you have to be a jerk, otherwise you're incompetent.
I failed to sack a probationary employee before the probabtion period ended; I thought he would come up to scratch. Also, I had no taste for sacking people. I was wrong, and I cost the company money. I was nice, and I should have been a jerk. Ergo, I'm not competent to run a small organisation.
[Edit] Incompetent people, however nice, are a permanent drag on everything. If they can't be taught, then they have to be removed. You can't make your other staff carry them forever.
Firing people doesn't make you a jerk.
Your decision cost the company and likely also that person. You kept him on in a position he was either going to still get fired from, quit, or cost the company more than his paycheck.
All because you didn't want him to have a bad opinion of you. You wanted to seem like a good guy so you avoided doing the thing everyone needed done. You caused everyone way more problems for your selfish ego.
That's a jerk move. You weren't really nice.
The nice thing to do would have been to acknowledge the hard truth in front of you and cut him during the probationary period.
Your decision cost the company and likely also that person. You kept him on in a position he was either going to still get fired from, quit, or cost the company more than his paycheck.
All because you didn't want him to have a bad opinion of you. You wanted to seem like a good guy so you avoided doing the thing everyone needed done. You caused everyone way more problems for your selfish ego.
That's a jerk move. You weren't really nice.
The nice thing to do would have been to acknowledge the hard truth in front of you and cut him during the probationary period.
I wasn't trying to be nice; I was trying to do the right thing. It had nothing to do with me caring about his opinion of me.
He was a career academic, this was his first job on the coalface. I really thought he'd improve. Of course, I didn't want to fire him, because I wouldn't want to be fired myself. So there was a strong element of wishful thinking, of which I was fully aware. Basically I took the "easy path", so I was lazy, although I didn't see it that way at the time.
Your remark about my ego is simply wrong, not justified by what little you know about me from my comment, and insulting.
FWIW, I had discussed this fellow with my own manager, who was on the other side of the Atlantic. His attitude was that it was entirely my decision; I think that was meant as some kind of management training - like, "toughening me up". This manager told me that he loved firing people.
I personally liked my manager, but I think he was a jerk, and not a good manager. He was very technically competent. One day he turned against me for reasons I never learned. There was a redundancy programme just starting, and I left with a nicer redundancy package than I'd have got if I'd waited (every cloud...).
He was a career academic, this was his first job on the coalface. I really thought he'd improve. Of course, I didn't want to fire him, because I wouldn't want to be fired myself. So there was a strong element of wishful thinking, of which I was fully aware. Basically I took the "easy path", so I was lazy, although I didn't see it that way at the time.
Your remark about my ego is simply wrong, not justified by what little you know about me from my comment, and insulting.
FWIW, I had discussed this fellow with my own manager, who was on the other side of the Atlantic. His attitude was that it was entirely my decision; I think that was meant as some kind of management training - like, "toughening me up". This manager told me that he loved firing people.
I personally liked my manager, but I think he was a jerk, and not a good manager. He was very technically competent. One day he turned against me for reasons I never learned. There was a redundancy programme just starting, and I left with a nicer redundancy package than I'd have got if I'd waited (every cloud...).
No wants to be fired. No one wants to lose a game either. But it happens. People get fired. People quit.
Seeing yourself in him is investing him with your ego. This is not an insult, it's the core of the behavior. It is why we do these things. They are ego-preserving actions we take. Because I'm literally talking about your sense of self and not using it in a colloquial sense.
And seeing yourself in him is what you are doing when you say you didn't want to fire him because you wouldn't want to be fired. You are saying he should feel a certain way because you would feel a certain way. You are the Platonic person other people are templated off of.
And you can deny it, but all the reasons you give circle it. We often care too much about how we are perceived by others and often try to influence that even though we have very little control over it.
One should not love firing people either. That's a whole other thing.
Seeing yourself in him is investing him with your ego. This is not an insult, it's the core of the behavior. It is why we do these things. They are ego-preserving actions we take. Because I'm literally talking about your sense of self and not using it in a colloquial sense.
And seeing yourself in him is what you are doing when you say you didn't want to fire him because you wouldn't want to be fired. You are saying he should feel a certain way because you would feel a certain way. You are the Platonic person other people are templated off of.
And you can deny it, but all the reasons you give circle it. We often care too much about how we are perceived by others and often try to influence that even though we have very little control over it.
One should not love firing people either. That's a whole other thing.
my best mentors were brilliant assholes.
assholes respect competence and push out shitty performers.
we've all been sold a lie.
assholes respect competence and push out shitty performers.
we've all been sold a lie.
In other words, brilliant jerks don't BS you and tell you like it is. An admirable trait in my experience. And when you finally prove your worth to a brilliant jerk there tends to be a level of respect.
In my experience, you give these people a long leash and lots of help to try and find a role where they can make some sort of positive impact, but if they are truly incompetent at everything you have to let them go.
Two reasons:
1. At least in some cases they know they're not doing a good job and they likely have anxiety about when they're going to get let go. Ripping the bandaid off and firing them is kind of putting them out of their misery.
2. Probably the more common scenario is that the Nice Guy's incompetence starts to affect the people around them. If Nice Guy is so incompetent that other people have to pick up their slack and fix their mistakes people end up getting upset that they have to do extra work to address Nice Guy's shortcomings. If you remove Nice Guy from anything meaningful and only give them work with no deadlines or consequences for failure, other people eventually start to resent the fact that Nice Guy gets all the easy work.
Two reasons:
1. At least in some cases they know they're not doing a good job and they likely have anxiety about when they're going to get let go. Ripping the bandaid off and firing them is kind of putting them out of their misery.
2. Probably the more common scenario is that the Nice Guy's incompetence starts to affect the people around them. If Nice Guy is so incompetent that other people have to pick up their slack and fix their mistakes people end up getting upset that they have to do extra work to address Nice Guy's shortcomings. If you remove Nice Guy from anything meaningful and only give them work with no deadlines or consequences for failure, other people eventually start to resent the fact that Nice Guy gets all the easy work.
One of my frustrations is incompetent but nice people, but defined more like: can’t be trusted to not have their work checked but is adept at social games. When your manager, you cannot ‘just do’ anything they ask because it wouldn’t of been thought through, when your colleague, you can’t brainstorm with them or trust anything from them has been done to minimum viable. This requires people to push back, but doing so risks being seen as a jerk, and risks actually becoming a jerk if you one day realise how much of your time is babysitting.
But they play golf with your boss, they make friends with people (instead of working), it’s always someone else’s fault that something went wrong. Which is to say these people form cliques, and they gossip constantly to develop and maintain in and out groups. They play favourites something shocking too, and focus on the weaknesses of people they’re threatened by and point them out constantly. They seem nice, but imo I’ve seen highly competent but direct and mission focused teams be reduced to petty infighting and guarded position jostling in less than a month upon the hiring of just one such person.
Hey, am I, or we, actually talking about autistic traits vs narcissistic traits? Not sure. Wasn’t my intention going in, just wanted to point out that nice people have coping strategies too, and their incompetence might just be that they don’t prioritise trying to be good at their job and find their success in ways I personally find manipulative and toxic far more than someone being directly rude.
