[sumeetjain]

Based on the other replies (which I greatly appreciate - thank you), I think I have a better understanding of the paragraph. I was particularly interested in understanding the author's distinction between individualistic and guild-minded developers. It seems to me that he is suggesting the following:

When a developer find herself working in a company that undervalues her, she will typically react one of two ways:

1. "Individualistically": Such developers might begin by bargaining for better terms at their company, but they are quick to leave the company to 1) consult, 2) join/found a startup, or (following way in the distance) 3) join another company. Individualistic developers invest time in learning new technologies to stay current, because their ability to be so mobile exists primarily because they can work in such varied environments. These developers still seek large windfalls, so they "hedge their bets" - taking high-risk jobs more often than most people. Individualistic developers are probably younger than other kinds of developers.

2. "Guild-Minded-ly": Such developers will respond to workplace injustice by leveraging their connections to find another job - probably at a company with similar specifications to the one they are leaving. A guild-minded developer might be an ex-Google employee who - over the years - has built relationships with people at Microsoft and Facebook. In order of preference, such developers seek jobs with 1) another company, 2) a startup, 3) themselves (consulting). Stock options are less effective at retaining guild-minded talent, because they are not as concerned with large windfalls. Guild-minded developers are probably older than individualistic developers, and they also probably want to stay at a job for longer.

The above is probably not a 100% accurate representation of what the author was trying to say. But if it is, I don't much care for it.

While it's true that some of us are more likely to work for ourselves, or tend to be risk-averse, or desire long-term relationships with a company, I don't think the author's division of mindsets encapsulates these motivations.

There also seems to be a lot of overlap between his divisions: Both sets of developers are active in the community (individualistic developers via open-source, and guild-minded developers via whatever a guild is - and probably via open-source, too); both developers are very mobile despite attempts to retain them; and both groups supposedly represent highly talented ("10X") developers as opposed to average ("1X") developers.

I found the article interesting - though I'll need time to digest it and form an opinion. But his decision to close with an articulation of this division is strange. It seems tangential to the larger point, which is that good developers (of whatever group) are important.

[brc]

It's quite funny because a group of my friends used to call ourselves the mercenaries because we had no loyalty to any existing company, and would leave in a heartbeat if the project was doomed or a bad manager was drafted in.

But there was also an element of guild behaviour in that anyone who found themselves in a good project/company tended to bring in others.

[kls]

I think this is what the author was trying to convey, and the article does a fairly good job of providing information from and insiders prospective, even if it does objectify developers. I think most developers move between the two, what you stated seems to be very normal and 10x'ers seem to pick up other 10x'ers along their way. I have about 8 guys in my (guild) now and we float in between contracts and start-ups. I am working on funding of our next venture and I will be calling them in. When I do, they will come and that is very hard for someone on the outside to understand. Our dynamics work very different than other industries and it is very hard for people outside of it to understand. That is probably the think that I think made Steve Job's so formidable was his understanding of the dynamics of creative employees.

[otoburb]

I think you hit the nail on the head already with the first part of this paragraph:

>>While it's true that some of us are more likely to work for ourselves, or tend to be risk-averse, or desire long-term relationships with a company [...]

Basically, developers with more of a mercenary mindset are more willing to work for themselves, while developers with a more guild-like disposition tend to be more risk-averse and/or desire long(er) term relationships with a company.

Both groups definitely overlap in terms of their achievements and community involvement. But how they see themselves in the market, and more importantly how they react to changing conditions, seems to be the primary distinction between the two.

Being a Forbes article and the general audience that the author seems to be writing for, I doubt that much of this is anything new for a HN audience. However, it's probably a good radar ping/wake-up call for the more general audience.

tl;dr Polarizing divisions make it easier for people to retain information.