Hacker News Reader

Comment by interlocutor | Hacker News Reader

Can someone define what a "rockstar programmer" is and why a company would want to not hire rockstar programmers?

Here's one definition I found: http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=ChrisTTT

A computer programmer with such strong skills and so much specific experience that they are the equivalent of a rock star in the domain of software. Many people play guitar pretty well, but only a few become rock stars. These programmers can develop more software than 5 - 10 newly hired regular programmers because they know what needs to be done and how to do it. They also might set the architecture of the product that dozens will build upon.

What's wrong with that?

View on HN

I'll tackle this.

- If they are expected to do 5-10 times the amount of software development as a regular new programmer, are they going to be offered 5-10 times the regular salary?

- Are all the other programmers at the company dramatically more effective than a regular programmer? Most competent people don't think of themselves as being exceptionally better than their peers, so if that's the case, they probably shouldn't bother.

- Or, are the other programmers at the company just regular ones, and the incoming new person is expected to be more effective than all of them combined from day one? That's a lot of pressure to put on one person. What was the answer to the salary question again?

- Many people who have developed exceptional skills in one area have neglected other areas. What types of personal problems is the company willing to tolerate for the privilege of hiring rock stars? Is alcoholism okay? How about being sexually creepy towards co-workers, due to lack of social skill practice? How about body odor? Not that all exceptionally skilled programmers have these types of problems, but you have to make a trade off somewhere. Really, how much are you paying them? Because someone who is 5 or 10 times more productive than a normal programmer without being a socially impossible weirdo is likely already in a job paying far more than what hr had in mind for this position.

Is there no place for a programmer who's just basically competent and professional and will work for an average salary? Do you want to drive those programmers away?

For a lot of places, the answer is yes. They do want to drive that person away. They want someone who will do 5x the work for 0.8x the salary because they think $TOPIC is their great calling in life.

To someone willing to burn out a promising young programmer to get their startup to hockey-stick upwards, it's a good deal.

Yup. And that's exactly why more experienced programmers will stay the hell away.

This is a shocking attitude. Assuming that a highly skilled software developer is more likely to have body odor, have poor social skills, be alcoholic, be sexually creepy, etc., is shocking to me.

Hiring managers that have this attitude are not the next Steve Jobs, that's for sure.

Steve Jobs specifically looked for the "multiplier factor" when hiring: In choosing key members of his team, he looks for the multiplier factor of excellence. Truly outstanding designers, engineers and managers, he says, are not just 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent better than merely very good ones, but 10 times better. Their contributions, he adds, are the raw material of “aha” products, which make users rethink their notions of, say, a music player or cellphone.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31lohr.html

>I'll tackle this.

tackle is a very exclusive term, consider the language you use on tech sites and how it can exclude others from tech.

Kluny's response is correct, but I'll also add - when I see "rockstar programmer" on a job advertisement it reeks of "meaningless corporate BS" and/or "juvenile work environment".

If you require someone that can "develop more software than 5 - 10 newly hired regular programmers", just say so (and good luck).

Actual "rockstars" (I know a few who may qualify) don't look for positions calling for rockstars, mostly because they're a little more mature and focussed at any age.

They are just a one person department/wrecking team who can take on a team of many, they are genuinely interested in problems that are the rockstars, not themselves.

I've found a certain percentage of folks wanting to be recognized or move into a position of rockstars are often more attracted to positions attracting rockstars, wizards and ninjas all trying to rock out, cast spells, and throw stars in the same room. There is no ladder into rockstarism, only a track record that is remarkable and speaks for itself.

Like a lot of fields, the quiet people in the room are often the smartest and most interesting. Finding a way to get them onto teams where they can make a huge difference is key.

Every company, all else equal, wants the best talent available. There are two separate and not necessarily related issues here :

1. all else is not always equal, and the most technically proficient developer is not always the one that adds the most to a given team (and in fact is not even always a net-positive)

2. Great developers don't always self-identify as great developers, and conversely not-so-great developers do occasionally self-identify as great developers.

In short, I suspect they're trying to weed out a psychological profile - not aptitude per se.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com