3 ms·
In my previous work we really had a guy whose output was surely at least 10x than others in the team. I wouldn't describe him as significantly more "talented" t
by greyman 6y ago
In my previous work we really had a guy whose output was surely at least 10x than others in the team. I wouldn't describe him as significantly more "talented" than others, I would say it was mostly a work ethic combined with domain knowledge (he was there longer than most other people and the project was rather complex, there was about 100 fulltime devs+testers).
- collyw 6y agoThere is a guy in my team who outputs maybe 10x what I do. But then he wrote the whole system, documented it poorly, wrote no tets and is very poor at explaining things to others. It takes me a while to fix his bugs because all he does is write code, not any of the other things that a software engineer should be doing. Meanwhile in a previous works place where I wrote the system from scratch I was the 10x developer.
- jdmichal 6y agoThis reflects my belief as an engineer and now manager: That every 10x developer has an entire team of people who are supporting that person. It's very likely they would not maintain nearly the same pace if you reduced or removed that supporting staff. Additionally, there's a lot more skills than "be a feature factory" necessary to successfully deliver. The team all covers for each other within their skillsets, and sometimes that means that someone who's great at coding gets to focus heavily on that and bang out lots of features.
- collyw 6y agoAgreed, something I realize as I am getting older. Raw hackerrank coding skills aren't actually that useful, I now value someone with better team working skills than someone who can come up with algorithms instantly. Something that will be relevant most of the time versus something that might be useful once per year or less frequently.