The person who makes sure there are no such minefields makes a lot less great advances him/herself - they're busy working in a careful, orderly and considerate manner. And then the other engineers perform close to his/her level. That's not the 10x engineer.
However, the person who lays the minefield may only be a 1x person talent-wise, but since he puts his colleagues on 0.1x, s/he is effectively the 10x engineer of that team.
If people can perform so much despite the minefields, then these are not minefields.
If we agree that they are minefields that impede programmer's performance, then by definition someone who does not make sure these mines are never introduced in the first place will outperform those who just leave them all over the place.
> they're busy working in a careful, orderly and considerate manner.
Actually no. It only takes very little initial effort. He spends most of his time producing actual work.
Meanwhile, other people spend a considerable amount of their time fighting against bad tools and bad development environments.
Worse, they might not spend a whole lot of "total" time fighting against the minefields, but their presence ensures they can never get in the zone (flow) and thus they always perform worse than their potential.
Almost by definition, the 10x engineer is the one who is in a position to reuse and work within his own code, almost exclusively, rather than navigate the minefields laid by others.
The 1x engineer is a normal one who builds upon the work of other 1x people.
The 0.1x engineer is the one who builds upon the 10x engineer's work.
The person who makes sure there are no such minefields makes a lot less great advances him/herself - they're busy working in a careful, orderly and considerate manner. And then the other engineers perform close to his/her level. That's not the 10x engineer.
However, the person who lays the minefield may only be a 1x person talent-wise, but since he puts his colleagues on 0.1x, s/he is effectively the 10x engineer of that team.