> A person that is capable of delivering 10× value per unit of working time when properly employed probably isn't a drop in replacement for 10 1× developers.

I find that claiming they produce 10x value per unit of working time, while also pointing out that they aren't interchangeable cogs, as a bit odd. If they are not interchangeable (which I agree they are not), then you shouldn't compare their productivity so glibly. At the very least, you need to state up front your method of valuation, which was why I said in my comment that "The interpretation of a 10x engineer is not consistent."

I've never found a manager, or even a company, that could put even a remotely accurate number to the value a tech employee is providing. In sales, perhaps. But with this kind of work, the error bar is large enough that any such estimate is useless.

And then confound that with the fact that the value of your work is dependent on other people - both in and out of your team. Being able to extract how much you produced from this mishmash is usually not possible.

So at best, your scenario of assuming someone is producing 10x value per unit of time is little more than an interesting thought experiment.

Lest "different people have different roles" is a confusing factor, let's eliminate the uncertainty. Say I have a team with many responsibilities (including non-technical ones), and it is every developer's responsibility to do these. You will likely never find a 10x employee there. You'll find someone who may be 10x better on the SW coding side, but he won't achieve those multipliers in his other responsibilities. His real value will be lower. In reality, managers will often shuffle roles so he is not hampered, and assign him to do only the thing he is great at, but that won't mean that he is producing 50% of the value in an 11 person team (which is what 10x means), when you look at the total output.

There's a reason why in game theory, if you need me to achieve something, I can demand half the value even if I only contribute 10% - because 50% is the stable solution (assuming you can't find an alternative to me, of course).[1] People who are replaceable get lower pay, but there's a reason almost no "10x" engineer gets 10x the pay. It's because they literally are not worth 10x to the company.

> Yeah, and all of those things are things a developer can be better at than average, not just technical design and coding

For sure - just not 10x. The reason I mentioned these other "bottlenecks" is that they don't scale as well as other technical/engineering work. And this is why most people viewed as 10x engineers aren't. To be clear, I don't doubt that a person is 10x better than the average in doing X, but I've found that X is always a very narrow scope. I want to see how much more he is contributing to the whole compared to others, and have yet to see a multiplier as high as 10x. If you cannot leverage your 10x productivity in X into 10x better documentation, 10x better promotion, 10x better testing, 10x better customer skills, then your productivity in X has those bottlenecks and your multiplier is less than 10x (in practice, rarely more than 2x for the "whole").

Of course, I work in a big company. I can believe 10x engineers exist, for short intervals, in a small company or a startup.

[1] Growing up, I really hated game theory, but too many decades on this Earth has shown me that the results largely reflect stable outcomes in society. I continue to hate it, but I don't ignore it any more.