All of that said, engineers are not static -- everyone is learning and changing all the time, so "problem" engineers after you've eliminated the above are simply people who have a ways to go before they change enough to become effective in your org (or, quite possibly, your org and its processes have a ways to go before more than an extremely specific type of engineer can become effective). Then it's just a value-prop of "do we think it's worth it to wait it out for this particular employee" because they're always learning and leveling up.

Other problems, like dishonesty, not doing enough work, not appearing to level up, honestly all come back to comp/benefits/company-culture. I genuinely believe that a good manager with sufficient resources can get good engineering work out of literally anyone, given sufficient time and (possibly quite high) resources.

And sometimes, the employees that require the highest investment in that regard can have a very high return when they finally do level up. In fact, I find that a really good predictor of success is simply ambition to level up. I care about that much more than I care about raw skill at the time of hiring.

Of course what you are saying is true but there is more nuance here. The fact is that regardless of architecture, requirments and test cases the engineer is going to make lots of small decisions, and if they are not motivated to make good decisions for the benefit of the org then there will be consequences that maybe could be mitigated but will still impose significant costs. So the fact remains that these engineers need to exit the org.

Every time I read a variation of the "for the benefit of the org" phrase I cannot help but laugh at the absurdity of it.

Do I own the org? If I produce 5x more, do I get rewarded 5x more? What about the other way around: will the org work "for my benefit" every step of the way?

Folks, most people work where they work because they have to. You work or you starve, that's the deal society gives us.

So many clueless managers buy into this crap and go on to become horrible managers "for the benefit of the org".

This phrase is completely nonsensical because it implies that the employee, that has no real stake in the company (no, stock options don't count), should be altruistic and work in the benefit of the organization above his own interests. I say above his own interests because if the interests of the organization and the individual's were aligned, this would be a non-issue.

The reality is that the absolute majority of organizations don't want to fix their incentives because it's cheaper and easier to label people "difficult employees" and fire them. After all, we're all replaceable.

Anecdotal but I've never come across someone that was actively trying to harm their employers. Even the ones labelled "difficult". It was always about bad incentives from the organization.

Some people are motivated by a sense of professional responsibility. Others are not, thats true. I prefer to work with the former.

That's a big mischaracterization of what I wrote. No, it's not a binary choice between professional or not professional. This kind of simplification is exactly the type of harm the original article reinforces.

If you wanna tout around "professionalism", at least explain to all of us what that entails in your world view. Because, for me, someone that does what they're paid to do is professional with or without a blind sense of loyalty to "the organization".

Very based, very true.

This is also why I believe after many many failed iterations and variations of capitalism, we will arrive at worker-owned co-ops winning in the end. It is the only way to truly align interests while still working within this ridiculous capitalist framework.

The fun part is the union leader becomes the CEO, gets elected, etc.

> In a well designed engineering org, the "local minima" and "optimal" are indistinguishable from each other

You're talking about a platonic ideal that rarely ever occurs in real life, except for very simple systems.