> But in practice, as an employer, I don't see a practical interest from my perspective
I'd venture that may be because you view programmers as interchangeable cogs. Rather, for one developer, a project may take two 16-hour weeks, and for a less talented developer, it may take three 40-hour weeks. If you need it done in 2 weeks but the price tag is the more talented developer only works 16-hour weeks, and you accept, everyone wins.
[P.S.: I'm not sure this is a valid thread for the "10x programmers" debate, and I would hate to derail a very interesting topic. But I would say that if your goal is to only work 16-hour weeks, it's in your interest to attempt to demonstrate you can provide at least as much value as an average 40-hour-per-week-developer.]
> if your goal is to only work 16-hour weeks, it's in your interest to attempt to demonstrate you can provide at least as much value as an average 40-hour-per-week-developer.
I'm not convinced that's true. Most developers, 1x and 10x alike, are not evenly productive across a 40-hour week. If, in 20 hours, you can get even half the work you get done in 40 hours, you're already just as valuable based on time worked and should get compensated accordingly for that time.
And I'd argue that in 20 hours you can get far more than half the work done, since the other 20 hours are likely the tail end of your productivity anyway. So your value-to-time ratio goes up, even if you aren't providing as much value as a 40-hour-per-week developer.
If the strong developer can get the work done properly in two 16-hr weeks, then I'm in full agreement.. I'd rather have the strong developer, and it would probably even cost less in teh long run, with better developer happiness.
The problem isn't there... The problem is finding that developer in the first place. As you mentioned, that type, is probably closer to the 10x developer profile, and most developers are cross, are (by definition) closer to the average. So the problem is, as an employer, I have to (despite both yours and my own wishes), prepare for the average case scenario, until proven otherwise that I have a 10x developer on my hands
I'd venture that may be because you view programmers as interchangeable cogs. Rather, for one developer, a project may take two 16-hour weeks, and for a less talented developer, it may take three 40-hour weeks. If you need it done in 2 weeks but the price tag is the more talented developer only works 16-hour weeks, and you accept, everyone wins.
[P.S.: I'm not sure this is a valid thread for the "10x programmers" debate, and I would hate to derail a very interesting topic. But I would say that if your goal is to only work 16-hour weeks, it's in your interest to attempt to demonstrate you can provide at least as much value as an average 40-hour-per-week-developer.]