Do We Really Need 10x Developers?

Wouldn't 11x more time get us further?

The myth of the 10x developer has permeated tech culture for years. The idea is that some developers are so talented and productive that they can get 10 times as much done as the average coder. The origin of the term is often attributed to a study conducted by Sackman, Erikson, and Grant in 1968. In their research, they found significant variations in the productivity of programmers. The study reported that the most productive programmers were, on average, about 10 times more productive than the least productive ones.

But as development teams strive for ever-increasing velocity and efficiency, I question whether chasing the phantom 10x developer makes strategic sense. Even if these unicorns exist, is hunting for them the best use of resources? Or would we see greater gains by improving process to give average developers more time?

The Trouble with 10x

For starters, precisely quantifying individual productivity on complex projects is incredibly difficult. Development throughput depends on so many factors beyond raw coding talent. The nature of the work, clarity of requirements, adequacy of specifications, flexibility of architecture, responsiveness of product owners, and dynamics with teammates can all impact how fast a coder seems to be cranking out features.

We also tend to value production of new code over other critical contributions—refactoring, testing, documentation, infrastructure, and technical debt management. If we measured productivity more holistically, our assessment of each developer’s multiplier effect might look very different.

Then there are the downsides of rockstar culture. Celebrating Heroes who pull long nights and weekends building solo can undermine team cohesion, accountability, knowledge sharing and collective ownership. When you concentrate authority and esoteric skills in just a few key players, it creates bottlenecks and critical dependencies. You also end up extremely fragile to churn.

The case for more time instead

While 10x talent seems thrilling in theory, there is another approach to increasing team throughput that is more inclusive, reliable, and sustainable: structurally enable more coding time across average developers.

The average developer typically does not code all day, every day. In a standard workday when you factor in meetings, emails, breaks, trainings, planning, administrative tasks and context switching there may be little room to spend programming. By removing or automating distractions, streamlining workflows, and using team support roles to handle non-coding demands, leaders can help reclaim large chunks of wasted developer capacity.

The compound effect of such time savings across entire engineering teams is tremendous. Even just getting an extra 90 minutes of coding time per engineer per day would be like hiring more staff for zero additional cost. You also avoid the cultural complexities of managing rockstars and good versus bad apples. The gains are evenly distributed, with no special treatment or resentment.

So rather than endlessly benchmarking for elite coders who may or may not exist, managers should focus on progress, not prodigies. Help every programmer reach closer to their full potential by eliminating the structure and process tax that eats away their precious coding time. An 11x bump in available hours promises to deliver more value than chasing the mythical 10x performer.