To reword the top comment: the incompetent destroy team morale, make good people leave, and paralyse junior employees and those lacking confidence/assertiveness. They may contribute to a friendly environment, but they burden others. Jerks, as long as they are not so jerky as to be abusive, can at least contribute to a strong team culture by stripping away uncertainty and fluff and make less assertive but competent people want to show up and succeed.
Final reword: the need for jerks increases the more BS is in the system. A system with enough BS will produce jerks out of necessity.
Hey, am I, or we, actually talking about autistic traits vs narcissistic traits? Not sure. Wasn’t my intention going in, just wanted to point out that nice people have coping strategies too, and their incompetence might just be that they don’t prioritise trying to be good at their job and find their success in ways I personally find manipulative and toxic far more than someone being directly rude.
To reword the top comment: the incompetent destroy team morale, make good people leave, and paralyse junior employees and those lacking confidence/assertiveness. They may contribute to a friendly environment, but they burden others. Jerks, as long as they are not so jerky as to be abusive, can at least contribute to a strong team culture by stripping away uncertainty and fluff and make less assertive but competent people want to show up and succeed.
Final reword: the need for jerks increases the more BS is in the system. A system with enough BS will produce jerks out of necessity.
This category of people that you call "incompetent but nice" is the category that I personally chose to label:
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367245
- INcompetent and NOT nice
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35367245
This [0] came to mind:
"He is then told by another Official about Tortuous Convolvulus, a natural troublemaker whose mere presence causes arguments, quarrels and fights."
I've found the "competent but nice" crowd is actually usually:
1. Too mentally ill to do ANY job. ( 99.9% of the time it is just untreated anxiety or ADHD they have avoided treatment for )
2. Not doing any work and deflecting when people start to smell their stink.
Either way: this "nice but incompetent" person stresses out, nay, TORTURES the rest of the team trying to wipe their ass and keep them afloat.
"They're nice but..." No they aren't nice. They are emotional vampires sucking the blood from the rest of the team. Put them on a PIP, and if they don't improve fire them.
I've seen enough ruined dreams and burned out engineers to no longer feel pity for the "nice but..." people. I cannot be atlas carrying the burden of everyone else's problems. And it is unfair for someone to ask that of me.
1. Too mentally ill to do ANY job. ( 99.9% of the time it is just untreated anxiety or ADHD they have avoided treatment for )
2. Not doing any work and deflecting when people start to smell their stink.
Either way: this "nice but incompetent" person stresses out, nay, TORTURES the rest of the team trying to wipe their ass and keep them afloat.
"They're nice but..." No they aren't nice. They are emotional vampires sucking the blood from the rest of the team. Put them on a PIP, and if they don't improve fire them.
I've seen enough ruined dreams and burned out engineers to no longer feel pity for the "nice but..." people. I cannot be atlas carrying the burden of everyone else's problems. And it is unfair for someone to ask that of me.
The only thing I don't like about this is that we are in an industry with the highest pays for these "incompetent but nice" people.
Coming from a poor family, with a background of financial struggles, it always upsets me how kind we all are with nice and incompetent people while they are earning their 100k+$ for no value they deliver.
They most probably both are privileged and get paid more, than 90% of world population. They are just utterly lazy. So why do they deserve the $$$$?
I unfortunately fall in the category of "brilliant asshole", based on the feedbacks. And this is mostly coming from the bitterness that is triggered by the "incompetent but nice". The other "brilliants" and "the bests" like to work with me and I also love them.
At my current job, I'm asked to work on myself on a daily basis because of this. But deep down I feel I won't ever be "cured" from it; I'll be kind to the "incompetent but nice" but will always loathe their laziness.
Coming from a poor family, with a background of financial struggles, it always upsets me how kind we all are with nice and incompetent people while they are earning their 100k+$ for no value they deliver.
They most probably both are privileged and get paid more, than 90% of world population. They are just utterly lazy. So why do they deserve the $$$$?
I unfortunately fall in the category of "brilliant asshole", based on the feedbacks. And this is mostly coming from the bitterness that is triggered by the "incompetent but nice". The other "brilliants" and "the bests" like to work with me and I also love them.
At my current job, I'm asked to work on myself on a daily basis because of this. But deep down I feel I won't ever be "cured" from it; I'll be kind to the "incompetent but nice" but will always loathe their laziness.
Here’s some unsolicited career advice.
First of all, your feelings are completely valid. It’s perfectly reasonable you feel the way you do.
But, those aren’t feelings you need to express outwards or let other people know you have. Think very carefully about what you want to say, say exactly that, and keep your mouth shut for everything else.
Silently hate everyone in your heart - you’re not a bad person for this. But if you open your mouth about (and what do even gain from that?) then you risk flushing your career down the toilet when you run into the wrong executive
First of all, your feelings are completely valid. It’s perfectly reasonable you feel the way you do.
But, those aren’t feelings you need to express outwards or let other people know you have. Think very carefully about what you want to say, say exactly that, and keep your mouth shut for everything else.
Silently hate everyone in your heart - you’re not a bad person for this. But if you open your mouth about (and what do even gain from that?) then you risk flushing your career down the toilet when you run into the wrong executive
Your advice is great I think. Indeed, this is one of the steps I took already, by simply leaving most of the slack channels I used to hang around on.
No exposure to information, no chance to reflect (rephrase my opinion) on them. Win-win for the company, the colleagues and myself.
I wouldn't go as far as I "silently hate everyone in my heart", though :-) But clearly I (we all) have to be mindful about communication with colleagues and that executive you mention, and not to think they are friends of yours who you are expected (as Plato taught) to reflect on.
No exposure to information, no chance to reflect (rephrase my opinion) on them. Win-win for the company, the colleagues and myself.
I wouldn't go as far as I "silently hate everyone in my heart", though :-) But clearly I (we all) have to be mindful about communication with colleagues and that executive you mention, and not to think they are friends of yours who you are expected (as Plato taught) to reflect on.
Teams over individuals. Stop evaluating individuals in a vacuum, and evaluate them in team dynamics.
Sometimes the incompetent nice person multiplies the productivity of a team through morale, creativity and by offloading simpler tasks from more competent people.
The same goes for the competent jerk, who can be a 10x in output but also 1/100 overall by creating a completely toxic environment.
Sometimes the incompetent nice person multiplies the productivity of a team through morale, creativity and by offloading simpler tasks from more competent people.
The same goes for the competent jerk, who can be a 10x in output but also 1/100 overall by creating a completely toxic environment.
Damn near everything about human behavior makes more sense if you look at humans as almost eusocial like ants, where the meaningful unit of evolutionary fitness is an entire tribe.
(My pet theory is that the entire reason humans have such insane metastasized intelligence relative to other species is that we got ourselves into an evolutionary arms race with ourselves where we needed greater and greater intelligence in order to distinguish in-group people in our tribe from bad actors in other tribes trying to exploit us. Ants are lucky because each colony just smells different.)
(My pet theory is that the entire reason humans have such insane metastasized intelligence relative to other species is that we got ourselves into an evolutionary arms race with ourselves where we needed greater and greater intelligence in order to distinguish in-group people in our tribe from bad actors in other tribes trying to exploit us. Ants are lucky because each colony just smells different.)
