There’s no such thing as a 10x engineer spending time on something that never ends up delivering business value. If something doesn’t deliver business value, it’s 0x.
If you build something that the average engineer would not have been able to build, no matter how much time, that can make you 100x or 1000x, or ∞x. Quoting Alexander Scott: There is no number of ordinary eight-year-olds who, when organized into a team, will become smart enough to beat a grandmaster in chess.
Most of the 10x factor is most likely explained by team and company factors (process, tech stack, etc) and applies to everyone in the team/company. Intra-team variation is thus much smaller than 10x (even controlling for the fact that companies tend to attract people of equal caliber). Nature vs nurture…
I’ve never met the legendary “10x jerk”. Anecdotally the outperforming engineers are generally nice and humble.
Don’t get hung up on the exact numbers here, it’s just for illustration purposes. I.e. someone introduced a bug in the trading system of Knight Capital that made them lose $465M in 30 minutes. Did that make it a -1,000,000x engineer? (and btw it had more to do with company culture). The numbers aren’t meant to be taken literally.
Of course, it’s easy to compute the cost per transaction, but how do you produce uncertainty estimates? Turns out to be somewhat nontrivial. I don’t even think it’s possible to do a t-test, which is kind of interesting in itself.
I was featured in Peadar Coyle’s interview series interviewing various “data scientists” – which is kind of arguable since (a) all the other ppl in that series are much cooler than me (b) I’m not really a data scientist. Anyway, reposting the full interview: