Price's Law - that the square root of the number of people in an organization do half the work - predicts that about 22 people should have done half of it, rega

Price's Law - that the square root of the number of people in an organization do half the work - predicts that about 22 people should have done half of it, regardless of anything about 10x engineers. It also predicts that the N lines by the remaining people would be half done by about 22 of them and half done by 4xx of them; I wonder if that pattern was seen? Even if the original engineer was 10x as productive, that would leave 12 people doing half of it, not 1. It makes me think that if the average team worked twenty days a month for six months the project should have been 60,000 units of goodness, and if he was as productive as all of them, 120,000 units of goodness. If, instead, he wrote rushed low-quality code, they spent a week trying to untangle and integrate with it, then he ignored their work and rewrote it himself, demoralizing the team and refusing to play nice with them, it might have reduced the overall units of goodness way below what it could have been. And at the same time he gets the boost of writing it all himself his way and not having to care about making it stable for others to work on, so he looks disproportionately better for that as well. What did the other team members say about it? What happened to the project after? > He was a lead programmer, who issued two-week assignments to other engineers You ought to expect a lead programmer to be better, otherwise why would they get and deserve that position? You'd also expect a leader to be way better than assigning work people can't complete, not working with them, not stopping doing that, then taking over from them. What would a 10x exceptional leader who wasn't a worker, get out of a team of 500 average workers?