Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

10x Engineer

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: 10x Engineer

#111

Post by mathattack »

waps wrote: post #102
gvr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resonated with me. If the programming tasks are somewhat mechanical/procedural, I am not sure that an exceptional engineer can create 10x as much value as a quite good one. I've never seen it. What I've seen several times are engineers that are able to tackle problems that require so much creativity or skill that giving them to a less qualified engineer would most likely be a waste of everyone's time. In instanc…

I've worked at a lot of places and I clearly see it. It isn't very hard being a "10x" engineer if you look at the average programmer profile : Arrive at 9:30, start out with 30 minutes at the coffee machine. They get mad if you discuss work at this point, or god forbid, talk about interesting algorithms or the like. They expect to be told exactly what to do, or they won't even sit down. If you don't give them an exac…

I'd say he's neither great, nor a disaster. Without getting inside his head, it's hard to say if he's very lazy and unmotivated, or if he's so smart because he's experimenting all the time.

Another observation: Being 10x is total contribution, not individual contribution. If you're fast, but others can't read your code, subtract that from the productivity. If you cause other decent performers to quit, subtract that from productivity. If you piss off clients, subtract that from productivity.

That's not to say one can't find a way to make eclectic people useful, but the smart jackass rarely ever lifts an entire team's productivity.

Re: 10x Engineer

#112

Post by iyulaev »

Have you ever taken compilers, operating systems, or some other project-heavy class? If so I'm pretty sure you've noticed several individuals completing a project with ease while the rest of the class, working in teams, struggles with. You can visit any decent CS program, any semester, and see this happen. It's no myth.

Re: 10x Engineer

#113

Post by contingencies »

Let's face it: there's little to nothing that's new under the sun in software. Experience means understanding old but newly recast problems faster, and if you're lucky, solving their higher abstraction level equivalents the next time for greater apparent effect to the lay observer. As widely understood, the essential repetition of the solution act is something that bores good programmers. I frequently explain programming to others as not entirely dissimilar to floor sweeping. Who is the 10x engineer, then? Simple. They hit those areas that are simultaneously the most trafficked and noticeable, but perversely also the most ignored: the office fridge, the corporate atrium, the stained carpet outside the front door under someone else's management.

Re: 10x Engineer

#114

Post by mathattack »

ltcoleman wrote: post #39
jandrewrogers wrote: post #24

While the article correctly highlights the lack of rigorous scientific studies on 10x engineers, it also generalizes a bit too much from anecdote to make the argument that they are mythical creatures. A more reasonable argument is that the hypothetical existence of 10x engineers explains little about the productivity of most organizations. Personally, in the couple decades I have been in this business working in coun…

Your words are extremely accurate to me. There ARE 10x engineers but it takes a lot of experience to even have a chance at becoming one. A new grad ( even out of somewhere lik e Stanford ) has no chance to be a 10x engineer especially in a startup landscape (assuming a small startup with few extremely experienced engineers) without proper mentorship. The only people that i would say are 10x have worked at larger comp…

I'm not sure I agree. I don't have too many data points, but I've observed a couple self taught 10x folks. Maybe they were paired with others racing up a steep learning curve, but they were at the leading edge of technology at a young age, and without seasoned mentors.

This is just personal anecdotes, though, and not hard data. Also not a plan I'd encourage to follow. (One dropped out of a top 3 CS program to spend more time on professional projects. It was right for him, but again I wouldn't counsel others to do that.)

Re: 10x Engineer

#115

Post by bliti »

wavesounds wrote: post #36

I remember when my boss told me I was a 'Rockstar' because I stayed up all night finishing a project by an unrealistic deadline he had agreed to for a customer. That was when I knew it was time to quit. Most of this is just ego boosting trumped up by managers or VCs or MBAs to get 'brogrammers' to try to compete to outdo each other with 'dedication' to the company. Sure some people are better then others but if you b…

You make a strong point. This may be used to get people to work harder for the same (or even less) money. I have met talented programmers/engineers/developers. They had that a natural instinct towards computers. But they were not born as 10X. You can be highly talented, but still not be very good. The thing is, people who are born talented gravitate towards exploiting that talent. In computers, its the guys who are always thinking, talking, and dreaming about systems. The ones who sometimes stay up late because they just have to code. Or the ones who are obsessed over the layout of a PCB.

It is the mix of talent, and dedication that puts some people above others (in terms of skills). Not some myth or anything.

