I think I agree overall and I'll take it a bit further: developers aren't an anything-x, they are a range based on the task and their current mental/emotional/p

I think I agree overall and I'll take it a bit further: developers aren't an anything-x, they are a range based on the task and their current mental/emotional/physical state. I know as programmers/people interested in tech we can fall into the trap of thinking of people like we do machines but it's a deeply flawed approach (one that I've fallen into MANY times). For years I wanted to slot people into boxes and think of them the same way I might think of a server. I wish I could go back and slap the earlier version of myself. Like you say, the soft skills are 1000x more important to me now. I won't suffer a "10x" developer if they are an ass nor will I dismiss someone just because I have some misguided idea that they should be performing better. Of course, all of this has a number of exceptions, I wouldn't be happy with someone who is not pulling their weight but I've realized there are more important things to optimize for, team cohesion being a top priority. If I can communicate with you well and you are enjoyable to work with then I'll look past, what a younger me would have considered, "your flaws". I've witnessed in my self and others what I like to call "team multipliers". In that the output of 2 or more people is higher than what either could do individually. Those "multipliers" can result in better output from a bunch of "5x"ers (again, this is a silly measurement) verses the same number of "10x"ers who don't work well with others/together. I know it's been tried (and it sounds like it kind of failed) but I really love the idea of hiring a group of people instead of individuals. At my current company I've helped get 2 people I previously worked with jobs because I know they are both assets to the team and that they make me better. "As iron sharpens iron", and all that.