[michaelochurch]

Egoless "team players" are pretty easy to manage, and they do a lot of the junk work without asking for much in return, but they're pretty poor strategic thinkers and they don't age well. I might not use the word "ego", but it takes a certain self-preservation instinct to keep growing a skill base in a world that doesn't give jack about your career or future. You have to take responsibility for that, and "team players" often get loaded with grunt work they don't learn much from.

Obviously, there's a middle ground that's optimal. People who can't work with others at all aren't good hires, but neither are the Clueless "team player" types who top out at middle management (because people with strategic talent avoid getting stuck doing someone else's grunt work).

[hga]

Ah, but it's clear the author knows his stuff and is using the term "egoless programmer" as defined by Jerry Weinberg in his 1971 The Psychology of Computer Programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoless_programming). It has nothing to do with being "easy to mange", it means exactly what he said, and is the opposite of at least the connotations of "rockstar".

Similarly, the iffiness of "rockstars" in working well in teams is legendary.

I really doubt the OP has a hidden agenda of making things easier for managers.