11–20 of 272 posts
I often say that we don't need to agree, just commit together. I particularly like disagree and commit better. It seems like it would shorten time to decision as long as no one takes it personally.
"We established long-term relationships elationships with many important strategic partners, including America Online, Yahoo!, Excite, Netscape, GeoCities, AltaVista, @Home, and Prodigy."
"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…
This problem is pretty much every company I've ever worked for if/when they got over six engineers. I spend more time and a hell of a lot more energy than I should trying to keep managers or easily enthused engineers from hugging the project to death.
I ended up becoming a process expert out of a sense of self preservation. I use process a lot, but it's always in support of the 'why's. I don't always talk about the 5 Whys but it's always there, and in my experience the people who are usually the problem can't ever manage more than three.
The worst of these are also the sort of people who, if your speedometer was broken, would insist that the car is not moving. Even after you told them to look out the window.
I particularly like the concept of 'Day 1'. No matter what stage you are in as a business or individual, it is still day 1 for rest of your life. Taking long term view , keeping where you want to go in focus is really important.
I always thought "it's day one" sounded like something a man says to his wife after he's been caught having an affair.
"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…
Amazon is guilty of this, not so much with customers, but with partners/sellers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon is guilty of this, not so much with customers, but with partners/sellers.
I don't think it's because they care too much of the process, but because they value consumers much more than sellers.
"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…
tl;dr: the map is not the territory This problem is pretty much every company I've ever worked for if/when they got over six engineers. I spend more time and a hell of a lot more energy than I should trying to keep managers or easily enthused engineers from hugging the project to death. I ended up becoming a process expert out of a sense of self preservation. I use process a lot, but it's always in support of the 'wh…
Does this come across as oddly inconsistent to anyone else? "These big trends are not that hard to spot (they get talked and written about a lot), but they can be strangely hard for large organizations to embrace. We’re in the middle of an obvious one right now: machine learning and artificial intelligence." "Another example: market research and customer surveys can become proxies for customers – something that’s esp…
I often say that we don't need to agree, just commit together. I particularly like disagree and commit better. It seems like it would shorten time to decision as long as no one takes it personally.
I really like "disagree and commit" but I'm worried how well it would work in most corporations. I think it requires incredible alignment amongst the decision makers about the goals of the project - something that is in short supply.
I have no doubt at all that he would label me as a toxic employee, and was not surprised at all to be in the first round of layoffs (worked out for me, I got 27 paychecks that year and a three week vacation), but most of that would be him projecting his issues onto me.
He wanted to be a good manager but was so emotionally challenged by estimates not actually being blood oaths that it twisted every planning meeting into something ugly.
I often say that we don't need to agree, just commit together. I particularly like disagree and commit better. It seems like it would shorten time to decision as long as no one takes it personally.
I really like "disagree and commit" but I'm worried how well it would work in most corporations. I think it requires incredible alignment amongst the decision makers about the goals of the project - something that is in short supply.