4 ms·

The “10x engineer” comes from the observation that there is a 10x difference in productivity between the best and the worst engineers. By saying that you want t

The “10x engineer” comes from the observation that there is a 10x difference in productivity between the best and the worst engineers. By saying that you want to be a 1x engineer, you’re saying you want to be the least productive engineer possible. 1x is not the average, 1x is the worst.

mathgradthrow 3y ago
the worst engineer certainly has negative productivity, so I'm not sure that your explanation can possibly be the correct one.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  I’m explaining what the terms “10x” and “1x” mean, not asserting that the original observation is correct under all circumstances.
  - mathgradthrow 3y ago
    i believe the original was for an entire "organizations" performance, and was also done in 1977. Since they are averages, It makes "sense" to conclude that the best of a good team is 10x better than the average of the worst team. Not really what the experimwnt concludes but what can you do.
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      The first was 1968, but there have been more studies since. https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research/ https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-i...
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Except you haven't explained it at all. Sackman, Erickson, and Grant found that some developers were able to complete what was effectively a programming contest in a 10th of the time of the slowest participants. This is the origin of the 10x developer idea. You, on the other hand, are claiming that 10x engineers are 10 times more productive than the worst engineers. Completing a programming challenge in a 10th of the time is not the same as being 10 times more productive, and obviously your usage can't be an explanation, even as one you made up on the spot, as the math doesn't add up.
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      That was designed as a repeatable experiment, which seems entirely reasonable when you want to conduct a study. Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? That seems like an uncharitably distorted way of describing a study. That study also does not exist in isolation: https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research/ https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-i...
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? Because it was? Do you have a better way to repeatedly test performance? And yes, the study's intent was to look at performance, not productivity. It's even right in the title. Not sure where you dreamed up the latter.
- idontpost 3y ago
  [dead]
randomdata 3y ago
I'm not sure your math works. What we do know is that the worst engineers provide negative productivity. If 1x is the worst engineer, then let's for the sake of discussion denote x as -1 in order for the product to be negative. Except that means the 10x engineer provides -10 productivity, actually making them the worst engineer. Therein lies a conflict. What we also know is that best engineer has positive productivity, so that means the multiplicand must always be positive. Which means that it is the multiplier that must go negative, meaning that a -1x and maybe even a -10x engineer exists.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  You are arguing against the idea that there is a factor of ten difference in productivity between the best and the worst engineers. That’s fine if you want to do that, but that’s explicitly where the term “10x engineer” comes from and what defines its meaning. So if you disagree with the underlying concept, there is no way for you to use terms like “[n]x engineer” coherently since you disagree with its most fundamental premise. You certainly shouldn’t reinvent different meanings for these terms.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  Thank you. This sounds so trivial at first, but your reductio ad absurdum at the beginning of your comment really nails it. Throw into the mix the fact that productivity is hard to measure as soon as more than one person works on something and that doesn't even begin to consider the economical aspects of software. And even when ignoring this point, there's that pesky short-term vs long-term thing. Also, how do you define the term "productivity"? I was assuming that you mean somethint along the lines of (indirect, if employed) monetary output.
- margalabargala 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hattmall 3y ago
Hmm, I never thought of it that way. I just heard 10x employees and fit it to what I knew. Which is that 90% of the work is accomplished by about 10% of workers. The other 90% really only get 10% done. So most developers are somewhere on a scale of 0.1 - 1. With 1 being a totally competent and good developer. The 10x people are just different though, it's like a pro-athlete to a regular player. It's not unique to software development, though it may stand out and be sought after more. I've noticed it in pretty much every industry. Some people are just able to achieve flow state in their work and be vastly more productive than others, be it writing code or laying sod. I don't find that there's a lot of in between 1 and 10 though.
SkyBelow 3y ago
Even if this was the origin of the term, it still doesn't make sense because the best engineers can solve problems the worst would never be able to do so. The difference between the best and worst is much more than 10x the worst. Maybe the worst who meets certain minimums at a company, but then the best would also be limited by those willing to work for what the company pays, and I hypothesis that the minimums of the lower bound and the maximums of the upper bound are correlated.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  It sounds like you disagree with the concept of a 10x engineer then. In which case you should avoid using the term, rather than making up a new definition.
  - robocat 3y ago
    Concepts and words change meaning and sometimes we all need to accept that the popular meaning is not the definition we use. This is especially common when dealing with historical or academic definitions versus common modern usage. "Evolution" particularly annoys me. You should avoid using the term, rather than using a definition at odds with common usage. Your usage is confusing - and that is why you are getting push-back. The definition you have given is nonsensical - it can't be consistent over time or between companies because it depends on finding a minimum in a group. And a value that is strongly dependent on the worst developer is useless because it mostly measures how bad the worst developer is - it doesn't say anything about how good the best developer is.
BehindBlueEyes 3y ago
So it’s like saying “this soap cleans 10x better than if you washed the thing with poop”? That’s not nearly as interesting to debate.

mathgradthrow 3y ago

the worst engineer certainly has negative productivity, so I'm not sure that your explanation can possibly be the correct one.

