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

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: 10x Engineer

#161

Post by pjc50 »

alexmayyasi wrote: post #62
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…

I would argue that the 10x engineer isn't a myth - the myth is that these 10x more productive employees are unique to engineering whereas they can really be found across industries. My starting point is this study by biz school professors (unfortunately paywalled) about how power law distributions define employees in sales, scientific research, entertainment, and really much of skilled labor: http://onlinelibrary.wil…

Star performers are not inherently more productive - context is important. They are talented but also benefit from the system supporting them. In one study, the performance of 10x Wall Street analysts crumbled when they switched employers if their team did not come with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Stakhanov

Stakhanov was held up as the >10x more productive coal miner; however, it's now generally understood that this was the result of a propaganda effort, and he had a team preparing and clearing for him.

This is a common risk in work-rate-measuring systems, how do you account for worker A spending time which saves the time of worker B? Especially in knowledge work, where the old guy/gal who does very little but carries all the oral history of the company in their head can be more important than anyone realises.

Re: 10x Engineer

#162

Post by jasonlotito »

debacle wrote: post #51

People who don't believe in 10x programmers don't understand that they themselves are probably 3x or 4x programmers, thus to them a 10x programmer is probably only a 2.5x or 3x programmer relatively speaking. There are a lot of 1x programmers out there. So many that it's very easy to be an "above average" programmer. I am not a 10x programmer, but I'm not a 1x programmer either. I've met people who are 6-10x programm…

What about 10.1947x programmers. Or 5.345x programmers?

And, do you average out the productivity, or is that the minimum or maximum? I mean, if you go on vacation, you are a 0x programmer for that time you are gone.

Basically, I think it's a silly thing that's been taken to far. Everyone is a 1x programmer compared to themselves, and a 10x programmer when compared to the right person in the right context.

Re: 10x Engineer

#164

Post by debacle »

jasonlotito wrote: post #162
debacle wrote: post #51

People who don't believe in 10x programmers don't understand that they themselves are probably 3x or 4x programmers, thus to them a 10x programmer is probably only a 2.5x or 3x programmer relatively speaking. There are a lot of 1x programmers out there. So many that it's very easy to be an "above average" programmer. I am not a 10x programmer, but I'm not a 1x programmer either. I've met people who are 6-10x programm…

What about 10.1947x programmers. Or 5.345x programmers? And, do you average out the productivity, or is that the minimum or maximum? I mean, if you go on vacation, you are a 0x programmer for that time you are gone. Basically, I think it's a silly thing that's been taken to far. Everyone is a 1x programmer compared to themselves, and a 10x programmer when compared to the right person in the right context.

10.1947x programmers are a myth.

Re: 10x Engineer

#165

Post by kstop »

I'd say it's more of a binary distinction. There are people I've worked with who had no notion of their own limits AND had superior ability. Those people would do surprising things as a matter of course, that others might be able to do with time and planning, but most likely would never come up with on their own.

When you find yourself greeted in the morning with things like "Hi, remember we had that chat about how to store timeseries data? I added an arbitrary-precision real type to the database last night and set it up", you are in the presence of one of those people.

(The other thing I've found about these people is that they are usually the opposite of rockstars. They tend to be quiet to the point of zen. Otherwise there are no worthwhile demographic indicators.)

Re: 10x Engineer

#166

Post by bjourne »

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…

Man! It's like you were the manager at my previous job. I'll confess, most days I did spend my time reading hn, stackoverflow and working on more interesting projects than my assigned bug list. I usually came to work late and also took long lunches.

But you know what, at the weekly group meetings, my team leader could clearly see that my bug list always was empty while my team "mates" lists were overflowing. I told the department manager I had a lot of unused capacity. Not once, but several times. It didn't lead nowhere. When I fixed unreported bugs or did the "refactor the whole program while fixing my 3 assigned bugs" plan I was heavily criticised for that. All my suggestions for how the systems could be improved or what features could be implemented was shot down because they weren't in line with the department managers great plan for how things should be done. It just lead to long dick-size measuring arguments.

So exactly what should I have done? Sit with VS open, tap keys and simulate working all day long? Helping my colleagues with their problems was out of the question. As they, just like your department and this guy, talked behind my back and despised me because I only had to work 1/10th as hard as they did.

Eventually I quit because the situation became unhandleable. I got verbally warned for showing up late and people stopped even saying hello to me altogether. I was sick very often because it was better than reading hn all day which actually is fucking boring. My new job is like a breath of fresh air because the old one was really driving me crazy.

Truthfully, I can understand how it can suck to be average and have to work with someone much more skilled than you. I would also feel threatened if I knew about a colleague that could replicate what I do in a month in a few days. However, that's what HR departments, project managers and team leaders are there for. It's their job to make it work and if they can't and istead lose their truly great engineer, they suck.

Re: 10x Engineer

#167

Post by ethnomusicolog »

smacktoward wrote: post #106
nether wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the way Mike Church put it in a Quora answer ( http://qr.ae/NHgRJ ): employees are either multipliers, adders (most common), subtracters, or dividers (fire immediately). Whether multipliers are 5x or 10x more productive is a matter of nebulous metrics, but there are obvious standouts whose presence brings a very nonlinear increase in value to the team.

The four-types classification reminds me of a semi-famous saying by a German general, Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord ): I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they m…

And yet if you look at high school students homework load, it seems bent on producing stupid AND diligent people...

Re: 10x Engineer

#168

Post by alguemoi »

debacle wrote: post #63
alguemoi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you don't know how to read.

I don't know how to respond to that. What meaningful insights am I ignoring that I should be picking up on?

The myth, present in the referenced articles and books, isn't that exists different levels of engineers, but that exists a gap between 1x and 10x.

Re: 10x Engineer

#170

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

rhizome wrote: post #110
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So tell me, is this a good engineer ? Great ? Or a disaster ? He's not exactly a stabilizing force, that's for sure. Sounds like he doesn't want to be working there. Sorry, but it's probably the right decision to encourage him to find a job that he wants. Elsewhere. In a few of the behaviors he described, I find some sympathy. I do have a high opinion of myself, and at one job would end up in loud arguments with the…

Not to say that anyone is in danger, but you've painted a scenario that strikes me as the backstory for "the guy who cracked, came in to the office, and went on a shooting rampage." This is a highly irrational conclusion, even with the meaningless caveat.

>This is a highly irrational conclusion

I would admit to it being illogical, in that I didn't use logic to arrive at that statement. But it's an entirely rational statement: I arrived there via pattern matching, though, and not logic. Is it irrational when I look at a face and recognize it? If not, then why so with other patterns I recognize?

And it's not a conclusion at all; it's just an observation. People who are as obviously disgruntled as the employee in question often end up striking out. Some, a very few, strike out violently.

The employee in question has already shown evidence of "striking out," he just hasn't escalated past passive-aggressive behavior. I used an extreme example of striking out to throw it into perspective: He's not happy, and he's willing to do things out of spite, and that's a liability, even if he never ends up violent.

There are lots of scenarios that don't involve physical harm: Leaking confidential information. Cleverly hidden time-bombs in code that no one else understands. Lawsuits. Spreading discontent among employees.

Post reply on HN