Please... No rockstars

Were you really a good programmer, you'd have chosen to be a Jesus programmer with a Darwin mixin. But you didn't so now you have to worry about the diamond problem.

To me, saying "rockstar" would imply the following positives: an otherwise-inexplicable charisma, resonance-with and/or understanding-of what the average person wants, and an employer who pays commensurate with the employee, not the job

"Rockstar" definitely carries the baggage of being highly-associated with douchebags and prima-donnas. But it's not all negative.

C'mon. Who didn't dream of becoming a rockstar.

The recording industry has used the same manipulation techniques to screw ingenuous people for ages.

In the positive sense, it refers to somebody who is looked up to with awe and respect, like a rock star. For example, DHH had something of a rockstar air when Rails was the cool new kid because everyone was in awe of the guy who created this awesome framework. What they're trying to convey with "Are you a rockstar?" is "Does everyone you work with think you are amazing in an almost unattainable way?"

It's still stupid, lazy phrasing IMO, but that seems to be people's meaning.

First, the disclaimer: You obviously can't expect language evolution to be logical. People say "couldn't care less", for example, to the annoyance of pedantic people everywhere.

Second, one can't rule out the possibility that "rockstar" started out as irony, or even an insult, applied to a specific handful of people who later became famous and carried the word along with them. That's what happened to the word impressionist, for example, which was coined by a derisive outsider as part of an insulting review but then got adopted by the Impressionists themselves and eventually became a standard term for a specific flavor of artist.

Having said all of that... There are lots of traits of actual rockstars that the word "rockstar" is meant to convey:

You're looking for an artist, not a bureaucrat.

You're looking for someone who attempts to connect with an audience, who understands that their job is communication.

You're looking for someone who shows evidence of patient and diligent practice. Though the Sex Pistols might be the exception that proves the rule [1], you don't become a rockstar by sheer luck, or charisma, or the right hairstyle, or by taking heroin and smashing up hotel rooms. You need talent. You have to practice a whole lot. Generally alone, and in obscurity, for little pay, because you take joy in the practice of your art, and because you are a forward-looking person with big goals.

You're looking for someone with big goals, someone who aspires to at least a little more than the average session musician. Someone who is going somewhere and can inspire others to follow.

---

[1] Remember: If progressive rock had never been invented, the Sex Pistols could never have succeeded: AFAIK the first wave of punk rock was a reaction to other genres. And it was extremely temporary... within literally weeks the punk movement was dominated by people who had some practice, if only because the early bands inevitably got some practice. ;)

Good call. I'm going to ask every potential hire whether they've read the hagakure.

I wouldn't hire Bono. He wouldn't get anything done. He would just write songs about your problem, rather than actually doing something about it.

Thanks!

Really? _Really?_

You really think that there exist enough "incredibly intelligent" people to fill every tech role in existence?

Sure, every company can _ask_ for the top 1%, but unless they're delusional they're going to have to deal with the fact that some of the people they hire are just going to have to be average. Doubly so for a company offering no job security and long/chaotic hours for a very low chance of payoff in a few years.

Trust me, I know the risks because I've worked almost exclusively with and for start-ups. To me it's completely self evident why startup culture attracts the crazies or "rockstar" programmers. Who else is going to gamble so much time and effort on a what's almost certainly a failed venture? Usually not the industry's top talent, unless they're one of the founders.

Of course, I'm speaking very generally and making sweeping, stereotypes based on my own experience, which may not accurately reflect reality.

--edit--

My post above sounds a bit more aggressive than I intended, sorry. All I'm saying is that "incredibly intelligent" programmers with good communication skills are rare and it's pretty unreasonable (IMO) for a startup founder to just expect them to show up just because he has an idea and a little bit of money.

Nope, the justification is that they're going to give you enough equity that you'll get rich when they sell to the google/ms/oracle/ibm type.