We would like to think we hire good people, give them the tools they want, and then empower them to make changes. If you're complaining that the build takes 5 minutes, the general response would be "then make it faster". Is this a good approach? How do you think we can get that across effectively?
I agree that bullshit slows people down. What would show you that a company has less bullshit than others?
(The previous developers "looked" productive because they could work on things a module at a time, but they went in a circle for two years because they were incapable of delivering a fully integrate working system)
In this particular case the company was using an "agile" process except this what not bought into by many of the key people, including the superstar developer, lead manager, product manager, etc. It did mean however, that if I wanted to speed up the build, I would have conversations about "How does this benefit the customer?" which would degenerate into "does the customer want to get this product at all?" It would mean not doing anything else for a sprint cycle, for one thing.
Now that particular case required an organization to gain some size and lumber along for a long time to build up a huge code base, but bullshit happens in small organizations too.
People that go through a huge amount of effort to "hire the best" and then they buy either a bright and shiny mac laptop or a cheap and cruddy dell laptop, and then they blame you for complaining that the build takes 50 minutes, etc...
You can't be a "10x" developer if there is ANY bullshit in the job.