Don't confuse "polite and friendly" with "nice". And don't confuse "terseness" with "jerkness".
We do no one a kindness when we allow someone to continue to make mistakes that could be prevented. Sometimes, the kindness is letting them fail. To feel the weight of the mistake. So they gain the experience they need. So sometimes, we need to tell someone simply "No". And some people will call you a jerk for that.
On the other hand, after you've spent so many resources attempting to train someone, continued incompetence is not "being nice". Someone who is truly nice would see that the skill is beyond them and remove themselves. Only a jerk would insist on maintaining a position they've demonstrated a repeated inability to perform. And only a jerk would try keeping them there.
Incompetent but nice does not exist. Or, if it does, it does not exist for long. Either the person stops being incompetent or they stop being nice.
We do no one a kindness when we allow someone to continue to make mistakes that could be prevented. Sometimes, the kindness is letting them fail. To feel the weight of the mistake. So they gain the experience they need. So sometimes, we need to tell someone simply "No". And some people will call you a jerk for that.
On the other hand, after you've spent so many resources attempting to train someone, continued incompetence is not "being nice". Someone who is truly nice would see that the skill is beyond them and remove themselves. Only a jerk would insist on maintaining a position they've demonstrated a repeated inability to perform. And only a jerk would try keeping them there.
Incompetent but nice does not exist. Or, if it does, it does not exist for long. Either the person stops being incompetent or they stop being nice.
There are many factors that contribute to being good to your job, or I think more accurately, being perceived as being good at your job. Impossible deadlines, unrealistic client expectations, bad organizational policies and procedures... the list goes on. I'd argue that being nice to people is always your choice, whereas being perceived as competent is not always up to you.
Measuring performance is also not entirely straightforward and objective as we want it to be, and the two axes may blend into each other when it comes time for reviews. In a peer review scenario, that nice colleague gets a boost.
There are also varying degrees and types of incompetence. If someone is willing to learn, that's a lot different than someone who is knowingly slacking off and relying on others to pick up the slack. I'd argue that the latter is not exactly "nice" behavior.
Measuring performance is also not entirely straightforward and objective as we want it to be, and the two axes may blend into each other when it comes time for reviews. In a peer review scenario, that nice colleague gets a boost.
There are also varying degrees and types of incompetence. If someone is willing to learn, that's a lot different than someone who is knowingly slacking off and relying on others to pick up the slack. I'd argue that the latter is not exactly "nice" behavior.
Incompetent deserves further classification. Are they dragging other people down, or just not meeting the expectations set by their company. But I'd say that in a functional company, this person will be fired eventually. The evaluation process should be designed as to avoid biases and employees assessed based on their contribution and output. In that sense, a jerk could be seen as problematic for the well-being of the team, but being nice isn't going to save you.
I'd say a Nice Incompetent person can be as demoralizing as an Awesome Jerk. The Incompetent person is making you work harder taking care of their slack while they coast and get paid equal or more salary.
And then gets the promotion since he spent the most time hanging out with the managers. Then he will hire more people like himself and there is no going back. After a while most companies are made up of mostly nice but incompetent people, and then they go under.
Default work culture and job expectations are basically designed around the idea that you are hiring a married man whose wife is cooking, cleaning etc and all he has to do is his paid job. This is simply not reality in most cases.
Also, while only 15 to 20 percent of people qualify as officially disabled, studies suggest that at least 60 percent of people have some degree of impairment that would benefit from accommodation.
I suspect the above two factors are the root cause of seemingly nice people who are seemingly resistant to change and just can't get their act together.
These days, even just getting oneself adequately fed without excess time and expense seems to be a challenge for a large number of people. We have a variety of services trying to address that issue but, really, it probably needs something more like a cultural shift to address it effectively.
Also, while only 15 to 20 percent of people qualify as officially disabled, studies suggest that at least 60 percent of people have some degree of impairment that would benefit from accommodation.
I suspect the above two factors are the root cause of seemingly nice people who are seemingly resistant to change and just can't get their act together.
These days, even just getting oneself adequately fed without excess time and expense seems to be a challenge for a large number of people. We have a variety of services trying to address that issue but, really, it probably needs something more like a cultural shift to address it effectively.
So our entire society has become disabled, and the answer is to accommodate (read: pay for) everyone's inability to meet standard expectations of a full time role? It seems to me that the emphasis on accommodating people, avoiding negative emotion, stressful situations, and difficult conversation is what's causing people to grow into adulthood incapable of basic functioning.
People need hardship in order to become conditioned to life. Depriving them of it does no one any favours. Ask your grandparents how they lived when they were in their 20s - what they ate, how convenient their lives were, how accommodated they felt by their employers. The answer here is less accommodation, not more. Sink or swim. Most people, when faced with the choice of hard work or real destitution, will choose hard work. This is the cultural shift you're looking for.
People need hardship in order to become conditioned to life. Depriving them of it does no one any favours. Ask your grandparents how they lived when they were in their 20s - what they ate, how convenient their lives were, how accommodated they felt by their employers. The answer here is less accommodation, not more. Sink or swim. Most people, when faced with the choice of hard work or real destitution, will choose hard work. This is the cultural shift you're looking for.
My grandparents had church, social clubs, mutual aid organizations, and unions which all helped (paid for) support of one kind or another during their hardships.
Working together and accommodating others is probably one of the strengths we’ve actually failed to foster in the contemporary context, to our detriment. The atomization of the individual and the cult of silent suffering is something they’d balk or pity us for.
Working together and accommodating others is probably one of the strengths we’ve actually failed to foster in the contemporary context, to our detriment. The atomization of the individual and the cult of silent suffering is something they’d balk or pity us for.
I'm not so sure. Everyone I've met born before 1950 would much rather suffer in dignified silence than burden anyone with their care.
My grandparents were dustbowl survivors and veterans who humbly attribute their survival and later success to their neighbors, friends, and colleagues that helped them, and whom they spent their later lives trying to pay back in kindness and friendship.
The influence of our relationships, and who we know, on our worldview is certainly fascinating.
The influence of our relationships, and who we know, on our worldview is certainly fascinating.
Aye, neighbours, friends and colleagues are exactly who we should be building relationships with and relying on. No additional intervention required from governments via employers.
They counted their friends and colleagues among their employers, actually. And the government’s GI Bill and veterans’ administration’s work placement and employee advocacy programs were among their most cherished programs.
Yep, we owe a debt to veterans for putting their lives on the line in defence of our values (especially WWII vets). We don't owe the same debt to everyone else though do we? It's in fact everyone else who owes the veterans.
Also, there's nothing stopping anyone today from making friends with their colleagues and employers, and relying on those relationships in times of need. I'm still not seeing why we need an intervention.
Also, there's nothing stopping anyone today from making friends with their colleagues and employers, and relying on those relationships in times of need. I'm still not seeing why we need an intervention.
People simply do better when they work together and try to make each others’ lives better.
Your points seem to be meandering and I’m content where we’ve come in this conversation. Be well!
Your points seem to be meandering and I’m content where we’ve come in this conversation. Be well!
