I would say your assumption here is unkind and itself lazy.
I have often seen this kind of situation and the cause has always been the same: The most senior in the organisation are ridiculously poor at building their org.
They have hired someone who is pretty great at stuff and they got them by accident, for cheap due to some circumstance, and now attempt to grow without realising they got lucky.
They hire net negative contributors and making it more difficult to deliver, not less. They cannot comprehend that there won’t be some magic that turns these people into productive and driven employees without their own growth in skills, attitude, and care in direction. They are likely incapable of such things.
The person or people at the center of this are stuck, yes. They can’t spread their knowledge because others will actively avoid admitting the docs exist, or refuse to ask Google or another employee. They certainly can’t spread their attitude and skills because no-one else cares or has the incentive or ability to skill up.
There is only one eventual route for the capable and driven: leave and go somewhere where there are better people in senior roles.
If everybody around is relatively incompetent, then the superstar at the center can't fix that. The overall result that the org produces is based on everybody and eventually "regresses to the mean" of what everybody contributes. Management and also the superstar need to accept that.
I write "relative" because it's a matter of perspective. Maybe from the superstars perfectionist perspective, the others are incompetent, but from the outside they are "good enough". Or maybe they are not, but the point is that there is a mismatch and the superstar needs to either accept that or leave. The third alternative, trying to lift things to the superstars (real or perceived) standard by "I'll just do it myself" is not sustainable and results in situations as in the discussed article.
Yes, your conclusion that this person / people should leave is the same as mine. I’m also saying, however, that the person / people you’re describing as ‘superstar’ don’t have to be that at all. There doesn’t need to be a 10x contributor and lots of average people. Just a 1x contributor and lots of 0.01x or -10x people.
Too many owners / managers believe that to grow your business you just need to add people, that they are great at hiring people, and everyone will just sort themselves out and work together. They are then surprised that this doesn’t happen, despite their faith in their own competence at making this happen.
I’m not saying there aren’t perfectionists out there with an inability to share or unwillingness to let go. Just that the situation being described could be exactly as described and not just one side of a story.
I have often seen this kind of situation and the cause has always been the same: The most senior in the organisation are ridiculously poor at building their org.
They have hired someone who is pretty great at stuff and they got them by accident, for cheap due to some circumstance, and now attempt to grow without realising they got lucky.
They hire net negative contributors and making it more difficult to deliver, not less. They cannot comprehend that there won’t be some magic that turns these people into productive and driven employees without their own growth in skills, attitude, and care in direction. They are likely incapable of such things.
The person or people at the center of this are stuck, yes. They can’t spread their knowledge because others will actively avoid admitting the docs exist, or refuse to ask Google or another employee. They certainly can’t spread their attitude and skills because no-one else cares or has the incentive or ability to skill up.
There is only one eventual route for the capable and driven: leave and go somewhere where there are better people in senior roles.