So management also was bad at their jobs. They probably didn't get canned, though they deserved it as much as the King of Shipping.
But, congratulations, you know the "What's Bad About Working Here". Maybe there's a way to train management what their implicit job responsibilities are. I've never seen it happen in the wild, but maybe it's possible.
For instance, when you tell people that you went to a Burger King and it took them 30 minutes to serve you a cup of coffee, the conventional answer is "it's hard to find good help these days."
That's a loser attitude on the part of management. Management hires employees, fires employees, trains employees, supervises employees, etc. If management does not take responsibility for your experience as a customer it is definitely the fault of management that you have a bad experience.
The problem has many facets but one of them is that few people are cut out to manage other people and our illusions about "meritocracy" contribute to an American culture that creates excellent foot soldiers but mediocre to terrible officers.
Was your hard working server set up for failure by someone making 4 times her wage? A good manager can take a terrible team and make them a great team.
Great leadership is humility and service to those being led. In America the ego worship and adoration for the Type A nutjob stands in the way.
Management loves how fast things are delivered, and boyscout loves the pats on the head. The rest of us hate the countdown until the house of cards comes tumbling down.
I saw a great tweet some time ago that defined a 10xer as an engineer who accumulates technical debt so fast, it takes 10 engineers to fix their mess. That about sums it up, doesn't it?
You trust teams, not individuals. The smallest possible team (1) to give some responsibility to is three people for this reason. Someone can quit or take a leave of absence and you still have technical accountability, code reviews, meaningful discussions, etc.
The fact that management made a mistake here is understandable. Management needs room to make mistakes, too. The fact that the developer was blamed and fired but the management wasn't held to a similar standard of accountability is the problem.
The code is the product. The management owns the code just as much as that developer did. So does everyone up the chain and anyone in parallel organizations (the business experts, the people that make the budgets, the QA department, etc.).
It's likely, at least implicitly, that the org structure sees some people owning 'the product' and other people owning 'the revenue' and other people owning 'the budget' and the developers owning 'the code'. As if we can separate those things.
If you work for a car manufacturer, everyone needs to know about cars, care about cars, drive cars, learn about cars, and expect good cars to be produced for a nice profit. I think shops that sell software, whether shrinkwrapped or through services, need to have the same attitude about software. If you are in the business of software, you are in the business of code, even if you can't write any yourself.
1) Team loosely defined here. It could be three people from different parts of the company, as long as they all understand the aspects of the system well enough to have a meaningful discussions about it.
First, make sure they can do the job technically, within some sort of parameters of what they can currently do and what can be learned on the job. That's your baseline.
Then, try and suss out if they'd be good to work with. That will come naturally through the way they interact with you in the interview and how they answer questions (whether they are the questions in the article or completely different ones).
If you reckon they tick the boxes for those two major attributes, it's then just a matter of weighing up how much of each attribute they bring to the table and if the balance is right.
I have seen very prepared people from flagship universities that shine in interviews but have zero intention of learning and complying with industry standards and good practices and do not care about details.
Those people also feel entitled to be promoted as quickly as possible, even if they're still too green to understand how software works. This is how bad engineering managers are born.
I've met a lot of people who change jobs before anyone realises this - to anyone who works on the same projects they are a nightmare, to everyone else they look like a hotshot.
[99% of the people I have worked with have never played those kind of political games but I have seen the utter chaos that can happen if a politically savvy operator is let loose in a trusting and politically naive environment.]
I've had to opposite experience twice - I got drop-shipped into projects where somebody had gone rogue and I cleaned it up, and then they were let go. It's most unpleasant, and had they been more perceptive they'd have known that's what was going on. In both cases, I believe they were ready to go ( and I lost any trust in the management that used this gambit and left myself shortly).
Step 1 when I got hired on was to automate away half of what he was doing. I turned processes that were previously three hour projects into five minutes and a shell script. Not many late nights or 16 hour days for me.
Step 2 was to finish all the work he'd left behind. It wasn't unusual to get a bug report coming in "Oh, in screen X when you try and do Y it doesn't work right." only to find that while he'd built an interface, there was no code behind any of it.
Should it be one developers job to do more than 20% of the job when it comes to shipping an entire companies products/services?
It feels like you're poo-pooing the idea of a Lone Ranger coder, while being annoyed the person didn't do 100% of the work? If it's supposed to be a team effort, why should they do more than 20% of the job. The rest of the team should be contributing the other 80%.
Sounds like they were there and fired before you even started. So I'm going to have to /dev/null this post as hearsay.
Having a hard time understanding how this isn't downvoted to oblivion. With all the rhetoric here about quality content and posting only that which moves conversations in a constructive way, this ends up being full of holes and after the fact blame gaming. Rarely useful.
I think that is a personal responsibility to some extent. Even if you are doing agile or your team is small. If you don't plan to engage those requirements immediately, they need to be communicated to your stakeholders (e.g: in the form of a task in your backlog, though many of these might require refactoring/rework). Stakeholders should be aware of their completion status to make informed decisions around priorities and risk management.
In an analogy, a non-functional requirement is not "adding a room to a house", it is "the construction material and construction standard to build a room". It is not something that can be added later on without rework.
If they mindfully decide to accept the risks of neglecting functional requirements, it's fine, but that's their decision to make. It should not be a surprise later on that those requirements are not implemented.
Then, yes, it was an organizational failure. The person was one of the first hires. But I am talking from the perspective of the article being discussed. Management put the character of the individual over skills in their hierarchy of relevance at the moment of hiring, with the results I mentioned.
Then, it's not "hearsay". Evidence left: tickets, code, etc. Reading code that reflects someone not understanding CS fundamentals is not hearsay.
In your anecdote though, I'm reading that the er, rockstar developer had enough skills to get things done, but not the personality to do things The Right Way. That is a personality thing, I think, with personality traits like attention to detail and quality and such. Those are not linked to skill level or technology; maybe with experience (i.e. being on the receiving end of those bugs and issues), but even that is not necessary IMO, because there's plenty of smart people out there to tell people to do, for example, unit testing, and why.
The wrong personality scoffs at that stuff and goes cowboy coding like the person in your anecdote.
In my company we had this very eloquent, outgoing person who implemented many features very fast. To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping".
But a little bit later things started to seem weird. Noone was productive except for this person. Only he could understand the code organization because the system wasn't well structured. Then bug reports started coming in, later on the customer complaints started coming in, and incidents were declared. The guy failed to fix the incidents and got fired.
Later on, I got hired. By auditing the code base I identified multiple issues that suggested the person did not understand what he was doing.
So the eloquent, passionate, cool, outgoing guy turned to be productive because he was only doing 20% of the job. All non-functional requirements were neglected. Non-functional requirements are often implicit and taken for granted. Nobody tells you "I want to not be hacked" or "I want our system to not slow down and go over capacity". Those are implicit requirements that you as an engineer need to identify, specify and implement.
The non-technical leadership realized this only 2 years down the road when a huge damage was already done.
So, I am going to say NO to this article. Skills are important.