Average life expectancy in 1920s America was 54 years.
https://www.ncpedia.org/history/20th-Century/1920s#:~:text=I....
It is now 78.9 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-....
We can deal with the reality that a lot of people are alive today who cannot work long and hard yet still need to support themselves.
Or we can continue to whine about how the world is broken and unfixable and talk about UBI -- aka a universal dole -- as our imagined solution while not actually implementing it, I guess.
https://www.ncpedia.org/history/20th-Century/1920s#:~:text=I....
It is now 78.9 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-....
We can deal with the reality that a lot of people are alive today who cannot work long and hard yet still need to support themselves.
Or we can continue to whine about how the world is broken and unfixable and talk about UBI -- aka a universal dole -- as our imagined solution while not actually implementing it, I guess.
Your life expectancy figure is misleading. Life expectancy at birth was low due to high infant mortality. Life expectancy at age 15 was in the high 60s in 1933[1].
Your initial post referenced ~60% of people are impaired to the degree that they need explicit accommodation. They can't all be over 60, the demographics just don't work.
1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-at-age-15...
Your initial post referenced ~60% of people are impaired to the degree that they need explicit accommodation. They can't all be over 60, the demographics just don't work.
1. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-at-age-15...
The reality is that a lot of privileged people get the accommodations they need, they just don't blame it on personal impairment. People in the C-suite routinely have personal assistants to help them keep their schedule on track, write their correspondence, etc.
They may be incapable of doing those tasks themselves but no one acts like they should. A lower level employee who has trouble spelling may be deemed incompetent. A higher level employee who can't spell gets automatic accommodation in the form of having their administrative assistant deal with their correspondence or check their writing if they write something themselves.
There were a lot of things different in the past compared to today. In the time of President Lincoln, average education level for adult women was second to fourth grade. At one time, it was fairly common for people working on farms and the like to stop attending school after 8th grade.
With an increasingly complex society, the expectations for "basic" competency at a lot of things is more demanding than it once was. This is not about feeling sorry for a few whiners. This a societal shift and we can figure out how to do this better or crash and burn.
They may be incapable of doing those tasks themselves but no one acts like they should. A lower level employee who has trouble spelling may be deemed incompetent. A higher level employee who can't spell gets automatic accommodation in the form of having their administrative assistant deal with their correspondence or check their writing if they write something themselves.
There were a lot of things different in the past compared to today. In the time of President Lincoln, average education level for adult women was second to fourth grade. At one time, it was fairly common for people working on farms and the like to stop attending school after 8th grade.
With an increasingly complex society, the expectations for "basic" competency at a lot of things is more demanding than it once was. This is not about feeling sorry for a few whiners. This a societal shift and we can figure out how to do this better or crash and burn.
You're suggesting that C-suite leadership attained their positions as a result of their privilege, not their competence. I disagree. It seems to me that our hierarchies are primarily of competence, not of privilege. You almost never see children of CEOs becoming successful CEOs. 70% of intergenerational wealth transfers fail. To become a successful leader (and have an executive assistant, etc.) you have to demonstrate extreme competence.
Companies provide executive assistants to the employees whose time they value most. I agree that our society is getting more complicated and demanding. I just disagree that it follows we should be forced to take the incapable along for the ride instead of just letting them abjectly fail. The bar is getting higher. That means the average person will have to be more capable to succeed. All of this is fine.
Re: executive assistants, I suspect LLMs will make the point moot within a decade.
Companies provide executive assistants to the employees whose time they value most. I agree that our society is getting more complicated and demanding. I just disagree that it follows we should be forced to take the incapable along for the ride instead of just letting them abjectly fail. The bar is getting higher. That means the average person will have to be more capable to succeed. All of this is fine.
Re: executive assistants, I suspect LLMs will make the point moot within a decade.
"Accomodations" in this case could be something as simple as noise cancelling headphones for employees working in an open plan office. Or a woman wearing a sweater because the office is cold. We don't tend to think of these as a disability measure because the problems are obviously caused by the setup of the work environment.
Expecting people to suffer hardships and learn to work harder instead of using simple tools to improve their productivity is just bizarrely cruel.
Expecting people to suffer hardships and learn to work harder instead of using simple tools to improve their productivity is just bizarrely cruel.
People should buy sweaters and headphones for themselves then. Accommodation in this context references something an employer must explicitly provide for employees (usually by law). Are you suggesting that employers need to hand out headphones and sweaters?
OP referenced benefits from accommodations for employees who aren't recognized as disabled, so it seems pretty clear we're outside of the legal framework for workers with disabilities.
And, generally, they do buy those things for themselves. Though plenty of employers will allow employees to expense these sorts of things, along with tools like ergonomic keyboards. They're cheap, in comparison to the cost of employees.
Hell, maybe that's the example I should have led with. Some non-disabling health conditions might put someone at a heightened risk for carpal tunnel syndrome. Ergonomic tools seems like a no brainer, compared to hardship and learning to work harder.
And, generally, they do buy those things for themselves. Though plenty of employers will allow employees to expense these sorts of things, along with tools like ergonomic keyboards. They're cheap, in comparison to the cost of employees.
Hell, maybe that's the example I should have led with. Some non-disabling health conditions might put someone at a heightened risk for carpal tunnel syndrome. Ergonomic tools seems like a no brainer, compared to hardship and learning to work harder.
The degree to which employers are willing to accommodate employees (with expendable benefits, etc.) is directly correlated with the expendability of said employees. If you're a 200k/yr programmer with a 60k cost to hire, you can expense whatever you want. If you're a 20k/yr cashier then you cannot. Are you suggesting this should change? If yes, can you elaborate as to why?
Accommodation in this context references something an employer must explicitly provide for employees (usually by law).
I said no such thing. Just making the observation that if people fail to change adequately to keep their job, there is probably an underlying reason.
I spoke of a need for cultural change in details like how we feed ourselves. You making this about an expectation that it is entirely on employers to cater to the needs of whiny, incompetent losers or something is just that: You framing it that way. I did not frame it that way.
I said no such thing. Just making the observation that if people fail to change adequately to keep their job, there is probably an underlying reason.
I spoke of a need for cultural change in details like how we feed ourselves. You making this about an expectation that it is entirely on employers to cater to the needs of whiny, incompetent losers or something is just that: You framing it that way. I did not frame it that way.
For open plan offices? Sure. One of the reasons open plan offices are popular is because they offload costs like this to the staff. Maybe there needs to be a cash allowance for that kind of thing, as prefs for stuff like sweaters and headphones are pretty variable.
I thought this was a great post. I've also struggled with how to handle "incompetent but nice" employees. It's never easy, but what I've found:
1. This is why it's important to give as objective feedback as possible to employees, and to have it tracked over time. If someone is really nice but not performing, often times it's hard for them to see because they are working really hard.
2. See if there is a place where the person can maximize their value even if it's working on something else. I've seen people move out of software dev because they were just fundamentally slow coders, yet they thrived in other positions.