Re: 10x Engineer

#116

Post by gruseom »

I just realized what was bugging me about this article. It points out that the empirical support for 10x claims is shoddy. That's fair enough. But then it switches to making a bunch of claims that have no empirical support: 10x is a myth, it's pernicious, it may lead to drug abuse, etc.

So which is it? If we're going to hold 10x up to the standards of rigorous research and conclude that it's bullshit, then by the same logic the rest of the article must be even more bullshit. (At least 10x has some experiments behind it.) By that standard, the only legitimate thing any of us can say on the subject is "we don't know".

But if on the other hand we're going to grant some validity to the folklore, then the most likely explanation for the persistence of 10x claims among respected software veterans is that it's grounded in reality, even though it's silly to take "10x" literally. (What the hell is "x"?)

Re: 10x Engineer

#117

Post by jakejake »

This probably sounds arrogant, but I am pretty sure I'm a 10x programmer or at least 5x. I don't consider myself all that smart, though, I just seem to have a weird ability to get things done without much hassle. I feel like the 10x guys have a mentality where they're able to break things down without getting bogged down with the complexity of the whole thing. It's not that they're necessarily geniuses at understanding complexity - it's that they're able to break down complexity into simple parts.

Anyway, I kinda feel like just as there are 10x programmers, there are also -10x programmers. I'd say, even -100x. It's crazy how much time one person on the team can actually burn. One -10x person can suck up two 10x programmers' entire day with support and still create an absolute mess that has to be re-written. A piece of code that's solid will just run. A piece of junk can introduce bizarre, intermittent bugs that the team will be fixing for months.

I've noticed that -10x guys have a crazy knack for hiding their errors too. They'll figure out a way to get some botched code past unit tests and QA. Sometimes there appears to be an incredible amount of labor that went into circumventing every obstacle which was designed to prevent shooting themself in the foot!

Anyway, not sure the point of my post. But, I do believe that the 10x guys are out there and they can produce 10x without burning themselves out because they just have a way of looking at things that make them more simple.

Re: 10x Engineer

#118

Post by marcosdumay »

freyr wrote: post #95

I don't know anything about 10x engineers. I know about 1x engineers, maybe 1.5x engineers. And I know about 0.1x and 0.5x engineers. They're the engineers who scraped by in college, whose heart isn't in it, who clock in and out each day and just try to stay under the radar. They're good at looking busy and getting nothing done. They make the 1.5x engineers look really good.

I also know about -0.3x and -1.5x developers (we are talking about developers here, aren't we? Well, if not, replace with any other professional you want).

Re: 10x Engineer

#119

Post by btilly »

I find it sad that this article leaves out the (admittedly unpublished) research on the 10x phenomena, which is described in Peopleware. They consistently found 10x differences between experienced programmers on the same task, with the same tools.

I find that particular research important for three reasons.

1. The 10 fold difference was consistently demonstrated many times.

2. Their research was conducted with professional programmers, in their workplace.

3. They were able to estimate the impact of a number of different factors, and they found that the single biggest impacts were workplace factors. (Ambient noise, dedicated office space, availability of white boards, etc.)

Admittedly they are unable to tease out why the connection exists between the workplace and productivity. Do productive programmers choose good workplaces? Or do good workplaces make programmers more productive? Probably a bit of both.

BUT if you're an employer, go read that book. Then consider your office plan. It is a lot easier to pay for a good workplace for an effective small team than to pay for a less effective larger team. Office space is probably not where you want to scrimp.

Re: 10x Engineer

#120

Post by gridspy »

waps wrote: post #102
gvr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resonated with me. If the programming tasks are somewhat mechanical/procedural, I am not sure that an exceptional engineer can create 10x as much value as a quite good one. I've never seen it. What I've seen several times are engineers that are able to tackle problems that require so much creativity or skill that giving them to a less qualified engineer would most likely be a waste of everyone's time. In instanc…

I've worked at a lot of places and I clearly see it. It isn't very hard being a "10x" engineer if you look at the average programmer profile : Arrive at 9:30, start out with 30 minutes at the coffee machine. They get mad if you discuss work at this point, or god forbid, talk about interesting algorithms or the like. They expect to be told exactly what to do, or they won't even sit down. If you don't give them an exac…

It sounds like you have a very smart programmer who is a little antisocial and very bored.

His value to you depends on how you structure his environment to make doing a good job more fun to him than torturing his co-workers.

There's a degree to which putting exceptional people with people who just do the job can cause both to resent the other.

Post reply on HN