[ido]

I will probably not keep an engineer that performs at 1.3x of a mediocre programmer for long (unless they’re junior and I see potential, I.e. I’m investing in the future). It’s also not about “smarts” but about being a good fit for the job (which includes stuff like being motivated and interested in the work).

That is - an “ok” developer that performs “adequately” is not actually sufficient and it’s have to be specific circumstances for me to compromise on keeping them (e.g. I can’t find anyone better, but historically this hasn’t been the case).

[khaki54]

It's the concept of "you don't need to be faster than the bear, just faster than whoever you're traveling with".

In this scenario, the 5x engineer (who probably isn't getting paid 5x) will do 30% better than their peers. Unlikely that you would fire the most productive engineer on the team. Moreover with better peers, 5x engineer will be inspired to rise to the challenge.

[ido]

Yep I agree with both :) underperforming coworkers are a negative effect not only due to their own ineffectiveness but also their affect on the rest of the team and their motivation (it’s very demotivating to constantly have to pick someone else’s slack). It’s a tough rut to dig a team out of if it sets (which makes it that much more important to solve early enough).

I just think that it’s not really a benefit for the better engineer to underperform either, I know I’ve always found doing well at work (which was usually more my subjective feeling about myself than anything some else told me) less stressful than doing badly (and not any less work than pretending to be busy but not working).

Being a programmer myself I also know what you can roughly get done (I still program maybe 30-40% of my working hours these days). It could be that someone I hire is magnificently productive (relative to myself/my experience elsewhere in the last 15-20 years) and is managing to hit that while also doing other things, if that’s the case good for them.

Anyway part of what makes someone a good fit is that they want to do well and find the work interesting and fulfilling. We work 4 day weeks so they still have time for other projects in their free time (and I know most/all of them have such projects).

[ponector]

I said x1.5 of their peers. Meaning you will fire first other half of your developers.

Also, you may not keep, but there are million of other managers who will be happy to have someone reliable even at x0.9 performance.

[ido]

Sure but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer. I just meant someone great could easily be 5x better, not that 1x is the average (their average peer would be >>1x).

I’ve learned from experience that it’s not worth compromising on a mediocre developer (even if in some situations I’d have to). Better take the short-term hit of trying to find someone good.

Also the 5x ones would mostly not be genius level, just actually motivated and talented. I think a lot of people that can do well are stuck in jobs that aren’t a good fit for them.

[cxr]

> but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer

It actually was. You said so yourself:

> perform “adequately” (the project got made to acceptable level)

You need to figure out whether you're talking about someone who is acceptable or not.

[ido]

Did you notice the quote marks around adequately? We managed to hobble along but it was obviously not going great. "It wasn't catastrophic" isn't my goal. I want stuff to go really well, not just about enough to not go out of business/not be in violation of contractual obligations (with a lot of slack getting picked up by their better performing peers).

Again it depends if you have an alternative, in my experience I always had it was just sometimes costly/inopportune/a pain in the ass in the short term to find someone better. Long term it was always better (I never regretted firing someone too quickly but often regretted firing someone too late).

I was also always worried about team morale but every time a low performer was fired it actually improved morale.