[anonytrary]

Engineer who implements correct, comprehensible code but doesn't manage ticket statuses is more valuable than one who manages ticket statuses but scatters the codebase with technical debt and confusing abstractions/code. If "better communication" means spending an extra 10 hours with the latter dev to correct/re-teach them, then yes, communication is the problem. The most time I've lost at work is correcting/teaching engineers who eventually got let go due to low performance.

[doesnt_know]

I don't really think the first part of your comment is true, at least not in my experience. All other stakeholders would prefer someone that updates their tickets and communicates what they are doing effectively, even if they produce absolute garbage, bug ridden software.

I've personally only ever seen someone removed from a team for having poor technical skills once and it was under pretty extreme circumstances. While I've seen many good (from a technical perspective) developers removed because they thought they were somehow above doing the everyday "busy work" like ticket management.

Unless you work alone, then refusing to do non-technical work is just saying you're going to let the rest of the team do it. You're much more likely to be removed or have your contract ended if the team doesn't want to work with you.

[asdff]

Without going into anything identifying, what exactly were those circumstances? I'm imagining something like this happening, but at the same time I can't help but think if its a technical skill issue, handing them a book on the relevant technology and telling them studying this book is their job for the next two weeks would be better than trying to roll the dice again, put out a new job ad, interview, vet, rehire, and hope they aren't somehow just as technically incompetent as the original engineer.