6 ms·

It’s incredibly reductionist to think that productivity is inherent to an individual when the world is never that simple and there are always a lot of factors i

It’s incredibly reductionist to think that productivity is inherent to an individual when the world is never that simple and there are always a lot of factors involved in any outcome. Even the people that you think are “10xers” will stumble under the right circumstances, and the converse is also true about the people you think are incompetent. It’s not so much that we built a culture that disallows these things to be said—I’m sure you have the freedom to say that to people if you’re prepared for the consequences. It’s just that it’s such a hasty, unnuanced thing to say, and business decisions should not be made on the basis of rash remarks that aren’t very well thought-out.

Swizec 5y ago
> will stumble under the right circumstances Exactly. Not every task or goal fits every person equally well. A good leader understands this and does their best to find that fit. But it is in my experience not considered okay to talk about this too openly because people get offended. You wouldn’t ask your best engineer to lead a marketing campaign or your best marketer to design your servers. They’re smart and would figure something out eventually, but who gets the task matters.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
philipswood 5y ago
I remember finding a site (a design patterns repository page of all things) that explained the nuance of different people having different expected outcomes on different domains well. But despite searching for it for years I haven't been able to find it again - web searches tend to be bad at finding things that you found before, again. Anyway, this was described as the "movie producer pattern" (maybe it was director) I remember it going something like this: As opposed to the factory worker pattern which describes people who perform simple tasks that are straightforward and are easy to learn and perform and are hence interchangeable, it is more accurate to use the movie producer pattern. A producer will have shown his or her abilities in a specific set of movies, each with a certain style and genre, which will lend credence to their ability to perform similar work in a similar genres. It's clear however that the specific director will make a large impact to the final movie and will have a personal touch. For engineers, Susan, who has spent the last decade honing her skills on language VM implementations is expected to be an all around star resource, but would probably be a more trustworthy choice for more VM work as opposed to implementing a graphics engine or database. (In analogy to a director with a string of science fiction movies who might not be the best choice for a romantic comedy)
Jensson 5y ago
> Even the people that you think are “10xers” will stumble under the right circumstances, and the converse is also true about the people you think are incompetent. Right, the 10x engineer isn't benching 10x more than you or running 10x faster than you, nobody thinks that 10x engineer means 10x at every possible task.
- topkai22 5y ago
  Nah, it's beyond that. I know a dev that is the most brilliant ux dev I've ever met. He can create beautiful, dynamic, understandable UIs literally 20x than I can. However, he is just medeicore at must other tasks- constructing a common data model, scaling the backend or analyzing the data be is slower than I am, if he engages at all. More recently I told my manager that I was intimated by how effective one of my coworkers was at his job (data science and BI.) He laughed and said my coworker basically thought the same of me (doing more standard software engineering. Highly effective engineers are often only effective at limited aspects of the business of software engineering and it takes a good team structure of diverse talents to make everyone effective, even in the domain of software.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    That was my point, arguments such as yours are just arguing with strawmen. 10x is compared to another professional in the same domain. Saying that the engineer isn't as effective at another domain as a professional of that other domain is arguing with a strawman.
    - Jetrel 5y ago
      It's not really a strawman considering it's EXACTLY what most companies are trying to do: make programmers fungible across domains. Critically; they're doing this because they typically have no visibility into these skillsets from the managerial level, and they typically only have one or two programmers "in a given domain" on a team - even in a very, very large company. The company would like to pretend these people are fungible, and can be interchangeably swapped out, but the reality is they have no immediately replacements on the team. There's no sense in doing an apples-to-apples comparison when you've only got one apple, an orange, and a pear.
csande17 5y ago
> It’s not so much that we built a culture that disallows these things to be said—I’m sure you have the freedom to say that to people if you’re prepared for the consequences. When people say that "you aren't allowed to say" something, they don't mean the government uses magical mind control rays to prevent your mouth from physically producing the words. "Consequences" are the mechanism by which speech is prohibited in societies without access to magical mind control rays. (Not to pick on you specifically; I've heard this line a lot lately.)
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  I mean, I get your point about the government but now you’re just complaining about how being insensitive to other people has the consequence of them fighting back.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - teddyh 5y ago
    Now you’re moving to assume that everything that has consequences is due to somebody being insensitive. It could also be, for example, that the person initiating consequences is entirely too sensitive.
    - 3grdlurker 5y ago
      So you’re gonna go around the office to point fingers and tell on people that they’re not 10xers, and then call them too sensitive if they react? You’re talking in abstracts but if you put what you said in context (ie this discussion) it doesn’t make sense.
      - teddyh 5y ago
        > So you’re gonna go around the office […] This discussion is not about me, nor did anyone advocate that behavior. You are making up scenarios in your mind about what other people in this thread are thinking and saying, but these things are all imaginary on your part.

