The problem with 10x programmers, and I say this as a 10x programmer, is that once you realize that you're 10x as efficient and effective as your colleagues it can lead to cynicism. You quickly realize that everyone around you is also making big bucks working at FANG while they work on their handful of items each sprint. Rather than destroy yourself, you can outperform everyone by operating at 2x efficiency. Perhaps this is a combination of cynicism and age.
That said, I think most of the time the difference between 1x and 2x-5x is putting in a tiny fraction of additional effort. That can be as simple as taking the time to sit down and read all the docs and whitepapers you might get inundated with on a new project as opposed to skimming through and then later complaining about everything being so complex like most engineers seem to do.
At a financial firm I worked at, I spent the first few weeks mapping the code out class by class on a notepad. It was extremely tedious but by the end of the second week I could speak intelligently about how the components interacted (on a massive trading system). For most engineers on the team, there was no sense of intellectual curiosity in this regard. Instead, most engineers I've ever met are very siloed and concerned about their small (relative) slice of the stack -- whether that's a feature, system, or product.
The key to being 10x is your methodology and mindset and that carries over to any experience. I've been 10x at finance, at FANG, in low level dev, and even measurably 5x on a language/stack I had never used professionally and had to learn from scratch (not easy, C++).
I think the key to executing at 5-10x is a careful protection of your most valuable asset, time. By examining how you structure your work, how you approach problems, how you approach "getting stuck" and reaching into areas of a problem that are unknown, as well as how you get distracted, you can find areas that are time sinks.
But in the end, I don't think being 10x is worth it unless it's for your own startup. There's a point in life where, as I said earlier, you get a bit of cynicism and realize you can work at 2x and get just as many accolades. You grow a family and a life outside of work and suddenly 2x is plenty and you can spend the rest on yourself or the people you care about.
I somewhat agree with the demotivation aspect, but you don’t need to change your process. 10x is a descriptor of productivity not time spent. You can still do what made you a 10x (e.g. read docs from scratch to get an understanding of everything). Even if you only spend 4 hours a day on it instead of 8, odds are you’ll still end of ahead of the 1x sooner or later even if you don’t have results immediately.
To me the intellectual curiosity is inherent, and I don’t think I can, should, or want to tone that down. The best way to protect your time and remain recognized is to work less hours at the same efficiency/capacity, not to reduce the efficiency/capacity. It also helps to have management that is good and has trust in you. This way you can work your 10x style but deliver at a 3x timeline (or whatever x < 10 but greater than expectation) without the pressure to deliver at 10x all the time.
That said, I think most of the time the difference between 1x and 2x-5x is putting in a tiny fraction of additional effort. That can be as simple as taking the time to sit down and read all the docs and whitepapers you might get inundated with on a new project as opposed to skimming through and then later complaining about everything being so complex like most engineers seem to do.
At a financial firm I worked at, I spent the first few weeks mapping the code out class by class on a notepad. It was extremely tedious but by the end of the second week I could speak intelligently about how the components interacted (on a massive trading system). For most engineers on the team, there was no sense of intellectual curiosity in this regard. Instead, most engineers I've ever met are very siloed and concerned about their small (relative) slice of the stack -- whether that's a feature, system, or product.
The key to being 10x is your methodology and mindset and that carries over to any experience. I've been 10x at finance, at FANG, in low level dev, and even measurably 5x on a language/stack I had never used professionally and had to learn from scratch (not easy, C++).
I think the key to executing at 5-10x is a careful protection of your most valuable asset, time. By examining how you structure your work, how you approach problems, how you approach "getting stuck" and reaching into areas of a problem that are unknown, as well as how you get distracted, you can find areas that are time sinks.
But in the end, I don't think being 10x is worth it unless it's for your own startup. There's a point in life where, as I said earlier, you get a bit of cynicism and realize you can work at 2x and get just as many accolades. You grow a family and a life outside of work and suddenly 2x is plenty and you can spend the rest on yourself or the people you care about.