And that's the problem with Rockstar Programmers. They know they are rockstars, they know that they can get funding for their own product at a moments notice, they know that they can always go on a speaking tour.
You need them, but they don't need you, and they know it. So they walk in and want to do what they want to do, they have no intention of doing the shitty stuff. But work in a company has a lot of shitty stuff to be done.
The problem with Zed is that though he is a good developer, he's also a good writer and probably a good talker. Those last two are important to him, and when people work at companies, they should not be having two big side projects (writing and talking). It distracts from the work.
All the rockstar programmers of the last few years all seemed to have entered CTO roles, have started their own companies, or are important people in very big companies. Very few are still just slugging away at code at small startups.
This story is basically why you should not hire rockstar programmers. Hire normal people who depend on you for their income.
First off, you don't know me, so don't presume to know how I am to work with, or what kind of employee I am. In fact, what you wrote here is borderline slander, as you're basically telling people to not hire me. You and everyone else needs to quit that shit because I don't do it to you, and it does have a major impact on my life.
Second, who the hell are you to say I shouldn't have a life outside of your company? This is not a damn salt mine, or a factory. Programmers are hired based on their visible experience. The projects they do and the things they write are now a major deciding factor on whether they get jobs. To then tell someone that all of that stops because you're paying them a piddly little 100k/year compared to your massive ownership in the company is down right abusive.
Third, in the valley the trend of firing people at the drop of a hat because they aren't a "good fit" cuts both ways. If you show no loyalty to your employees then they owe you nothing. Expecting them to stick around and be loyal, but then fire their peers for having a bad day with no warning is completely unfair.
Basically, I think your entire comment smacks of business douchebag who has no concept of worker's rights, fairness, or even basic capitalism.
Let me put it this way: You're a talented singer, songwriter, guitarist, and producer. The company needs a person who plays bass. They could hire you as a bassist, but that's not where you belong. You're a rockstar. You belong in the front.
What I'm saying is not slander, it's the opposite. YOU are putting yourself in the wrong spot, because you should not be playing bass when you have all these other talents. You should form your own band and create your own vision.
Imagine you are casting a band and you put Carlos Santana as the guitarrist of Britney Spears. Sure, he's an excellent guitar player, but that's now where he belongs. He should not play guitar in Britneys band and dabble in experimental rock music, he should be focusing on his own thing.
That's what I mean - many companies simply need a cog. They need some small piece that will keep the machine turning smoothly. They need a pawn - and though you could stick a queen in there to do the job of the pawn, it's not where it belongs.
And when someone says the queen should not be used as a pawn, the queen should not be arguing that it should be a pawn.
"Hire normal people who depend on you for their income." yes! that's it! Be sure you're the one in control, ensuring your ability to treat them as less than human!
Sorry for the snark, but that last line may be pretty unintentionally revealing. employer/employee relations are a complex relationship which requires a delicate balance of power. Having the employee be entirely dependent on the employer is just as damaging (to both parties!) as having a keystone employee who knows he can't be replaced. I'd replace your last line with "Hire equals who you can treat as equals."
You make it sound like you can only be "important" if you are not programming anymore. I say: go to hell.
I have never seen a manager winning a Nobel Prize - scientist are respected in our world, except in our field. Go figure.
I, for one, like to work for people who are smarter than I am. I believe many good programmers (here refered to as rockstars) feel the same. Therefore, they will not want to work for you and you can stop worrying about them.
Rockstar programmers are not the problem, inexperienced, insecure middle-managers who feel threatened by the fact that they have no idea what the rockstar programmers are talking about half the time are.
Why don't you see your argument through to its most logical conclusion and say "only hire people who depend on you for their worker's visa?"
If I had the money, I would hire Zed because I think he would bring a lot more into play for me than just "slugging at code" for me.
I think he's smart enough to contribute strategically to the project and the direction it takes.
I think he's knowledgable enough to teach me and other people in the group things we don't know.
I think he's good enough to bring in other good people when we need to expand.
And I think he'd just be an awesome, fun guy to be around.
Hiring a cog doesn't get me any of that. If I have to pay Zed two-three times what it costs me to hire a cog to get all those skills, I'd consider it a bargain. And I'm guessing he'd be pretty happy at that rate too.
This phrase has appeared multiple times in response to comments on this story, but I think it misses the point entirely. The parent poster has a point at some level, but he delivers it with no tact.
The point is that you need more than money to hire really talented people. It sounds as if Zed left Dropbox because the problems he was solving there weren't the type of problems that he was passionate about solving. The pinhead, middle-manager response to this is to get pissed off and rant against hiring "rockstar" programmers, but that just shows how little they understand about what motivates really talented people.
I can't speak for Zed, but I know a few talented programmers myself. I've brought them in on projects and seen them hit the door in short order. The #1 reason was never money. Great coders are artists. Their greatest work will always be works of inspiration, not portraits they're paid to paint by narcissistic clients.
The bottom line is, if you want to hire talented people, set out to solve interesting problems, or build interesting projects. And don't be upset if the "rockstar" programmer you hired doesn't want to keep doing what you're doing. Go out and find someone who is interested in solving those problems and pay them what they deserve.
You are talking bollocks, "rockstars" programmers changed the way that you are living now! You should hire people that are good on what they do, that are passionated and not that they go to work just to buy food!
You need them, but they don't need you, and they know it. So they walk in and want to do what they want to do, they have no intention of doing the shitty stuff. But work in a company has a lot of shitty stuff to be done.
The problem with Zed is that though he is a good developer, he's also a good writer and probably a good talker. Those last two are important to him, and when people work at companies, they should not be having two big side projects (writing and talking). It distracts from the work.
All the rockstar programmers of the last few years all seemed to have entered CTO roles, have started their own companies, or are important people in very big companies. Very few are still just slugging away at code at small startups.
This story is basically why you should not hire rockstar programmers. Hire normal people who depend on you for their income.