It's possible to be highly skilled in one area and very weak in another, and the median is almost always more important to the long-term success of a business. Look at it from the perspective of a CEO: is a hot-shot programmer nobody wants to work with more or less likely to be productive than a well-integrated team with a dozen people? Would you want to bet your company on that one person staying healthy, employed by you, never making a mistake, etc. or do you want to bet on a long-term model more sustainable than “Make sure this person never leaves”?

This is why the 10x mythologizing is so annoying. There are a few people who are 10x in specific areas or who might have periods of intense productivity but it's never true across the board for significant periods of time, and it's used to excuse a lot of bad behaviour by 1.2x programmers — not to mention the larger mistake of assuming that the limiting factor on projects is rarely absolute programming ability. In most cases, you see far better results from someone who might be maligned as a .8x programmer who communicates well with the team & users and relies on solid tools and practice rather than assuming sheer skill will save the day.