The website is obviously humorous. On a more serious note, the most toxic developers are those who constantly talk about perceived signs of toxicity in other people.<p>They are also the most unproductive ones and tend to form cliques.
Ever considered the idea that boiling down people to archetypes might be a core reason you'd need to consult something like this in the first place?
Difficult people can potentially be far worse than having no one in their position. They may cast a cloud over every team meeting with a bad attitude. They can be a troll under the bridge, standing in the way of movement with excuses and a million reasons why it can't be done. Everyone on the team may end up walking on eggshells around that person, and end up doing everything they can to avoid interacting with them. It makes everyone else's job twice as hard.
This should come with a big warning that it applies to people's current moods rather than having them in a fixed personality.<p>There are extreme cases where someone is always an "Extreme Overestimator" but those are rare. People will often shift between all of this made up classifications depending on the circumstances, their goals, their past experiences, etc.<p>It seems to be a nice tool to raise awareness for these potential states of mind but I wouldn't use it as an objective assessment of other people.
Just looking through the Product Manager section, I find it telling that almost all entries are “low” risk to the project, particularly the Sales Liason. The ones with high risk are about vague requirements, changing requirements without increasing deadlines, or being a people pleaser.<p>In practice, none of the six companies I’ve worked for has ever used anything other than vague requirements at all times for all teams, whatever gives the most fungibility to the product / sales side of the organization. Adding scope definitely requires amending deadlines, so I can agree with that, but a Sales Liason is low risk to the project? No way.<p>It makes me question who is writing this and what their personal perspective is for choosing the taxonomy of risks, which in turn makes this whole thing seem childish to me and certainly not any kind of broadly applicable way of analyzing people at work or risks that are posed.<p>Meanwhile, there is actual research literature that attempts to study things of a similar vein, e.g.<p><a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab220/t/55e5f374e4b04539eab51172/1441133428448/GrantGinoHofmann_Reversing.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dcde36e4b0df55a96ab...</a>
> The Distrusted: A Designer who has lost all credibility with the project team, leading to their UI requirements being ignored as they are deemed to be not in the products’ best interest.