I think one of the key tensions in this kind of scenario is individuals combination of traits massively influence the way they view the code and they're generally blind as to what the world looks like to engineers with a different combination of traits.
Just because someone has a higher IQ doesn't make them objectively better on all measures. It usually does mean they have cognitive access to things that others do not, and this can be beneficial as well as detrimental. It's seriously beneficial when they are able to come up with a simpler, more elegant solution when the rest of the team can't where that solution ratchets down the level of complexity and/or the cognitive load on the team. It's seriously detrimental when they propose solutions that do the opposite simply because they can conceive of it and it solves some problem they think exists and/or that needs solving and ratchets up complexity and increases cognitive load.
I like the example of the engineer arguing for less whitespace because he personally doesn't need it where others do, but he's unable to see the effects it would have on other people were it to be removed and how in aggregate that would likely result in a worse outcome.
There's an engineer that I work with occasionally who is like this. He loves complexity and absolutely thrives on it. It's like oxygen to him. He's very smart. He's also a 20+ year veteran, 10+ of which is with the current company. There are things which I know he is uniquely capable of producing, and in such a scenario I want what he would produce as it would be significantly better than what almost anyone else would do. However, 99 times out of 100 I want what almost anyone else would produce than what he would, as he optimizes only for himself and not the wider team. We have an upcoming overhaul of a legacy system that were both chomping at the bit to get stuck into, and I've been told to "get in line", but I'm not just going to lie down and take an attitude like that when I know what the result might be. Needless to say I think it will require being both firm and diplomatic.
Just because someone has a higher IQ doesn't make them objectively better on all measures. It usually does mean they have cognitive access to things that others do not, and this can be beneficial as well as detrimental. It's seriously beneficial when they are able to come up with a simpler, more elegant solution when the rest of the team can't where that solution ratchets down the level of complexity and/or the cognitive load on the team. It's seriously detrimental when they propose solutions that do the opposite simply because they can conceive of it and it solves some problem they think exists and/or that needs solving and ratchets up complexity and increases cognitive load.
I like the example of the engineer arguing for less whitespace because he personally doesn't need it where others do, but he's unable to see the effects it would have on other people were it to be removed and how in aggregate that would likely result in a worse outcome.
There's an engineer that I work with occasionally who is like this. He loves complexity and absolutely thrives on it. It's like oxygen to him. He's very smart. He's also a 20+ year veteran, 10+ of which is with the current company. There are things which I know he is uniquely capable of producing, and in such a scenario I want what he would produce as it would be significantly better than what almost anyone else would do. However, 99 times out of 100 I want what almost anyone else would produce than what he would, as he optimizes only for himself and not the wider team. We have an upcoming overhaul of a legacy system that were both chomping at the bit to get stuck into, and I've been told to "get in line", but I'm not just going to lie down and take an attitude like that when I know what the result might be. Needless to say I think it will require being both firm and diplomatic.