Ending the myth of the 10x, 100x, SuperStar programmer in teams
Part II of my 2-part article on the mythical SuperStar programmer, the effect on teams and why it doesn’t really exist. Read Part I here
Now that we have dealt with the quantitative aspect (see Part I), the ‘qualitative’ question remains.
The SuperStar problem
Aren’t some programmers (so-called SuperStars) an order of magnitude more productive than ‘average’ programmers?
Such a notion is, in my experience, completely wrong. In a modern company/project/community, a programmer is as good as his/her relationship with the rest of the group he/she’s working with.
It’s popular wisdom to think that coding should be a meritocracy and a super-productive coder should be given medals and a pedestal for producing so much. However, my strong and obviously counter-intuitive opinion is that it is extremely detrimental to use pure, individual productivity as the sole criteria of excellence. Here’s three reasons why:
1Like any team sport, building software cannot afford to leave half or more of its player in the changing room, or walking around in the field doing nothing, during the game. When you have someone so ‘productive’ that they do so much more than the rest of his group, you will always end up with dissatisfied (which mean less productive) players, and a frustrated (which probably also mean less productive) SuperStar.
2 By doing so much more work, the SuperStar creates an imbalance in both the ability of other programmers to learn/acquire knowledge (by doing), and the ability of the team to come up with a better shared understanding of the solution.
3As much as the so-called ‘average’ output of the team seems to be growing, any disruption of the SuperStar’s fantastic power — sickness, too much bagel, complicated relationship with their cats… — will quickly and drastically impact the whole group, pushing everybody dangerously close to a downward spiral of unhappiness and self-depreciation (at least for a time).
Ok, now, what?
Paradoxically, I don’t think that we should aim for average (yes, I will keep being an elitist). I think we should aim for excellence: to all be SuperStars.
But we must acknowledge, both while hiring and at work, that we are much more complex than a linear function of productivity: we are all average for some tasks, and a SuperStar at others. We are all uninspired some days, and so pumped full of new ideas the next that we need to be calmed down.
Whether it be a Burn Down chart, a Gantt chart or a Kanban WIP, we should all recognize that we will never be constant in our effort, nor in our motivation, or our commitment. And that’s OK.
I believe that the main strength of working in a group or in communities, is exactly this ability of each individual to complement each other to form a moving/changing ‘peak’ productivity. And that’s probably why we have been doing it since the dawn of time.
So if you are a manager, please keep being demanding AND be generous when you have to ‘evaluate’ or challenge your teams. Also, be wary of rewarding individuals for their performance: if their team was fully functional, they really never did it alone. Let’s focus on creating an environment where SuperStar-ness is shared.
If you are participating in the hiring process, please stop looking for SuperStars or over-the-top individual productivity. Look for ‘meta’ behaviour: someone that inspired or pushed new ideas inside a group, someone that helped teammates be greater. Those are the real game-changers.
Lastly, if you are a SuperStar, stop believing in your own grandeur. I can guarantee that if you start helping your fellow teammates achieve a different SuperState in a field you cannot even fathom to excel in, you will be rewarded by the feedback-loop effect. And let’s be honest, you know deep down that they have talents you don’t, so start helping them and stop relying on yourself alone to save the day :)
