[spacemanmatt]

Tell your boss what everyone knows: This team sucks and it's the boss's fault for building a shitty team. This is a classic pattern, where you have a team in full dysfunction with a lead who is not empowered and a boss who is not aware.

It is not acceptable to divide the leadership that way. You either need the ability to hire/fire and fix that team, or you have to quit.

[spacemanmatt]

The Maverick is a bad actor. The copy-paster is a bad actor. The boss is a bad actor. Is it easier to turn this tide or get a better job?

[capableweb]

It's always easier to drop everything and find better pastures when shit gets hard and/or bad.

But is it best for your long-term growth? If you're already in a difficult place mentally, it probably is best to leave. But if you're in a good place generally, and up for a challenge, you learn a ton more when you go from hard/bad to easy/good, and those skills are very sought after in the market place.

So if you can gain those skills, I'd go for doing just that. But again, that's not for everyone.

[wheybags]

Framed another way: is it better for your long term growth to work with colleagues who can teach you new skills, or to try to wrangle a dysfunctional team?

IMO it depends on what you want to learn. If you want to develop your technical skills, it's definitely good to go somewhere that you're not the best dev in the room. Wrangling a team is more management / soft skills.

[capableweb]

> is it better for your long term growth to work with colleagues who can teach you new skills, or to try to wrangle a dysfunctional team?

Good point, although I'd consider "wrangle a dysfunctional team" as a skill, granted the team is only dysfunctional because of good management, not if they are inherently bad programmers, too big egos or whatever.

> IMO it depends on what you want to learn

Yeah, that's a good point. That nuance in my comment was missing to thanks for adding that.

[toqti]

Thank you, I am being as positive as I can!

[spacemanmatt]

I can tell, and this is a familiar situation to me. It's hard to remember what a good environment is like when you have been exposed to dysfunction for a long time. I advocate good organizational health, and I can't do that independently if I stay in bad organizations for too long.

[HWR_14]

How is the boss a bad actor? The OP is being relied on by the boss because the boss admitted he trusts the OP and cannot judge technical talent.

If the CEO of a small company hires bad programmers, then brings in a CTO, and the CTO complains about the team it's no longer the CEO's fault. The lead seems to be listened to.

[spacemanmatt]

The boss is a bad actor because they have delegated leadership duties without any authority to make necessary changes. The boss is not able to judge technical talent.

[HWR_14]

That's not how I read the post. It seemed like he was given authority and is wrestling with how to deploy it.

[spacemanmatt]

I did not read that he was given authority to alter the team composition. I hope I'm just wrong, because that's a poor circumstance.

[dennis_jeeves1]

>You either need the ability to hire/fire and fix that team, or you have to quit.

Giving responsibility without the associated authority and power is way too common. If your situation is what I just mentioned, you have only 2 options: either put up with it or quit.