The Inertia of Expertise
I have observed on a few occasions that a great deal of knowledge can actually hinder performance. Rahul Dravid realised this in '98 and became the legend he is now by consciously forgetting* some of the classical knowledge that he possessed then. Imagine the Dravid of yesteryears coming in at no. 3 in a one day match chasing 435 for victory.

I have seen instances of this sort closer to home, too. The virtuoso pianist who was never to be found for practice for PAF** is an example. I quite see his point, for the rest of the team was probably so substandard that he would necessarily cringe at the final output. I am sure you don't, as a star, feel particularly appreciated when an uneducated audience goes wild at the end of an average performance. Perhaps this is the expert's dilemma.

This is obviously a challenge when a team is working to achieve a certain result, which does not quite require an elegant solution but a quick dirty one. How do you handle such a situation? Do you take the expert aside and request him to forgive the inadequacies of the team but to not lose the bigger picture? How do you deal with the bad blood and stress that the rest of the team suddenly finds itself in because the expert is refusing to contribute as the information available or the timelines are unrealistic? Do you do away with the expert unless he mends his ways?

*Forgetting here is to be interpreted as ignoring elegance based on context.
**PAF - The Wikipedia article is truly a stub. Request all impacted participants to contribute and improve the quality.
- posted by Rallix @ 3:24 AM