I don't consider myself a 10x engineer. The number one thing that I've realized makes me more productive than other engineers at my company is thinking through system design and business needs with patterns that don't take badly written product tickets literally.
What I've seen with AI is that it does not save my coworkers from the pain of overcomplicating simple things that they don't really think through clearly. AI does not seem to solve this.
I don't consider myself a 2x engineer; my company tells me that by not paying me 2x vs my colleagues, even if I know (and others believe that too) I deliver more than 2x their output.
Counter: you are looking at it wrong. You can get work done in 1/2 of the time it used to. Now you got 1/2 of the day to just mess around. Socialize or network. It’s not necessarily that you’re producing 2x.
> You can get work done in 1/2 of the time it used to. Now you got 1/2 of the day to just mess around. Socialize or network.
This has never been the case in any company I've ever worked at. Even if you can finish your day's work in, say, 4 hours, you can't just dip out for the other 4 hours of the day.
Managers and teammates expect you to be available at the drop of a hat for meetings, incidents, random questions, "emergencies", etc.
Most jobs I've worked at eventually devolve into something like "Well, I've finished what I wanted to finish today. I could either stare at my monitor for the rest of the day waiting for something to happen, or I could go find some other work to do. Guess I'll go find some other work to do since that's slightly less miserable".
You also have to delicately "hide" the fact that you can finish your work significantly faster than expected. Otherwise the expectations of you change and you just get assigned more work to do.
I'll go even further. I've been the guy who gets all his work done way faster than others. You know what happens? I get assigned way more work than most people until I am overflowing and the literal bottleneck is my peers being able to code review everything I do. Yet, I am still blamed for overproducing then too cause now I am creating too much work for my peers!
Literally unwinnable scenarios. Only way to succeed is to just sit your ass in the chair. Almost no manager actually cares about your actual output - they all care about presentation and appearances.
I mentioned this in a sibling comment, but one idea I have is instead of doing this extra work which is unrecognized, you spend your extra time on gaming the presentation and appearances aspect of it. Which you might not be good at at first but would be practice and probably have compounding gains in your career. And to add an extra interesting challenge is how can you game it with high integrity.
In an attempt to have a positive framing around this, with the disclaimer that I haven't actually fully tried this, one idea might be to spend the extra time on all the politics stuff and marketing yourself and figuring out how to get in good with your manager and get promoted. And that stuff is not easy and you might not be good at it, but spending time on it is good practice and will slow you down in the areas you are good at so there's nothing to hide.
I had a task to do a semi-complex UI addition, the whole week was allocated for that.
I sicked the corp approved Github Copilot with 4o and Claude 3.7 at it and it was done in an afternoon. It's ~95% functionally complete, but ugly as sin. (The model didn't understand our specific Tailwind classes)
The first red flag there is "2x their output". You can find many an anecdote where a good engineer produced better solution in fewer lines of code (or sometimes, by removing code — the holy grail).
So always aim for outcomes, not output :)
At my company, we did promote people quickly enough that they are now close to double their salaries when they started a year or so ago, due to their added value as engineers in the team. It gets tougher as they get into senior roles, but even there, there's quite a bit of room for differentiation.
Additionally, since this is a market, you should not even expect to be paid twice for 2x value provided — then it makes no difference to a company if they get two 1x engineers instead, and you are really not that special if you are double the cost. So really, the "fair" value is somewhere in between: 1.5x to equally reward both parties, or leaning one way or the other :)
When I go to buy 2 bottles of milk I am never offered to get it for 1.x the price of one bottle. I don't see any way it is fair to deliver double and get just 1.5x, in a hypothetical scenario just for the sake of the discussion. The suggestion to work 50% of the time and relax, socialize and network the other 50% is way more reasonable, when possible (not in my case).
I am always being bombarded with different "buy more for less" options in any store I enter. All of those "3rd item free", "second item 50% off"...
The thing is that company is hunting for better value, and you are looking for a better deal.
If company can get 2x engineers' production at lower cost, you are only more valuable than having 2 engineers producing as much if you are cheaper. Your added value is this extra 1x production, but if you are selling "that" at the same price, they are just as well off by hiring two engineers instead of you: there is no benefit to having you over them.
If you can do it cheaper, then you are more valuable the cheaper you are. Which is why I said 1.5x cost is splitting the value/cost between you and the employer.
Even so, tickets munched out or tasks completed is still "output" — sometimes you could provide more value by avoiding tickets that are not bringing benefits to customers or business, solving things customers need and not what they think they need, suggesting solutions which are 5% of work yet provide 90% of the value, etc.
I never worked as an engineer like that: I always wanted to influence what I am being asked to do (I started with free software communities, moved to an open source company, and only worked "proprietary" work the last decade), and especially, challenging it when I was confident it made no sense, or when there were obvious improvements for the end user experience at lower, equal, or slightly bigger cost.
You can certainly be very productive by doing what you are told. I'd probably fail at that metric against many engineers, yet people usually found me very valuable to their teams (I never asked if it was 1x or 2x or 0.5x compared to whatever they perceive as average).
The last few years, I am focused on empowering engineers to be equal partners in deciding what is being done, by teaching them to look for and suggest options which are 10% of the effort and 90% of the value for the user (or 20/80, and sometimes even 1% effort for 300% the value). Because they can best see what is simple and easy to do with the codebase, so if they put customer hat on, they unlock huge wins for their team and business.
> What I've seen with AI is that it does not save my coworkers from the pain of overcomplicating simple things that they don't really think through clearly. AI does not seem to solve this.
100%. The biggest challenge with software is not that it’s too hard to write, but that it’s too easy to write.
What I've seen with AI is that it does not save my coworkers from the pain of overcomplicating simple things that they don't really think through clearly. AI does not seem to solve this.