The concept of the "10x engineer" – a mythical individual vastly more productive than their peers – is detrimental to building effective engineering teams. Instead of searching for these unicorns, successful teams prioritize "normal" engineers who possess strong communication skills, empathy, and a willingness to collaborate. These individuals are reliable, consistent contributors who lift up their colleagues and foster a positive, supportive environment where collective output thrives. This approach ultimately leads to greater overall productivity and a healthier, more sustainable team dynamic, outperforming the supposed benefits of a lone-wolf superstar.
"Work at the Mill" tells the story of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) through the lens of its unique and influential culture. From its modest beginnings in a Maynard, Massachusetts wool mill, DEC fostered a highly engineering-driven, decentralized environment that prioritized innovation and individual contribution. This culture, while empowering and productive in its early years, ultimately contributed to DEC's downfall as the company struggled to adapt to the changing demands of the personal computer market. The "engineering first" mentality, coupled with internal politics and a resistance to centralized management, prevented DEC from effectively competing with more agile and market-oriented companies, leading to its eventual acquisition by Compaq. The narrative emphasizes how DEC's initial strengths became its weaknesses, offering a cautionary tale about the importance of adapting to a changing technological landscape.
Hacker News users discuss the changing nature of work and the decline of "lifetime employment" exemplified by DEC's history. Some commenters reminisce about their time at DEC, praising its engineering culture and lamenting its downfall, attributing it to factors like mismanagement, arrogance, and an inability to adapt to the changing market. Others draw parallels between DEC and contemporary tech companies, speculating about which of today's giants might be the "next DEC." Several discuss the broader shift away from paternalistic employment models and the rise of a more transactional relationship between employers and employees. Some express nostalgia for the perceived stability and community of the past, while others argue that the current system, despite its flaws, offers greater opportunity and dynamism. The cyclical nature of industries and the importance of continuous adaptation are recurring themes.
James Shore envisions the ideal product engineering organization as a collaborative, learning-focused environment prioritizing customer value. Small, cross-functional teams with full ownership over their products would operate with minimal process, empowered to make independent decisions. A culture of continuous learning and improvement, fueled by frequent experimentation and reflection, would drive innovation. Technical excellence wouldn't be a goal in itself, but a necessary means to rapidly and reliably deliver value. This organization would excel at adaptable planning, embracing change and prioritizing outcomes over rigid roadmaps. Ultimately, it would be a fulfilling and joyful place to work, attracting and retaining top talent.
HN commenters largely agree with James Shore's vision of a strong product engineering organization, emphasizing small, empowered teams, a focus on learning and improvement, and minimal process overhead. Several express skepticism about achieving this ideal in larger organizations due to ingrained hierarchies and the perceived need for control. Some suggest that Shore's model might be better suited for smaller companies or specific teams within larger ones. The most compelling comments highlight the tension between autonomy and standardization, particularly regarding tools and technologies, and the importance of trust and psychological safety for truly effective teamwork. A few commenters also point out the critical role of product vision and leadership in guiding these empowered teams, lest they become fragmented and inefficient.
Summary of Comments ( 386 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356995
Hacker News users generally agree with the article's premise that "10x engineers" are a myth and that focusing on them is detrimental to team success. Several commenters share anecdotes about so-called 10x engineers creating more problems than they solve, often by writing overly complex code, hoarding knowledge, and alienating colleagues. Others emphasize the importance of collaboration, clear communication, and a supportive team environment for overall productivity and project success. Some dissenters argue that while the "10x" label might be hyperbolic, there are indeed engineers who are significantly more productive than average, but their effectiveness is often dependent on a good team and proper management. The discussion also highlights the difficulty in accurately measuring individual developer productivity and the subjective nature of such assessments.
The Hacker News post titled ""Normal" engineers are the key to great teams," linking to an IEEE Spectrum article about the "10x engineer" myth, generated a robust discussion with numerous comments. Many commenters agreed with the premise of the article, arguing that focusing on the mythical "10x engineer" is detrimental to team building and overall productivity.
Several commenters shared personal anecdotes about so-called "10x engineers" who ultimately harmed their teams. These anecdotes often highlighted how these individuals, despite their technical prowess, created communication bottlenecks, fostered a hostile work environment, or left behind messy, unsustainable code that became a burden for the rest of the team. The consensus among these commenters was that consistent, collaborative "normal" engineers are more valuable in the long run.
Some commenters debated the very existence of the "10x engineer," suggesting that perceived extreme productivity often boils down to individuals taking shortcuts, neglecting documentation, or taking on tasks best suited for others, ultimately creating more work for the team down the line. They argued that true productivity is a team effort and that labeling individuals as "10x" can discourage collaboration and create unrealistic expectations.
Another recurring theme in the comments was the importance of clear communication, well-defined processes, and comprehensive documentation. Many commenters emphasized that these factors are crucial for team success and can significantly amplify the productivity of all team members, including those deemed "normal." They argued that a well-structured environment allows engineers to focus on problem-solving and producing high-quality work, rather than getting bogged down in unnecessary complexity or communication overhead.
A few dissenting voices argued that exceptional engineers do exist and can significantly contribute to a project's success. However, even these commenters acknowledged that these individuals are rare and that their effectiveness is heavily dependent on the team's dynamics and the overall work environment. They emphasized that fostering a collaborative and supportive atmosphere is crucial for leveraging the talents of all team members, regardless of their individual skill level.
Finally, some commenters highlighted the role of management in creating a healthy and productive work environment. They argued that good managers can effectively utilize the skills of all team members, "normal" or otherwise, by providing clear direction, fostering open communication, and recognizing individual contributions. They suggested that focusing on team building and clear processes is far more effective than chasing the myth of the "10x engineer."