I'm sure that the author understands the difference between a clearcut fencing competition and the messy competition between companies and between the very people inside those companies. Yet there is little or nothing about that in the article.
Those Dereks can survive inside companies because the contribution of every single person is so tiny that it's very difficult to measure. Furthermore, most of the times it doesn't influence the success or failure of ambitious managers.
Those Dereks know it, maybe got their fingers burned attempting to be smart in the past, they do only what's needed to get their money on their bank account at the end of the month.
Move some of them in a position where their work makes the difference between losing and winning (software for a racing car team?) and they might undull themselves.
Very fair critique. I just thought it was very obvious, but perhaps I should have elaborated. The article is not confused about why Derek exists (I feel bad for anyone named Derek now!), it is about why Derek is not incentivized to change, and likely never will.
You can of course try to help, but if you find yourself putting energy into the world and not getting results, just stop and do something actually fulfilling.
Those Dereks can survive inside companies because the contribution of every single person is so tiny that it's very difficult to measure. Furthermore, most of the times it doesn't influence the success or failure of ambitious managers.
Those Dereks know it, maybe got their fingers burned attempting to be smart in the past, they do only what's needed to get their money on their bank account at the end of the month.
Move some of them in a position where their work makes the difference between losing and winning (software for a racing car team?) and they might undull themselves.