> To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping".

So management also was bad at their jobs. They probably didn't get canned, though they deserved it as much as the King of Shipping.

But, congratulations, you know the "What's Bad About Working Here". Maybe there's a way to train management what their implicit job responsibilities are. I've never seen it happen in the wild, but maybe it's possible.

That's the problem, management is bad at their jobs. Management is so bad in the U.S. that everybody imagines they can hire their way out of situations rather than manage their way out of them.

For instance, when you tell people that you went to a Burger King and it took them 30 minutes to serve you a cup of coffee, the conventional answer is "it's hard to find good help these days."

That's a loser attitude on the part of management. Management hires employees, fires employees, trains employees, supervises employees, etc. If management does not take responsibility for your experience as a customer it is definitely the fault of management that you have a bad experience.

The problem has many facets but one of them is that few people are cut out to manage other people and our illusions about "meritocracy" contribute to an American culture that creates excellent foot soldiers but mediocre to terrible officers.

This is the reason why I find "tipping" food servers for "good service" so perverse. the quality of the service you get is almost always a function of how well the place is managed.

Was your hard working server set up for failure by someone making 4 times her wage? A good manager can take a terrible team and make them a great team.

I usually tip well and complain to management when I get bad service for this reason. Unless business is slow and the server is obviously goofing off in the back or something.

Management is very bad across the board in the US. Very short-sighted and hierarchal culture.

Great leadership is humility and service to those being led. In America the ego worship and adoration for the Type A nutjob stands in the way.

This is my experience. It's a codependent relationship between management who is unable to determine the feasibility of what it's asking for (or, just as often, what it is asking for) on the one hand, and an eager-to-please yes-man of an engineer on the other.

Management loves how fast things are delivered, and boyscout loves the pats on the head. The rest of us hate the countdown until the house of cards comes tumbling down.

I saw a great tweet some time ago that defined a 10xer as an engineer who accumulates technical debt so fast, it takes 10 engineers to fix their mess. That about sums it up, doesn't it?

I love that tweet. Although it happens on the management side too. Manager comes in runs a team into ground(that the previous manager spent years building), pushes all kinds of work on other teams as well, takes credit for all of it and keeps getting promoted.

Let's be honest. management probably pushed the guy to ship NOW

Pass on the blame, keep the credit. That's the way to the top in many companies unfortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Management trusted the developer knew what he was doing, and didn't micromanage. I would go as far as say that management should be setting requirements in terms of security, maintainability, documentation etc, but I guess in this case (because apparently it was just one dev), they gave the developer full freedom. Misplaced trust, in this case. In a lot of cases though, I'd rather management ask me what should be done, instead of them telling me (or telling me something I'd disagree with).

> Misplaced trust, in this case.

You trust teams, not individuals. The smallest possible team (1) to give some responsibility to is three people for this reason. Someone can quit or take a leave of absence and you still have technical accountability, code reviews, meaningful discussions, etc.

The fact that management made a mistake here is understandable. Management needs room to make mistakes, too. The fact that the developer was blamed and fired but the management wasn't held to a similar standard of accountability is the problem.

The code is the product. The management owns the code just as much as that developer did. So does everyone up the chain and anyone in parallel organizations (the business experts, the people that make the budgets, the QA department, etc.).

It's likely, at least implicitly, that the org structure sees some people owning 'the product' and other people owning 'the revenue' and other people owning 'the budget' and the developers owning 'the code'. As if we can separate those things.

If you work for a car manufacturer, everyone needs to know about cars, care about cars, drive cars, learn about cars, and expect good cars to be produced for a nice profit. I think shops that sell software, whether shrinkwrapped or through services, need to have the same attitude about software. If you are in the business of software, you are in the business of code, even if you can't write any yourself.

1) Team loosely defined here. It could be three people from different parts of the company, as long as they all understand the aspects of the system well enough to have a meaningful discussions about it.

Yes, but it seems that they didn't extend the same trust to the rest of the team. There surely would have been other people on the team who could have told them that the product was not headed in a good direction if they had just been asked how they felt it was going.

I think the bigger lesson is probably something along the lines of:

First, make sure they can do the job technically, within some sort of parameters of what they can currently do and what can be learned on the job. That's your baseline.

Then, try and suss out if they'd be good to work with. That will come naturally through the way they interact with you in the interview and how they answer questions (whether they are the questions in the article or completely different ones).

If you reckon they tick the boxes for those two major attributes, it's then just a matter of weighing up how much of each attribute they bring to the table and if the balance is right.

Other scenarios are also possible.

I have seen very prepared people from flagship universities that shine in interviews but have zero intention of learning and complying with industry standards and good practices and do not care about details.

Those people also feel entitled to be promoted as quickly as possible, even if they're still too green to understand how software works. This is how bad engineering managers are born.

"But a little bit later things started to seem weird."

I've met a lot of people who change jobs before anyone realises this - to anyone who works on the same projects they are a nightmare, to everyone else they look like a hotshot.