Swizec 5y ago

> will stumble under the right circumstances Exactly. Not every task or goal fits every person equally well. A good leader understands this and does their best to find that fit. But it is in my experience not considered okay to talk about this too openly because people get offended. You wouldn’t ask your best engineer to lead a marketing campaign or your best marketer to design your servers. They’re smart and would figure something out eventually, but who gets the task matters.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

philipswood 5y ago

I remember finding a site (a design patterns repository page of all things) that explained the nuance of different people having different expected outcomes on different domains well. But despite searching for it for years I haven't been able to find it again - web searches tend to be bad at finding things that you found before, again. Anyway, this was described as the "movie producer pattern" (maybe it was director) I remember it going something like this: As opposed to the factory worker pattern which describes people who perform simple tasks that are straightforward and are easy to learn and perform and are hence interchangeable, it is more accurate to use the movie producer pattern. A producer will have shown his or her abilities in a specific set of movies, each with a certain style and genre, which will lend credence to their ability to perform similar work in a similar genres. It's clear however that the specific director will make a large impact to the final movie and will have a personal touch. For engineers, Susan, who has spent the last decade honing her skills on language VM implementations is expected to be an all around star resource, but would probably be a more trustworthy choice for more VM work as opposed to implementing a graphics engine or database. (In analogy to a director with a string of science fiction movies who might not be the best choice for a romantic comedy)

Jensson 5y ago

> Even the people that you think are “10xers” will stumble under the right circumstances, and the converse is also true about the people you think are incompetent. Right, the 10x engineer isn't benching 10x more than you or running 10x faster than you, nobody thinks that 10x engineer means 10x at every possible task.

topkai22 5y ago
Nah, it's beyond that. I know a dev that is the most brilliant ux dev I've ever met. He can create beautiful, dynamic, understandable UIs literally 20x than I can. However, he is just medeicore at must other tasks- constructing a common data model, scaling the backend or analyzing the data be is slower than I am, if he engages at all. More recently I told my manager that I was intimated by how effective one of my coworkers was at his job (data science and BI.) He laughed and said my coworker basically thought the same of me (doing more standard software engineering. Highly effective engineers are often only effective at limited aspects of the business of software engineering and it takes a good team structure of diverse talents to make everyone effective, even in the domain of software.
- Jensson 5y ago
  That was my point, arguments such as yours are just arguing with strawmen. 10x is compared to another professional in the same domain. Saying that the engineer isn't as effective at another domain as a professional of that other domain is arguing with a strawman.
  - Jetrel 5y ago
    It's not really a strawman considering it's EXACTLY what most companies are trying to do: make programmers fungible across domains. Critically; they're doing this because they typically have no visibility into these skillsets from the managerial level, and they typically only have one or two programmers "in a given domain" on a team - even in a very, very large company. The company would like to pretend these people are fungible, and can be interchangeably swapped out, but the reality is they have no immediately replacements on the team. There's no sense in doing an apples-to-apples comparison when you've only got one apple, an orange, and a pear.

csande17 5y ago

> It’s not so much that we built a culture that disallows these things to be said—I’m sure you have the freedom to say that to people if you’re prepared for the consequences. When people say that "you aren't allowed to say" something, they don't mean the government uses magical mind control rays to prevent your mouth from physically producing the words. "Consequences" are the mechanism by which speech is prohibited in societies without access to magical mind control rays. (Not to pick on you specifically; I've heard this line a lot lately.)

3grdlurker 5y ago
I mean, I get your point about the government but now you’re just complaining about how being insensitive to other people has the consequence of them fighting back.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- teddyh 5y ago
  Now you’re moving to assume that everything that has consequences is due to somebody being insensitive. It could also be, for example, that the person initiating consequences is entirely too sensitive.
  - 3grdlurker 5y ago
    So you’re gonna go around the office to point fingers and tell on people that they’re not 10xers, and then call them too sensitive if they react? You’re talking in abstracts but if you put what you said in context (ie this discussion) it doesn’t make sense.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      > So you’re gonna go around the office […] This discussion is not about me, nor did anyone advocate that behavior. You are making up scenarios in your mind about what other people in this thread are thinking and saying, but these things are all imaginary on your part.