Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: