IME there's a fine line to balance between burning out your best people and over-pressuring them, vs being too accommodating of adequate-to-good people more interested in protecting their own turf/stability or playing political games than in getting the product as good as possible. In my ideal world I'd rather be in a pay-for-output-quality (not pure quantity or attention-getting) higher-pressure-but-not-insane-hours environment than in the latter, but sadly that doesn't seem super common.
The most frustrating problem for me is "top performers" who are very technically knowledgeable, so seen as stars by their direct managers, but have zero interest in any solutions that they don't directly design themselves, and little interest in taking feedback or admitting that their internal mental roadmap isn't 100% perfect.
The most frustrating problem for me is "top performers" who are very technically knowledgeable, so seen as stars by their direct managers, but have zero interest in any solutions that they don't directly design themselves, and little interest in taking feedback or admitting that their internal mental roadmap isn't 100% perfect.
How do you get to be a "top performer" if you aren't willing to learn? In the context that I'm in now as the lead developer, I am sure that I'm the top developer. But as a lead developer, I'm the most inexperienced leader in my entire company and I'm constantly learning what being a leader means.
The most frustrating problem for me is "top performers" who are very technically knowledgeable, so seen as stars by their direct managers, but have zero interest in any solutions that they don't directly design themselves, and little interest in taking feedback or admitting that their internal mental roadmap isn't 100% perfect.