Rock Star vs Rock Solid [programmers, and the difference](jeremyhutchings.com)
jeremyhutchings.com
Rock Star vs Rock Solid [programmers, and the difference]
http://www.jeremyhutchings.com/2009/12/rock-star-vs-rock-solid.html
5 comments
Typically I've found that the best employees don't need "managing" in the classic sense, they need facilitation and protecting from the usual distractions.
Which is why my (a CEO) business card for my new startups says: "chief janitor". :)
I suspect that one source of the "Rock Star" meme is an inside joke about rubies being a type of rock.
Just because some people refer to themselves as 'rock stars' doesn't mean that they -are-. 'Rock star' isn't defined like that, and so the whole argument falls flat. And if those people start calling themselves 'rock solid', this argument still falls flat.
As said in the post, when people call themselves rock stars there are problems.
Rock stars are great when your team is small and tightly-knit. As a rule, they don't scale. Still often worth making accommodations for them as you grow, though.
What this guy describes is just like the actual music business as well.
"A joy to manage as they typically do 99% of the job for you"
I don't doubt that managers prefer employees that are easier to manage. But is it really in the organization's best interest?
I don't know thte author, but I've learned not to underestimate what a good boss can do for an employee. I'm inclined to believe that maybe if the author gave "rock stars" a bit more attention, he might be surprised at what they can do.