We tend to underestimate management's visibility in such situations. I had three senior engineers. One was your Pete (names are not real of course), throw him anything and he'll have something half-working in no time. Ugly but enough function to be called a proof of concept. One was the opposite, call him Paul, give him any problem and he would spend his whole life if possible researching every minute detail of the problem, similar domains and patterns etc. The last one, Mary, was the master combiner. She could collect all kinds of information, abstract and deep as in Paul's, quirky, dirty or non-existent as in Peter's and make them into something deeply practical and down to earth. Can you see how one could manage the work between these 3, all with their teams, in a way that everyone felt respected and admired for their approach? Same with the Julius of the post. Management might be aware of Julius weaknesses, but Julius could still bring a unique delivery skill-set that is required in the context of the overall team's work.
> Julius could still bring a unique delivery skill-set that is required in the context of the overall team's work.
I do not know the author of the blog, but this part especially strikes me as a misinterpretation of the point of the piece.
But that's shedding light, and maybe it's not and my interpretation was too narrow.
My interpretation was: Julius is a parasite, who contributes nothing but merely makes the productive members of the team work harder to compensate. He sounds convincing but understands nothing, does nothing, contributes nothing, and not only wastes others' time but also steals their credit.
But you see him as contributing? You see what he brings as being valid and valuable -- is that right?
