If you keep writing very similar implementations of very similar things (without actively damaging the code-base) you may very well be an O(n) developer. You keep working at the same pace regardless.
If you are a developer of some calibar, the work that you've already done will feed back into the work that you're doing - making you an O(log(n)) developer, until the work levels out and you slip back toward o(n).
Then there's the other end of the stick, the idiot who has no business writing code, but who management keeps around because he's cheap in the short term. Everything he touches turn to shit, each change corrupts the code base just a little more, and each change to the corrupted code takes an amount of time proportional to the level of corruption. This is the O(k^n) developer, and he needs to be stopped.
Look at the chages you're making to the code - are they of a quality comparable to what was already there, do they integrate cleanly, are you coding with a style that fits in with the surrounding code?
If not, what could you be doing better and why aren't you already doing it? It may take longer in the short term, but give consideration to your development practices. Eventually you'll find yourself more quickly writing a higher quality of code that's more maintainable with fewer defects.
> Everything he touches turn to shit
> he needs to be stopped.
You'll never take me alive.
I imagine that there are probably tasks that don't allow the 10X or 100X to show through; anything basic and repetitive enough (or so heavily specified that the developer's job is essentially "typing").
Sometimes this also comes about by a deep knowledge of available algorithms and systems, so while a naive programmer might start flailing around like a dog with their head stuck in a bucket, an experienced person might recognize the problem as an Integer Linear Programming case, etc.
There are plenty of cases where no-one is 100x, of course.
Also many people are not even able to finish more complex projects. I am just not sure if they are 1X developers or 0.1X developers.
However, I'm not sure that there exist 10x managers that are not manipulators / psychological exploiters.
Same goes for teaching or education in general. So many wannabe educators writing or producing programming lessons that clearly have never studied education theory. A notorious one or two out there as well. Art or professional grade creative endeavors are probably the same way for the vast majority.
Unless you're some sort of savant, no one gets away with shortcutting the learning involved with anything. It's just kind of blissful ignorance.
You don't know what you don't know and it becomes a strength since most are too unmotivated to ever do things the right way, in a well-informed, disciplined manner regardless. To those who are in those fields though, it's painfully obvious.
I am totally happy leaving that job to someone who is better suited for it.
However, it seems plausible to me that of the people who think they are qualified to be a manager, most are not.
Good software team management is a superset of coding skill. Not only does the manager need to have reasonable - not necessarily outstanding - developer skills, but also needs to have good people skills, good political skills, a feel for context and strategy, and an ability to improvise creative solutions across all these domains.
The idea that someone who is good at coding should be promoted to management automatically seems bizarre. It's like expecting someone who is good at mountain biking to be good at driving a tank.
So is the idea that management can be measured with "objective" metrics, such as locs, time on/off, bugs killed, and so on.
In fact it's horrifically difficult to quantify the business ROI of software teams or of individual developers. ROI often depends on decisions made higher up the food chain, and it's even harder to get upper management to take responsibility for the consequences of bad decisions and bad attitudes.
Lots of people have been considering themselves unsuitable for management for decades. This is a problem that people were talking about in the "systems" world back in the 1970s and 1980s, and that is neither the only area that it was a problem in nor the earliest time that it was mentioned. Have a snippet from the Journal of Systems Management from 1980:
> The systems professional who wants to remain within his job, i.e., does not care if he is promoted, is one who sees his main purpose as contributing to the profession. But many professionals and many organizations feel that one must get promoted to a management position, for if one does not want to be a manager he is not ambitious. This reflects itself in many organizations when the annual review time rolls round, or when one wants to change jobs.
If your company today has an organization structure where entering management is not the only promotion path, decades of mulling and lots of people not seeing themselves as management is the cause.