3 ms·
But why let the definition of the term "10x" be hijacked by the kind of people you describe? We still need a way to succinctly describe engineers who are an or
by rickthomas1980 7y ago
But why let the definition of the term "10x" be hijacked by the kind of people you describe? We still need a way to succinctly describe engineers who are an order of magnitude more effective than average. Can't we let "10x" continue to mean what it's always meant, and agree on a new term for toxic team members?
- pgcj_poster 7y agoI'm not sure that we do need such a term. Ability is a continuous function, and there's nothing magic that happens once you reach 10 times the average[1] that justifies such fixation. I never hear anyone talk about recruiting 5x engineers, even though it would be more viable as a business strategy. Besides, we can't even measure engineering ability to the precision at which specifying "10x" even makes much sense. When would "10x" actually be a more useful descriptor than "very good"? Also, where are all the "10x artists" or "10x mechanics"? [1] Although I read here just a few days ago that a 10x engineer is only ten times as good as a bad engineer, not 10 times the average. So maybe it hasn't always meant the same thing?