I'm not OP, but it feels like you're arguing semantics. YES, that's the technical definition of "average," no argument, but I don't think he/she meant mathemati

I'm not OP, but it feels like you're arguing semantics. YES, that's the technical definition of "average," no argument, but I don't think he/she meant mathematically average. If you substitute with these terms: - 5% toxic - 25% subtractors - 60% competent - 9% exceptional - 1% brilliant ...then there's no reason to apply (or defend!) the mathematical definition of "average." And I think those numbers actually seem somewhat reasonable, based on my own exposure to working developers in various industries. What this doesn't count is the the "FizzBuzz effect," where ~95% of the people who are interviewing at any one time (in a tight market) tend to be from the bottom end of the spectrum. Even within the broader pool of programmers, the line between subtractors and competent is very project-dependent, in my opinion. For some levels of project complexity, the line might actually invert to 60% subtractors and 25% competent, while for far less complex projects, it might be 5% subtractors to 80% competent. In the former case I'd want an exceptional developer, while in the latter the exceptional developer probably wouldn't even apply, or would quit out of boredom.