The ultimate conclusion of the article is that, if you hire someone who does not work well with others and doesn't allow other to critique their code, it is going to be harmful to your organisation. Doesn't seem terribly interesting. Although the authors definition of a "rock star" coder is someone who doesn't work well with others, I think that the assumption that everyone shares that same definition is mistaken.
> and even if you do succeed, and have now hired a bunch of “rock stars,” you don’t have a team. You have a bunch of “rock stars.” In reality, rock stars typically don’t play well with others (consider these examples), and each member is typically just in it for themselves.
So by generalizing a definition of a rockstar as someone who sucks at teamwork, you too can write an article with a clickbait headline using 2014 slang and no real science.
Yup. If I define rockstar as someone who loves teaching, has a thirst for new knowledge, and has a passion for quality, I can write a counter-article no problem.
If you ever meet someone who has a passion for enabling everyone else on the team to excel at their roles, you've found a roadie. They're your force multipliers.
