Ask HN: Dev promoted to more strategic role in startup. What literature? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Dev promoted to more strategic role in startup. What literature?

#81

Post by avenger123 » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 6:53 AM UTC

Denzel wrote: post #68

thruflo wrote: post #23

In a senior role, effective communication becomes more important. One of the best books I've read about how to communicate effectively is http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramid-Principle-Writing-Thinking... It introduces a specific method to write concise, effective business documents. Then it shows how you can use the method to critique your own thinking.

Yes, I can't recommend this book enough. Throughout my career, I've come into contact with a number of consultants from Harvard/MIT, Bain, McKinsey, etc. They all had a way of communicating ideas so clearly and effectively that I could understand exactly what they were saying, almost immediately. There was virtually no loss of information between what they spoke and what I heard. The ideas and thoughts all just flowe…

+1. What a great endorsement for the book. Your two paragraphs capture so much and in such a delightful way that it's hard not to want to buy the book.

Re: Ask HN: Dev promoted to more strategic role in startup. What literature?

#82

Post by Tloewald » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

qznc wrote: post #17

Tloewald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His strategy was to risk his lead ships in order to break the coherence of his enemy’s fleet." He defines strategy incorrectly. He means "tactic". I think the problem is that "strategy" sounds more important, but it irks me every time someone confuses the two. (The US military thinks the difference is merely one of the size of the operation, which is also wrong.) Nelson's strategy at Trafalgar was to have a decisive…

You cannot define something incorrectly. He can very well define "strategy" as something, you would label "tactic". That does not make it incorrect. It is great that a definition is done for an overloaded and ambiguous word like "strategy". I have not found a good clear definition for "strategy" and "tactic". Could you give yours?

In general, I'd say tactics are about working a defined problem, strategy is about defining the problem, or picking which problem to solve.

Re: Ask HN: Dev promoted to more strategic role in startup. What literature?

#83

Post by Tloewald » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #29

Tloewald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His strategy was to risk his lead ships in order to break the coherence of his enemy’s fleet." He defines strategy incorrectly. He means "tactic". I think the problem is that "strategy" sounds more important, but it irks me every time someone confuses the two. (The US military thinks the difference is merely one of the size of the operation, which is also wrong.) Nelson's strategy at Trafalgar was to have a decisive…

Actually, Rumelt does not attempt to define the difference between strategy and tactic. I guess from his point of view, that difference is irrelevant - the two are linked, I suppose. The book, however, is about good vs bad strategy, not about strategy vs tactics. Your comment is thoroughly unfair on a whole book full of insight and useful, actionable advice that can be applied profitably to competitive situations in…

> Conversely, saying that Nelson's "strategy" was to have a decisive battle vs a skirmish is, by Rumelt's definition, a great example of "bad strategy".

Nelson's tactics were in pursuit of his strategy, and even they remain open to question. The fact Nelson is revered as Britain's greatest naval hero is a great example of "it's better to be lucky than good", and not a great example of excellent strategy (or tactics).

I haven't read the book. It may be great. But the introduction doesn't inspire me. Post-hoc analysis of success is subject to the same problem as basing one's life choices on what elite athletes say in interviews.

Re: Ask HN: Dev promoted to more strategic role in startup. What literature?

#84

Post by Tloewald » Tue, Jul 01, 2014, 3:17 AM UTC

qznc wrote: post #17

Tloewald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His strategy was to risk his lead ships in order to break the coherence of his enemy’s fleet." He defines strategy incorrectly. He means "tactic". I think the problem is that "strategy" sounds more important, but it irks me every time someone confuses the two. (The US military thinks the difference is merely one of the size of the operation, which is also wrong.) Nelson's strategy at Trafalgar was to have a decisive…

You cannot define something incorrectly. He can very well define "strategy" as something, you would label "tactic". That does not make it incorrect. It is great that a definition is done for an overloaded and ambiguous word like "strategy". I have not found a good clear definition for "strategy" and "tactic". Could you give yours?

Let me give a concrete example:

In the WWII Pacific Campaign, the overall allied strategy was called "Island Hopping" and the intent was to establish a chain of bases to allow the supply of airfields within range of Japan, and bypass most of the islands the Japanese had conquered. Anything action beyond achieving that goal was superfluous.

In one campaign an Australian field commander on a disputed island fought a vigorous offensive against the Japanese garrison. His job was defending the airfield, but as a consequence of his excellent leadership and tactics, he managed to capture almost the entire garrison with little loss.

MacArthur was, reportedly, furious:

1) The Japanese garrison was starving and almost out of ammo and posed no real threat.

2) Now supplies would need to be diverted to deal with the Japanese prisoners.

3) Ammunition and other supplies had been wasted and lives put at risk to achieve non-objectives.

Great tactics, but counter to the strategy, and thus unproductive.

A more recent example:

The US invasion of Iraq was a superbly executed piece of tactical planning and execution in pursuit of an idiotic (stated) strategy (conquer Iraq, the people will happily become democratic, and the Middle East will be inspired by their wonderful example). It's possible the real strategy was to generate business for large defense contractors, in which case job well done. Bravo.