[javier2]

Yup. We just lost our "slightly below average" developers, but he was a nice guy and tries to deliver. But they have been slow to replace him, and now we are likely looking at 3 months before a new hire will just be in place, plus the new hire will not have the three years worth of experience the other guy had, so their project will likely be slower than at it already was for the rest of the year.

[doubled112]

I’d take “slightly below average but is generally good to work with and tries hard” over “genius asshole” almost any day. Few projects require the latter.

There’s also the problem with how useless so many are at their jobs with no way to be sure until its too late.

[malfist]

I've found those genius assholes are mostly just assholes and not much on the genius side

[marcosdumay]

A lot of people appear to be highly productive by creating more work for the ones around them. That tends to correlate well with being an asshole.

[greenchair]

mostly agree but the below average try hard is also the one introducing the most bugs so I'm torn on this.

[drabiega]

That very much depends on the workplace. I was let go once for being 'slightly below average', because I kept foolishly spending the time to fix things in ways that didn't result in more bugs.

[nasmorn]

I literally inherited a dev once that was so bad we vastly improved velocity once he left. Every couple of months we fixed a weird bug in the code he wrote and laughed about it. The middle manager loved him because we was very eager to work and always around

[marcosdumay]

Are those people in an environment where they need to close tickets at any cost or else?

I've seen less capable people changing from slightly productive to incredibly destructive by changing that one variable.

[sph]

> I’d take “slightly below average but is generally good to work with and tries hard” over “genius asshole” almost any day.

I'd take either before the utterly dangerous "below average hard-working asshole" which tend to quickly rise to managerial positions and cause untold damage with their ineptitude.

"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."

— Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

[javier2]

Hehe, yes. The naive, but very hardworking developer is the most dangerous. He will dig you holes so deep nobody will ever find out if there is even any light in there.

[tjpnz]

You're missing the person hours lost in hiring the new member.

[javier2]

... plus those hours!