3. I think it's important to not let it fester. If it does, it usually ends badly for everyone.
The thing that's difficult is that software engineering is notoriously impossible to measure productivity in a purely objective/automatic way that can't be gamed. This contrasts with something like, for example, a sports player: if you're a baseball pitcher but your stats don't cut it, nobody cares how nice you are.
That's why I think it's important to, as much as possible, set expectations and review them frequently with employees.
1. This is why it's important to give as objective feedback as possible to employees, and to have it tracked over time. If someone is really nice but not performing, often times it's hard for them to see because they are working really hard.
2. See if there is a place where the person can maximize their value even if it's working on something else. I've seen people move out of software dev because they were just fundamentally slow coders, yet they thrived in other positions.
3. I think it's important to not let it fester. If it does, it usually ends badly for everyone.
The thing that's difficult is that software engineering is notoriously impossible to measure productivity in a purely objective/automatic way that can't be gamed. This contrasts with something like, for example, a sports player: if you're a baseball pitcher but your stats don't cut it, nobody cares how nice you are.
That's why I think it's important to, as much as possible, set expectations and review them frequently with employees.
A workplace is where... work gets done. For sure that axis is valid.
The nice/jerk axis is way too vague. "Nice"... in what way exactly, and who cares? Being a "jerk" is only a problem when it gets in the way of communication. Bad communication is incompetence, so the nice/jerk scale is not independent.
The nice/jerk axis is way too vague. "Nice"... in what way exactly, and who cares? Being a "jerk" is only a problem when it gets in the way of communication. Bad communication is incompetence, so the nice/jerk scale is not independent.
Being a jerk is a problem in a huge number of ways other than communication. Not only is it unpleasant for other employees and a problem for retention, it implies lack of good intentions and thus lack of trustworthiness.
If you're relying on employees to do anything, you need to trust them. If you want them to accurately report problems, then if they lie for advantage or send grudges up the chain, you're not going to get accurate information. If you want them to handle sensitive data without stalking their ex, you need to trust they'll do that.
If you're relying on employees to do anything, you need to trust them. If you want them to accurately report problems, then if they lie for advantage or send grudges up the chain, you're not going to get accurate information. If you want them to handle sensitive data without stalking their ex, you need to trust they'll do that.
All of those are examples of bad communication. When I say the jerk scale is not independent, I mean that being a jerk implies not getting work done, so what's the point of that being its own axis? It's not an independent variable.
Looking up your ex's data in violation of privacy laws doesn't seem like bad communication to me.
I want to work on important tasks, with enough non-BS work that the jerks stifle their complaints and bend to the task, and the slow but kind people make sure to measure twice and cut once and ask for help and document. Operational tasked jobs are a lot more fun and have much better espirit de corps than bullshit jobs where people can afford to tear each other down and make dumb errors.
And the task of management is to build effective orgs out of whomever you have, not some pretend ideal. Even start ups hiring the first person for each position are bounded by the universe of people. My best work experiences have been ones where a group of people united by a common vision worked well together, using each person for their strengths, built things greater than any of the parts.
You don’t get there by pitting people against one another.
And the task of management is to build effective orgs out of whomever you have, not some pretend ideal. Even start ups hiring the first person for each position are bounded by the universe of people. My best work experiences have been ones where a group of people united by a common vision worked well together, using each person for their strengths, built things greater than any of the parts.
You don’t get there by pitting people against one another.
I worked with a guy I nicknamed "Nice Guy, But" (the comma and spelling are important there:)
A nice guy but we really didn't want him messing with the code.
He was the unofficial leader of a group of people I named "The Defect Generators".
I was billing by the hour at the time, so I viewed him (and them) as a revenue source.
A nice guy but we really didn't want him messing with the code.
He was the unofficial leader of a group of people I named "The Defect Generators".
I was billing by the hour at the time, so I viewed him (and them) as a revenue source.
More likely they folks in the top left are playing you - they aren't nice. But they know if they act nice they can coast a lot longer. They are taking advantage of you and everyone else who need to pull the extra weight - that's not nice at all.
Well, they are playing you as much as the folks on the bottom right: they are taking advantage of their technical competence to allow themselves of not playing by the social rules for their own selfish reasons. It is interesting that for some, the top left are more guilty or immoral (or whatever the term is) than the bottom right.
I'm not comparing morality, but I will say the bottom right are both much more rare (as the article states), and are contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. I would say helping people pay their mortgage and put food on their table is actually nice.
I think that the point is that they don't pay any much more than people on the top left.
There are people contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the bottom right. But, as pointed out here, some of them are in the top left. Without them, the company does not progress as well. Not because of their technical contributions, but on their "soft skill" contributions.
Also, there are people not contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the top left. But some of them are in the bottom right. Without them, the company progresses better. Not because they produce bad technical contributions, but because their lack of "soft skill" has a real bad impact.
I think that when you say "they are much more rare" is maybe because you are taking a subgroup of the bottom right: the ones that are beneficial to the company. The thing is: in order to identify a "technically super competent" person, you need 1) a technically super competent person, 2) that this person is not using his technical competence in a way that make look them incompetent because they are producing beautiful code misaligned with what the company wants to do or that breaks the efforts of colleagues. If the condition number 2 is not satisfied, this person is still part of the bottom right, but you don't notice they are part of the bottom right, because people would not call this person "competent" (because "competent" != "technically competent").
There are people contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the bottom right. But, as pointed out here, some of them are in the top left. Without them, the company does not progress as well. Not because of their technical contributions, but on their "soft skill" contributions.
Also, there are people not contributing in a real way to the livelihood of everyone else at the company. Some of them are in the top left. But some of them are in the bottom right. Without them, the company progresses better. Not because they produce bad technical contributions, but because their lack of "soft skill" has a real bad impact.
I think that when you say "they are much more rare" is maybe because you are taking a subgroup of the bottom right: the ones that are beneficial to the company. The thing is: in order to identify a "technically super competent" person, you need 1) a technically super competent person, 2) that this person is not using his technical competence in a way that make look them incompetent because they are producing beautiful code misaligned with what the company wants to do or that breaks the efforts of colleagues. If the condition number 2 is not satisfied, this person is still part of the bottom right, but you don't notice they are part of the bottom right, because people would not call this person "competent" (because "competent" != "technically competent").
Sorry, but if you’re incompetent (with no potential for improvement), I don’t care how nice you are. You’re gone. Sorry not sorry.
I've never met anyone with no potential for improvement. The closest I've seen is being incompetent at too many things at once.
i’ve managed a few. its generally one of the following:
1. they have potential, but consistently get in their own way. they need therapy or a new career path, which is outside of the scope of a managers job to correct.
2. some engineers are not that talented. even the most senior of ICs can plateau — some just do it at lower levels.
3. some have no ambition to improve or aren’t invested in their jobs and no amount of cajoling or incentives will fix it.
1. they have potential, but consistently get in their own way. they need therapy or a new career path, which is outside of the scope of a managers job to correct.
2. some engineers are not that talented. even the most senior of ICs can plateau — some just do it at lower levels.
3. some have no ambition to improve or aren’t invested in their jobs and no amount of cajoling or incentives will fix it.
Never ever hire incompetent people who are beyond help, no matter how nice. What's the point? You are running a team that needs to perform. It's not a charity or a social club. By keeping incompetent people you send a horrible sign to the rest of the team and the team will crack under the stress.
