There are also people who are simply better at the job no matter the conditions. Bach was a 10x composer, Rembrandt a 10x painter, you could train as hard as you can for your whole life chances are you wouldn't even be close to match their skills.
imho people tell themselves 10x don't exist because it's hard to admit some people are just better. Especially in our industry in which a lot of people confound "work title/achievement" and "identity".
No, you can definitely beat Rembrandt's skills if you spend your whole life doing it as hard as you can. This is why you shouldn't use 10x label, it is wrong and goes against everything we know about the world. It merely tries to put down people, convince people that they simply can be bad at the job, which cannot be farther from the truth. People are just different, have different backgrounds, different experience, different skills. Which means depending on circumstances some people have to learn new skills and start figuring things out from scratch, while some could already be years ahead. This is important, as even the most unmotivated, unhappy, skeptical person in the worst conditions, but a domain expert of a big complex domain will still do a better job, than someone who needs to spend years before even starting doing the job.
Anyway, 10x label is harmful and disrespectful. But I guess this is true for labeling people in general.
> People are just different, have different backgrounds, different experience, different skills.
Yes, and if these things make you perform ten times better than your colleagues then you're a 10x. We don't judge people by their hypothetical potential (well actually we do, for a short while), but by their current performances.
It'd say it's more disrespectful/harmful to say that everyone is a Bach, a Rembrandt or an Einstein. It's not just a matter of studying and working, everyone hits a wall a some point, some way earlier than others. Your will to be better isn't enough.
Labels are not harmful as long as they're factual. My light bulb is less bright than the sun, I'm not as good as a painter as Rembrandt, that's the human condition and we have to accept these things. Saying they're harmful and that everyone can become anything they want is a fairytale.
Bach and Rembrandt were artists. Most companies are looking for 10x developers to write systems to manage billing, accounts, inventory, etc. I don't see how we can compare Bach to someone toiling away on a better business software in any reasonable way.
If there are developers out there doing work on the same level as Rembrandt or Bach then they are working in an entirely different domain. Personally, I don't think we have the ability to recognize these people and, if we did, there is no guarantee that their work would be applicable to business systems in the way that the "10x engineer" myth implies.
Isn't it a fact that software engineering is inherently creative? While programming may not strictly count as art by most people's definitions, it is certainly not soulless or mechanical as your comment implies. In particular, Bach's music is so remarkable precisely because it combines mathematical patterns and subjective beauty.
I hate the phrase, but exceptional software engineers "paint with code."
I agree that software development is creative, I do think that's an important part of the process. I'm not convinced that every "10x developer" is solving software engineering problems on the same level at which Rembrandt painted or Bach composed.
It seems to me that painters and composers create art that is appreciated much more widely and over a much more varied audience than software engineers. Given that the inner workings of software are visible to a much smaller audience, isn't it likely that their skills are being over-rated?
There certainly exist developers who perform at the same level in their craft as Bach composed. Why wouldn't the positive tail of the distribution exist?
> Isn't it a fact that software engineering is inherently creative?
Yes, absolutely. If you can create a simple, clean, extensible abstraction that hundreds of other engineers use to avoid recreating and testing functionality this could be considered 10x due to the leverage.
> I don't see how we can compare Bach to someone toiling away on a better business software in any reasonable way.
As long as a domain has virtually infinite solutions, it will inherently imply creativity and quality.
Even on systems with easy logical problems, as long as the architectural complexity is high enough (I guess we start from the tenths of thousands of lines?), surely there will be people who design better, safer and faster (and that will also learn faster).
So they will be definitely recognizable (whether it's "2x", "10x" or "100x"). On the other hand, people with such skills very likely won't work on those systems :-)
Einstein worked at a patent office, where he'd do in a short time what would require other clerks a full day of work. He was the equivalent of a "10x engineer"; he didn't work there for a very long time :-)
> This is why you shouldn't use 10x label, it is wrong and goes against everything we know about the world.
Are there studies that prove that everyone can master any skill if they try really hard? This doesn't match the anecdata I've experienced and seen [1].
> Anyway, 10x label is harmful and disrespectful.
Yes, if we decide that humans are only as worthy as their code. But we can also consider, even in the age of neoliberalism, that economic activity is a tool, not our purpose. Some are more productive than others, so we need to help each other out.
Conversely, if we assume that talent does not exist and everything is just a matter of trying really hard, then the conclusion is that poor (able-bodied) people are simply lazy and deserve their fate.
imho people tell themselves 10x don't exist because it's hard to admit some people are just better. Especially in our industry in which a lot of people confound "work title/achievement" and "identity".