I have one of these on my team right now, and he has caused me more sleepless nights than anyone I have ever met. Finding it very difficult to get mgmt to understand that most of his code needs to be re-written

This may sound paranoid, but I have seen it happen: make sure the person you are having problems with isn't sucking up to your managers and also making you look bad to them.

[99% of the people I have worked with have never played those kind of political games but I have seen the utter chaos that can happen if a politically savvy operator is let loose in a trusting and politically naive environment.]

Frankly, if that works and you get fired, you didn't lose much to start with. Sorry, but keeping your job is a different skill set than doing your job.

I've had to opposite experience twice - I got drop-shipped into projects where somebody had gone rogue and I cleaned it up, and then they were let go. It's most unpleasant, and had they been more perceptive they'd have known that's what was going on. In both cases, I believe they were ready to go ( and I lost any trust in the management that used this gambit and left myself shortly).

Valuable advice, said individual has indeed already tried this approach with my immediate managers and my peers. Luckily I've been here long enough to have a reputation that can't easily be besmirched

So this guy was working by himself, with no help, no review, and no one to discuss the implications of anything with. Sounds like a hero for managing it as long as he did.

Except that, if you are not doing well, you need to raise your hand and ask for help in the form of scope negotiation or more resources.

good point.

I got hired on at a job to replace a guy like that. He "got so much done" and "worked so hard" (was at the office late) until he up and left.

Step 1 when I got hired on was to automate away half of what he was doing. I turned processes that were previously three hour projects into five minutes and a shell script. Not many late nights or 16 hour days for me.

Step 2 was to finish all the work he'd left behind. It wasn't unusual to get a bug report coming in "Oh, in screen X when you try and do Y it doesn't work right." only to find that while he'd built an interface, there was no code behind any of it.

Short of more details, this sounds like organizational failure as a whole versus the failure of one developer. Was this one developer the founder or something? It doesn't make sense they got away with so much and no push back from the team?

Should it be one developers job to do more than 20% of the job when it comes to shipping an entire companies products/services?

It feels like you're poo-pooing the idea of a Lone Ranger coder, while being annoyed the person didn't do 100% of the work? If it's supposed to be a team effort, why should they do more than 20% of the job. The rest of the team should be contributing the other 80%.

Sounds like they were there and fired before you even started. So I'm going to have to /dev/null this post as hearsay.

Having a hard time understanding how this isn't downvoted to oblivion. With all the rhetoric here about quality content and posting only that which moves conversations in a constructive way, this ends up being full of holes and after the fact blame gaming. Rarely useful.

20% of the work meaning implementing only functional requirements and neglecting non-functional requirements. Error handling, monitoring, security, configuration, maintainability, unit testing, performance, scalability, etc.

I think that is a personal responsibility to some extent. Even if you are doing agile or your team is small. If you don't plan to engage those requirements immediately, they need to be communicated to your stakeholders (e.g: in the form of a task in your backlog, though many of these might require refactoring/rework). Stakeholders should be aware of their completion status to make informed decisions around priorities and risk management.

In an analogy, a non-functional requirement is not "adding a room to a house", it is "the construction material and construction standard to build a room". It is not something that can be added later on without rework.

If they mindfully decide to accept the risks of neglecting functional requirements, it's fine, but that's their decision to make. It should not be a surprise later on that those requirements are not implemented.

Then, yes, it was an organizational failure. The person was one of the first hires. But I am talking from the perspective of the article being discussed. Management put the character of the individual over skills in their hierarchy of relevance at the moment of hiring, with the results I mentioned.

Then, it's not "hearsay". Evidence left: tickets, code, etc. Reading code that reflects someone not understanding CS fundamentals is not hearsay.

Badly organized code can also be the result of demanding deadlines coupled with an inexperienced tech lead to back up the engineer's estimates. Sometimes the whole culture of a place (engineers included) is in "just get this shit done" mode until they realize they essentially need to redo everything to fox minor bugs

This like the last couple of applications I have inherited. Layers and layers of complexity built into the application, which could be done in a couple of database calls. It means understanding the code takes way longer than it should, and difficult to redactor, as all the extra layers add complexity and little more.

> So, I am going to say NO to this article. Skills are important.

In your anecdote though, I'm reading that the er, rockstar developer had enough skills to get things done, but not the personality to do things The Right Way. That is a personality thing, I think, with personality traits like attention to detail and quality and such. Those are not linked to skill level or technology; maybe with experience (i.e. being on the receiving end of those bugs and issues), but even that is not necessary IMO, because there's plenty of smart people out there to tell people to do, for example, unit testing, and why.

The wrong personality scoffs at that stuff and goes cowboy coding like the person in your anecdote.

Not really a personality thing. The person wasn't an engineer. But was given a chance because of his passion. Very much like what the article encourages.

There is nothing organically wrong with cowboy coding, especially if you're trying to find your footing with a new thing. But it's not sufficient, and probably not necessary.

I have never in my life understood the word smart. Everyone is smart. No one is smart. It's a useless word, and seems overused to me (at least in American English).

You can't get people to stop sorting each other no matter what you do.

It's always the last guy's fault. :)

excuse me while I humble brag and talk about myself for a second