Reject the notion that you can only find jerks to get the competency you need. Just be sure they are willing to work for the team. Some will be real nice, the rest will learn to get along. Make expectations very clear up front and be willing to fire for bad behavior.
Reject the notion that you can only find jerks to get the competency you need. Just be sure they are willing to work for the team. Some will be real nice, the rest will learn to get along. Make expectations very clear up front and be willing to fire for bad behavior.
From time to time one comes across an extreme version of the "nice but incompetent" character. Not only are they nice and incompetent, they are super optimistic, confident and ambitious.
They pitch their idea to you. It's a terrible idea that for a billion obvious reasons will fail.
What to do? Do you want to be the person to crush somebody's dreams?
It's much easier to say to somebody that they made a mistake compared to saying that they simply suck at something and don't have what it takes.
They pitch their idea to you. It's a terrible idea that for a billion obvious reasons will fail.
What to do? Do you want to be the person to crush somebody's dreams?
It's much easier to say to somebody that they made a mistake compared to saying that they simply suck at something and don't have what it takes.
I've had to manage those folks. The relationship tended to not last, but I didn't need to fire them. I won't back down from requiring results, and they tended to have kind of "stress meltdowns." It wasn't a very good experience for anyone.
For the people that performed well, despite their personalities, my team was a dream job, unless they were so bad that they broke the team (see "stress meltdown," above). I didn't really tolerate folks that wouldn't work well with others (lower right quadrant).
I was fortunate enough to work with folks that fit in the upper right quadrant. I don't think I ever had anyone up in the corner. Most were near the middle, sometimes, middle right. My bosses tended to be lower right.
Me? Depends on who you ask. I was probably middle top, for folks that worked well, and lower right, for folks that did not. Most of the folks that worked for me were technically better than I was, and that was fine.
I didn't run a day camp, and did not insist that everyone be on the same "psychic wavelength," or whatever. I hired experienced people with diverse backgrounds and drivers. It was my job to manage each one, individually.
For the people that performed well, despite their personalities, my team was a dream job, unless they were so bad that they broke the team (see "stress meltdown," above). I didn't really tolerate folks that wouldn't work well with others (lower right quadrant).
I was fortunate enough to work with folks that fit in the upper right quadrant. I don't think I ever had anyone up in the corner. Most were near the middle, sometimes, middle right. My bosses tended to be lower right.
Me? Depends on who you ask. I was probably middle top, for folks that worked well, and lower right, for folks that did not. Most of the folks that worked for me were technically better than I was, and that was fine.
I didn't run a day camp, and did not insist that everyone be on the same "psychic wavelength," or whatever. I hired experienced people with diverse backgrounds and drivers. It was my job to manage each one, individually.
What's missing here: can someone please explain how to deal with "incompetent but nice" people and departments?
* You can't call them out on non-performance, "they're nice".
* You get blamed for the failures, even when they're the fault of these incompetent people. After all, they had 10 meetings with you and 50 meetings with management, you have 5. Why didn't you bring things up in those meetings (which, of course, you did)
* Obviously these people are extremely threatened if you request they do something, or call them out for not doing it. So you will get "extreme" responses and backstabbing in response
* ... and if you refuse to work for them, you're a jerk.
So can someone please explain to me how to work with these people? I've failed in this many, many times. In most cases the problem is attitude. They're incompetent because they fundamentally don't care, which I must say makes it so much easier to be nice, even I can do that.
But e.g. pointing them to documentation or courses doesn't really work and actually has negative effects on what little work they do in the short term.
* You can't call them out on non-performance, "they're nice".
* You get blamed for the failures, even when they're the fault of these incompetent people. After all, they had 10 meetings with you and 50 meetings with management, you have 5. Why didn't you bring things up in those meetings (which, of course, you did)
* Obviously these people are extremely threatened if you request they do something, or call them out for not doing it. So you will get "extreme" responses and backstabbing in response
* ... and if you refuse to work for them, you're a jerk.
So can someone please explain to me how to work with these people? I've failed in this many, many times. In most cases the problem is attitude. They're incompetent because they fundamentally don't care, which I must say makes it so much easier to be nice, even I can do that.
But e.g. pointing them to documentation or courses doesn't really work and actually has negative effects on what little work they do in the short term.
incompetence should never be tolerated, but incompetent + nice are the hardest employees to remove.
incompetence erodes culture, leads to bureaucracy and the slow death of a company.
assholes will help you push out incompetent employees
incompetence erodes culture, leads to bureaucracy and the slow death of a company.
assholes will help you push out incompetent employees
being competent and nice is exhausting (due to personalities, policy, politics). its easier to compromise on being nice or slacken your ambition than to navigate existing disfunction. assholes used to be welcome, but the bias is now toward being nice, so we end up with entire divisions of people in the top left of the graph.
Poor Tim. (There's a very British joke for you.)
The post tries to recognise that it's not as easy as this:
> you try to help them level up: pay for classes, conferences, and/or books; connect them with mentors or coaches; figure out if something’s in the way and remove the blocker.
The reason the post can't come up with an answer is that there isn't one that we like.
Because at a simplistic level, it's a blocker. Maybe they have the knowledge, but not the experience. Maybe they have the experience, but not the organisation skills to make use of the experience. Maybe they have the organisation skills, but not the discipline to use them. Maybe they have the discipline, but not the discernment to know how to keep or retrieve good useful notes. Maybe Tim's just a bit dim.
Once we know what that blocker actually is, maybe - just maybe - we can find a way to overcome it or mitigate it.
But it's hard - because however nice Tim is, every fibre of his being wants to smooth over the cracks in his ability. The nagging pain that fuels his impostor syndrome doesn't want to be found - he wants to blend in, he doesn't want to be embarrassed or called out. And even if he tries his hardest to open up to his equally nice boss, he may not be able to articulate why he gets himself into hot water. He might not even know himself what the blocker is. (Unknown unknowns, and all that.)
Traditional corporate wisdom would have Tim "fail upwards", because by the time his "blocker" is noticed, it's easier than firing him. As much as we hate this good fortune that seems to reward the incompetent, it quite often works and ends up being in the best interest of the company; the skills that are missing from a "worker" are probably not needed in a manager, and being a people-person at heart who trust his reports... well, that may make him a far better manager than many of his peers.
It's not a nice answer, but it's an answer that unfortunately seems proven to work.
The post tries to recognise that it's not as easy as this:
> you try to help them level up: pay for classes, conferences, and/or books; connect them with mentors or coaches; figure out if something’s in the way and remove the blocker.
The reason the post can't come up with an answer is that there isn't one that we like.
Because at a simplistic level, it's a blocker. Maybe they have the knowledge, but not the experience. Maybe they have the experience, but not the organisation skills to make use of the experience. Maybe they have the organisation skills, but not the discipline to use them. Maybe they have the discipline, but not the discernment to know how to keep or retrieve good useful notes. Maybe Tim's just a bit dim.
Once we know what that blocker actually is, maybe - just maybe - we can find a way to overcome it or mitigate it.