JimDabell 3y ago
I’m explaining what the terms “10x” and “1x” mean, not asserting that the original observation is correct under all circumstances.
- mathgradthrow 3y ago
  i believe the original was for an entire "organizations" performance, and was also done in 1977. Since they are averages, It makes "sense" to conclude that the best of a good team is 10x better than the average of the worst team. Not really what the experimwnt concludes but what can you do.
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    The first was 1968, but there have been more studies since. https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research/ https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-i...
- randomdata 3y ago
  Except you haven't explained it at all. Sackman, Erickson, and Grant found that some developers were able to complete what was effectively a programming contest in a 10th of the time of the slowest participants. This is the origin of the 10x developer idea. You, on the other hand, are claiming that 10x engineers are 10 times more productive than the worst engineers. Completing a programming challenge in a 10th of the time is not the same as being 10 times more productive, and obviously your usage can't be an explanation, even as one you made up on the spot, as the math doesn't add up.
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    That was designed as a repeatable experiment, which seems entirely reasonable when you want to conduct a study. Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? That seems like an uncharitably distorted way of describing a study. That study also does not exist in isolation: https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-is-the-underlying-research/ https://www.construx.com/blog/the-origins-of-10x-how-valid-i...
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > Why are you characterising that as “a programming contest”? Because it was? Do you have a better way to repeatedly test performance? And yes, the study's intent was to look at performance, not productivity. It's even right in the title. Not sure where you dreamed up the latter.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]

randomdata 3y ago

I'm not sure your math works. What we do know is that the worst engineers provide negative productivity. If 1x is the worst engineer, then let's for the sake of discussion denote x as -1 in order for the product to be negative. Except that means the 10x engineer provides -10 productivity, actually making them the worst engineer. Therein lies a conflict. What we also know is that best engineer has positive productivity, so that means the multiplicand must always be positive. Which means that it is the multiplier that must go negative, meaning that a -1x and maybe even a -10x engineer exists.

JimDabell 3y ago
You are arguing against the idea that there is a factor of ten difference in productivity between the best and the worst engineers. That’s fine if you want to do that, but that’s explicitly where the term “10x engineer” comes from and what defines its meaning. So if you disagree with the underlying concept, there is no way for you to use terms like “[n]x engineer” coherently since you disagree with its most fundamental premise. You certainly shouldn’t reinvent different meanings for these terms.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
moritzwarhier 3y ago
Thank you. This sounds so trivial at first, but your reductio ad absurdum at the beginning of your comment really nails it. Throw into the mix the fact that productivity is hard to measure as soon as more than one person works on something and that doesn't even begin to consider the economical aspects of software. And even when ignoring this point, there's that pesky short-term vs long-term thing. Also, how do you define the term "productivity"? I was assuming that you mean somethint along the lines of (indirect, if employed) monetary output.
margalabargala 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hattmall 3y ago

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. I just heard 10x employees and fit it to what I knew. Which is that 90% of the work is accomplished by about 10% of workers. The other 90% really only get 10% done. So most developers are somewhere on a scale of 0.1 - 1. With 1 being a totally competent and good developer. The 10x people are just different though, it's like a pro-athlete to a regular player. It's not unique to software development, though it may stand out and be sought after more. I've noticed it in pretty much every industry. Some people are just able to achieve flow state in their work and be vastly more productive than others, be it writing code or laying sod. I don't find that there's a lot of in between 1 and 10 though.

SkyBelow 3y ago

Even if this was the origin of the term, it still doesn't make sense because the best engineers can solve problems the worst would never be able to do so. The difference between the best and worst is much more than 10x the worst. Maybe the worst who meets certain minimums at a company, but then the best would also be limited by those willing to work for what the company pays, and I hypothesis that the minimums of the lower bound and the maximums of the upper bound are correlated.

JimDabell 3y ago
It sounds like you disagree with the concept of a 10x engineer then. In which case you should avoid using the term, rather than making up a new definition.
- robocat 3y ago
  Concepts and words change meaning and sometimes we all need to accept that the popular meaning is not the definition we use. This is especially common when dealing with historical or academic definitions versus common modern usage. "Evolution" particularly annoys me. You should avoid using the term, rather than using a definition at odds with common usage. Your usage is confusing - and that is why you are getting push-back. The definition you have given is nonsensical - it can't be consistent over time or between companies because it depends on finding a minimum in a group. And a value that is strongly dependent on the worst developer is useless because it mostly measures how bad the worst developer is - it doesn't say anything about how good the best developer is.

BehindBlueEyes 3y ago

So it’s like saying “this soap cleans 10x better than if you washed the thing with poop”? That’s not nearly as interesting to debate.