[TeMPOraL]

I challenge you to find actual leaders in the past, ones we use as examples, who would fit your description of "an actual leader".

A leader is someone who can get people to get shit done. Usually it means convincing them that what the leader wants done is the thing to be done. Consensus-building can be done in many different way - in particular, a very good way is to just arbitrarily announce what the consensus is. In most fields, and in pretty much 99% of business, almost decision is better than prolonged periods of not knowing what to do. And if a leader is competent in the field in question, his arbitrary decisions will usually be good.

So as long as you can align their ego with business/customer needs, a "rock star dev who's also a jerk" isn't the worst choice for a leader.

[RogerL]

"isn't the worst" is a pretty low bar.

As for your challenge, just about anyone I have worked for and respected. You don't know them, so you can use a No True Scotsman defense, I guess. That won't change that ego/jerkiness is completely unnecessary.

Bad decisions are catastropic in tech. That's a driving force for things like Agile. Running off and coding or building things without a plan is a recipe for disaster.

I can make you do something by screaming at you. That works to get you up over that hill to attack the pillbox. Doesn't work so well in tech where you will just quit.

[TeMPOraL]

But why do you assume that "rockstar dev who's being a jerk" means a despotic leader who only screams at people? I read it as a leader who is a) very opinionated, b) doesn't tolerate bullshit, c) may express himself in an offensive way. You could say that e.g. Patton was a rock-star jerk of military warfare, but it didn't mean he screamed at everyone all the time.

> Bad decisions are catastropic in tech.

No, they're not. What's the worst that could happen? Your SaaS cats-on-Instagram-to-save-the-world startup will flop. Or you won't deliver some product that's being delivered by 2000 identical companies around the world. Or some people won't get to see some annoying ads.

We're not talking medicine or space travel here. If we were, we'd be focusing on whether a leader is effective, not whether he's a nice person.

[sanderjd]

They meant catastrophic to your business, not catastrophic in some larger sense.

[TeMPOraL]

I know. And I meant to put all of this into a proper perspective.

[nostrademons]

Eric Schmidt at Google was pretty close to that description. He made decisions effectively, but he also listened extensively to input, respected his employees, and would build consensus rather than shouting loudly.

[lwhalen]

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

[TeMPOraL]

It works if you build a ship, little worse if you have to carve out 10 000 bricks from stone slabs before the end of the week. Working on your passion is something not many of us can experience, and is absolutely not the norm on the job market, even in tech.

[mreiland]

I happen to agree with you, in this scenario the leader is someone who leads, not someone who is given a title.

The downside is that their goals may not align well with the company.

pros and cons to everything, but I think it's a mistake to dismiss the idea that the person who stepped up, took the responsibility, and was able to get others to follow isn't the person who should be the leader.