But it's hard - because however nice Tim is, every fibre of his being wants to smooth over the cracks in his ability. The nagging pain that fuels his impostor syndrome doesn't want to be found - he wants to blend in, he doesn't want to be embarrassed or called out. And even if he tries his hardest to open up to his equally nice boss, he may not be able to articulate why he gets himself into hot water. He might not even know himself what the blocker is. (Unknown unknowns, and all that.)
Traditional corporate wisdom would have Tim "fail upwards", because by the time his "blocker" is noticed, it's easier than firing him. As much as we hate this good fortune that seems to reward the incompetent, it quite often works and ends up being in the best interest of the company; the skills that are missing from a "worker" are probably not needed in a manager, and being a people-person at heart who trust his reports... well, that may make him a far better manager than many of his peers.
It's not a nice answer, but it's an answer that unfortunately seems proven to work.
It is curious, I was called yesterday into my managers office to dicuss my blunt approach with a colleague who failed to comply with our processes.
I think my question will be lost due to the high amount of input, but how can I survive if I am the "competent asshole" type?
I think my question will be lost due to the high amount of input, but how can I survive if I am the "competent asshole" type?
Being blunt isn’t the same as being an asshole imo. Did your manager give any actionable feedback on what you should say instead or what exactly you said that was inappropriate? If not, then your manager is enabling a bad or undertrained employee and I would expect this to happen again.
I will also assert with no evidence that the better you are at your job, the harder you have to work to be perceived as "nice". If you're on the incompetent side, people cut you more slack because they feel sorry for you.
Incompetent but Nice only seems to work when all managers and team members know it and they are given tasks they can’t mess up. It does affect morale though, as working with a jerk would too.
Someone who is a jerk will be fired very quickly when showing incompetence. The bar is much higher for a jerk, and even then he can be supercompetent but still get fired because he is a jerk and not good for the team. Someone who is nice gets much more leeway, but if very incompetent will still get fired.
So the problem with the reasoning in the article is discussing niceness and competence as dichotomies, while in fact they are scales and you can be much more incompetent when you are nice, but there still is a limit.
So the problem with the reasoning in the article is discussing niceness and competence as dichotomies, while in fact they are scales and you can be much more incompetent when you are nice, but there still is a limit.
Carlos Cipolla had a similar idea when he wrote “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”, the chart commonly found in search results mirrors this one almost perfectly.
[self-promotion]
This is very related, but not at all the same, as this essay I just published:
Team-oriented, outcome-oriented
https://blog.sbensu.com/posts/team-oriented-vs-outcome-orien...
Summary:
Some people are more motivated by caring for their teams, others are by achieving outcomes.
This is very related, but not at all the same, as this essay I just published:
Team-oriented, outcome-oriented
https://blog.sbensu.com/posts/team-oriented-vs-outcome-orien...
Summary:
Some people are more motivated by caring for their teams, others are by achieving outcomes.
And to answer the question directly:
If you are operating under the "sports team" analogy, you should fire them. If you are operating under the "we are a family" analogy, you should find reduced roles where they are useful. Different organizations choose different base analogies but it is easy to tell which one you are in.
If you are operating under the "sports team" analogy, you should fire them. If you are operating under the "we are a family" analogy, you should find reduced roles where they are useful. Different organizations choose different base analogies but it is easy to tell which one you are in.
Nice + bad at their job = promoted to management
Reminds me of this moderately entertaining Voyager episode I watched recently:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708904/
Three problem crew; one is a hypochondriac, one is competent jerk, one is very nice but incompetent and the captain tries to fix them all.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708904/
Three problem crew; one is a hypochondriac, one is competent jerk, one is very nice but incompetent and the captain tries to fix them all.
Would you hire my extremely sweet computer illiterate grandma as a software developer? No? There's your answer.
I worked with an incompetent asshole for years. His only talent was telling the boss what he wanted to hear.
The websites he built were so embarrassingly bad, I could only list my main customer, who I was almost exclusively contracted to, as my employer. The risk of being linked to his work was too great.
The websites he built were so embarrassingly bad, I could only list my main customer, who I was almost exclusively contracted to, as my employer. The risk of being linked to his work was too great.
What if this quadrant of people are managers? That's the situation I'm in - my sister team's leadership is nice but don't want to work. They lack the skills but want the projects, and do get them because they are nice. It's a recipe for disaster.
This has some parity with V. Rao's Gervais Principle. Incompetent but Nice are the people that are in the "clueless" category, promoted to useless middle-manager because they're fantastic yes-men on whom you can pin the tail when anything goes askew.
Tech people need to know when to struggle on their own vs when to ask for help. Some people struggle a lot on their own, while some people dont struggle at all and ask for help on the first hint of hurdle. Both approaches have +-. A wholesome engineer does both.
The guy like this at one place called himself "Total Slack" (You know who you are!) He had a great personality, and he sourced mj for those in need.
He came on early and did quite well cash-wise when the company went public. He just wasn't good at programming.
He came on early and did quite well cash-wise when the company went public. He just wasn't good at programming.
The answer to the question at the end is that you fire them. It sucks but someone who can't get their job done is also demoralizing for the rest of the team who have to pick up their slack.
Sorry, I disagree with this 2D reduction into stereotypes.
I work with a number of sociopathic-leaning assholes who vary in talent. Mostly insist they have a monopoly good ideas and everyone else is wrong. There are some nice people with talent too. There aren't any people without talent around.
I work with a number of sociopathic-leaning assholes who vary in talent. Mostly insist they have a monopoly good ideas and everyone else is wrong. There are some nice people with talent too. There aren't any people without talent around.
totally. let’s dispense with all frameworks because labels are bad.
That quadrant is called "manager."
(I jest. But not all the way.)
(I jest. But not all the way.)
"Incompetent but nice" means there's nothing you can do. It's only a matter of time until you get annoyed enough to let them go.
Perhaps adapt? Find some area they’re good at, let them shine and do it in a way that’s beneficial to the company too.
I prefer kind and respectful. Nice often comes with a cloak of insincerity that makes it awkward and corrosive.
Incompetent jerks who become bosses get take the whole ship down before getting fired themselves.
In my experience you stack rank them at the bottom and management lays them off.
Fire the brilliant asshole, too. Or at least put the fog in that quadrant.
I think we can at least all agree that incompetent jerks are just no good.
They further fall into buckets! Wait till you learn about morale hires!
What do you use to create those handwritten style graphics?
[deleted]
I drew them by hand on a tablet (a Remarkable)
Ah interesting, thanks. I've been fiddling with some scripts that can convert a photo of a whiteboard into images like those, and it's pretty decent but really hard to get it perfect and yours seem perfect. Might just be time to buy a remarkable.
It’s not difficult.
You don’t hire them, but you go out for beers with them.
You don’t hire them, but you go out for beers with them.
cool, but you're buying.
also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTo9e3ILmms
trust vs performance
trust vs performance
Why is the y axis on the right side of the diagram?
can you fire the asshole please though? thanks.
i have a new junior on my team who might fall into this.
he’s also fresh out of undergrad, so i think he’ll get the mentorship and runway approach.
he’s also fresh out of undergrad, so i think he’ll get the mentorship and runway approach.
