Re:I was a 10x engineer and I’m sorry
by rickthomas1980 on Thursday July 18, 2019 @01:54PM
(#20472310)
But why let the definition of the term "10x" be hijacked by the kind of people you describe? We still need a way to succinctly describe engineers who are an order of magnitude more effective than average. Can't we let "10x" continue to mean what it's always meant, and agree on a new term for toxic team members?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:I was a 10x engineer and I’m sorry
by pgcj_poster on Thursday July 18, 2019 @02:39PM
(#20472760)
I'm not sure that we do need such a term. Ability is a continuous function, and there's nothing magic that happens once you reach 10 times the average[1] that justifies such fixation. I never hear anyone talk about recruiting 5x engineers, even though it would be more viable as a business strategy. Besides, we can't even measure engineering ability to the precision at which specifying "10x" even makes much sense. When would "10x" actually be a more useful descriptor than "very good"? Also, where are all the "10x artists" or "10x mechanics"?
[1] Although I read here just a few days ago that a 10x engineer is only ten times as good as a bad engineer, not 10 times the average. So maybe it hasn't always meant the same thing?