Hacker News Reader

Comment by TwoNineFive | Hacker News Reader

In organizations I've known this as the "Dead Sea Effect", where good/talented employees leave the company because they don't want to work with bad/mediocre employees, and all you have left is the bad/mediocre.

I've also seen this effect take a form where good employees will recognize what is happening and rock the boat, trying to make it clear that there's something wrong and that something should be done about it. Mediocre managers and employees don't like this and eventually the good employee gets fired. The lazy and mediocre then run the show; as long as that paycheck keeps coming in, who cares if we are doing a good job or not?

View on HN

No employee is simply talented or mediocre or bad. Everyone you meet has strengths and weaknesses. Some people's strengths aren't in demand every day, but crucial when called upon. Others have weaknesses which rarely appear, but are terribly damaging when they do.

And everyone is drawn to the company of others in the workplace based primarily on interpersonal factors, not others' ability or performance or lack thereof.

Certainly, there are toxic personalities which can poison an environment, but they generally have some valuable assets as well.

Deciding to leave an organization because of its people is never a simple calculation.

> Deciding to leave an organization because of its people is never a simple calculation.

I think this is the simplest calculation of all, and generally the reason people leave or stay in an organization.

You can say that everyone has strengths and weaknesses, which is probably true, but if their weaknesses are all in the sector in which they’re working, they’re still going to be terrible.

How the team is assembled matters. Of heaven and hell:

In heaven, the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, the mechanics are German, the police are British, and everything is organised by the Swiss.

In hell, the cooks are British, the lovers are Swiss, the mechanics are French, the police are German, and everything is organised by the Italians.

Ah but individuals are more complicated than national stereotypes!

And that is a very old joke, from the 19th or early 20th century, when the world was Euro-centric.

From the number of cooking programs on my TV with british cooks at the moment I would assume the british have upped the game a bit on cooking :-)

How many are curries or other imports? ;-)

(Says the cat who's been home-baking crumpets.)

I've never seen a bad programmer who starts to produce good code when project begins to fail.

Excusing toxic managers because the project is still rolling does not make sense, since we ignore how much better would it be with someone who can actually do their job.

Unless you're in sales there is no benefit to being the rotten apple.

Another way to get this is to have high standards, but poor ability to track performance. Then you get more cheaters than honest folks as fewer are able to actually meet the standards.

Imagine, for example, job ads that require 50 years of Java experience from employers who are too clueless to verify such things. Or grading on a curve with a teacher who uses the exact same tests every year. When some people have tests & answers, everyone who doesn't will end up with lower grades.

I've seen it, too. Worse yet is when it's the kind of company that doesn't allow mediocre employees to improve. They're just given more work, crazier deadlines, less input, and no opportunities for advancement. Not only does this hinder the company, but it harms employees who stay too long at these companies. But the companies don't care because, by the time the good employees have left, they've made their money and enough wheels are in motion that the cash cow will continue to produce in the face of mediocrity.