What is work for, what are jobs for?
As a capitalist business, you have to fire people who can't do the work, or you can't find work that they can do, so long as you don't destroy morale by doing that.
But as a society, it's a human right to work or at least 'earn a living', even people who are not competent.
And honestly I think sometimes our current brand of rabid financial capitalism is the reason people won't do the work, seeing the owner drive a Ferrari while they struggle with rent, amid wage freezes and layoff threats.
So I don't know the answer, apart from violent revolution, lol.
As a capitalist business, you have to fire people who can't do the work, or you can't find work that they can do, so long as you don't destroy morale by doing that.
But as a society, it's a human right to work or at least 'earn a living', even people who are not competent.
And honestly I think sometimes our current brand of rabid financial capitalism is the reason people won't do the work, seeing the owner drive a Ferrari while they struggle with rent, amid wage freezes and layoff threats.
So I don't know the answer, apart from violent revolution, lol.
Considering the OP (original post here),
from my decades of experience in working
as an employee doing technical work,
computing and applied math, in
organizations, my main lesson, conclusion,
response has been just to start a
business, right, exploiting, using
computing and, for an advantage, applied
math. The computing has some mathematical
aspects but is nearly all just routine
Microsoft .NET.
A general thought is: For someone A to have a good job as an employee, there has to be an employer B who creates that good job. So, if A is pretty good, useful, valuable, etc. for B, then maybe A should just start and run their own business. E.g., the guy who used two old Dell computers as Web servers, wrote software using .NET, and, alone, built the romantic match making service Plenty of Fish. Then he wanted to sell, hired a lot of people, and sold out for $500+ million. He seems to be an example of a lot of advice including "Build and provide something people, maybe a lot of people, want."
So, that's what I'm trying to do -- build something a lot of people want. Currently my .NET code is 100,000 lines of typing and 20,000+ programming language statements. I got delayed by some unpredictable, exogenous influences but am making good progress now.
But to respond to the OP, my experience being a technical employee is not much like what is in the OP.
Here are some lessons from that school of hard knocks:
(1) Don't Be Very Good. My experience is that if work to be really good, if are really good, even if just are seen as working hard to be really good, that is commonly seen as a firing offense.
Why? If you are good, making important contributions, maybe are close to essential, then you can get some power, and the power can scare nearly everyone else. In simple terms, to some extent, an organization is a fight for power. So, it's a fight.
(2) Goal Subordination. Business schools commonly teach a whole course in goal subordination. So the idea is that the organization has goals but a lot of the management subordinates those goals to their own advantage in the power struggle. So, such managers can gain while the organization suffers. Uh, remember this if become a manager of managers!
(3) People or Things. There is an old remark, way too simple but still with some truth, still approximately true, possibly a significant factor among many others: "Growing up, boys pay attention to things and girls, to people." Commonly girls and young women are much better with people than boys and young men of the same age. So, the girls (females) can be better at pleasing others, at the OP's "nice to work with". The difference here between the genders can be extensive, say, run wide and deep.
(4) Human Resources (HR). The OP mentioned HR: It appears that somehow, to a significant extent, the people in HR can be especially skilled at working with people and especially sensitive to the related issues. So, some guy really good with technical material and things can easily offend the HR people. E.g., early in my career I was hired under a special HR program and occasionally asked HR about the promised evolution of the program. The HR response was somewhat worse than had I been proposing to drop into boiling oil kittens, puppies, and babies, in particular their babies. They arranged to get me fired. We never communicated in English what they were upset about, but still they worked hard to get me fired.
In my decades of experience, more generally, commonly in practice "easy to work with" is more about manners in a Victorian Royal garden party than anything about the actual work. Or maybe borrow from a politician who wants to make sure never to offend any group, even a small group, even just one person so always speaks in highly ambiguous statements about widely accepted thoughts, positions, etc.
A general thought is: For someone A to have a good job as an employee, there has to be an employer B who creates that good job. So, if A is pretty good, useful, valuable, etc. for B, then maybe A should just start and run their own business. E.g., the guy who used two old Dell computers as Web servers, wrote software using .NET, and, alone, built the romantic match making service Plenty of Fish. Then he wanted to sell, hired a lot of people, and sold out for $500+ million. He seems to be an example of a lot of advice including "Build and provide something people, maybe a lot of people, want."
So, that's what I'm trying to do -- build something a lot of people want. Currently my .NET code is 100,000 lines of typing and 20,000+ programming language statements. I got delayed by some unpredictable, exogenous influences but am making good progress now.
But to respond to the OP, my experience being a technical employee is not much like what is in the OP.
Here are some lessons from that school of hard knocks:
(1) Don't Be Very Good. My experience is that if work to be really good, if are really good, even if just are seen as working hard to be really good, that is commonly seen as a firing offense.
Why? If you are good, making important contributions, maybe are close to essential, then you can get some power, and the power can scare nearly everyone else. In simple terms, to some extent, an organization is a fight for power. So, it's a fight.
(2) Goal Subordination. Business schools commonly teach a whole course in goal subordination. So the idea is that the organization has goals but a lot of the management subordinates those goals to their own advantage in the power struggle. So, such managers can gain while the organization suffers. Uh, remember this if become a manager of managers!
(3) People or Things. There is an old remark, way too simple but still with some truth, still approximately true, possibly a significant factor among many others: "Growing up, boys pay attention to things and girls, to people." Commonly girls and young women are much better with people than boys and young men of the same age. So, the girls (females) can be better at pleasing others, at the OP's "nice to work with". The difference here between the genders can be extensive, say, run wide and deep.
(4) Human Resources (HR). The OP mentioned HR: It appears that somehow, to a significant extent, the people in HR can be especially skilled at working with people and especially sensitive to the related issues. So, some guy really good with technical material and things can easily offend the HR people. E.g., early in my career I was hired under a special HR program and occasionally asked HR about the promised evolution of the program. The HR response was somewhat worse than had I been proposing to drop into boiling oil kittens, puppies, and babies, in particular their babies. They arranged to get me fired. We never communicated in English what they were upset about, but still they worked hard to get me fired.
In my decades of experience, more generally, commonly in practice "easy to work with" is more about manners in a Victorian Royal garden party than anything about the actual work. Or maybe borrow from a politician who wants to make sure never to offend any group, even a small group, even just one person so always speaks in highly ambiguous statements about widely accepted thoughts, positions, etc.
What is "THIER"?
The ones in that quadrant are the ones who are your friends and in-group buddies who you hire creating a quasi-socialism within the bounds of a corporation, without having to include the undesirables or riffraff or other kind of out-group members.
"Nice" is just a suitably vague way to smuggle in bias. Just in case "culture fit" didn't already do the trick.
The competent jerks destroy team morale, make good people leave, and paralyze junior employees and those lacking self-confidence. They may be good at their job, but they make others worse.
Incompetent nice people, as long as they are not so incompetent to be a liability can at least contribute to a strong team culture and make good competent people want to show up.
Of course, ideally, everyone is somewhere in that top right quadrant, but in my experience on large enough teams you usually have at least one not so nice person on the team and one or two not so competent people on the team.