3 ms·

"10x developer" is meaningless and unmeasurable. We have to try and measure somehow so we know what grade people are and what to pay. But really most people ar

"10x developer" is meaningless and unmeasurable. We have to try and measure somehow so we know what grade people are and what to pay. But really most people are working for a business not research. And in such cases the productivity could be measured in affect say revenue or profit. That's hard to measure for a lot of things. And it takes teamwork, and a lot of human factors. I doubt typing speed really comes into it. If you can do 40wpm or more it's fine IMO. Hunt and peck is OK. An "idiot" using NodeJS writing it all in one big ugly index.js file might make the company a million with an idea or subtle change that the Linux Kernel genius missed. Not really sure how you measure 10x. The only way to do it is to confine what it means. "Can they implement this given problem in 1 hour? Then they are 10x" But... software by it's nature is about implementing problems that are even hard to define in the first place and spotting opportunities. The right decisions - what NOT to develop, or what tech to use could make such a big difference. It might be hidden in an inane looking decision to use C# for example, that doesn't make you "look" like a 10xer.

quickthrower2 6y ago
Thinking about this a bit more, I think a 10x is like one of those maths proofs that says "I can prove it exists, but I can't tell you what it is!" I "10x" was originally intended as a hypothetical talking point. There probably are 10x people in a team. The 10x status could change rapidly as circumstances change, team dynamics and company goals change. Someone else might take the invisible 10x crown once they get to work on a project that aligns with their strengths. At any time you don't know who to 10x is. You need some system to decide what is a fair salary and who you want to try hard to keep. A good manager should have a feel for who that is in their team. If that person moves into another company they may not be that person anymore in the new team. So 10x probably exists (as defined as ratio of best to worse). If it didn't exist it means that most people are pretty much performing the same, which I don't believe. But I doubt anyone is permanently a 10x contributor, and I doubt many people (include the 10x-er themselves) can tell who it is.

quickthrower2 6y ago

Thinking about this a bit more, I think a 10x is like one of those maths proofs that says "I can prove it exists, but I can't tell you what it is!" I "10x" was originally intended as a hypothetical talking point. There probably are 10x people in a team. The 10x status could change rapidly as circumstances change, team dynamics and company goals change. Someone else might take the invisible 10x crown once they get to work on a project that aligns with their strengths. At any time you don't know who to 10x is. You need some system to decide what is a fair salary and who you want to try hard to keep. A good manager should have a feel for who that is in their team. If that person moves into another company they may not be that person anymore in the new team. So 10x probably exists (as defined as ratio of best to worse). If it didn't exist it means that most people are pretty much performing the same, which I don't believe. But I doubt anyone is permanently a 10x contributor, and I doubt many people (include the 10x-er themselves) can tell who it is.