Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#151

Post by astrodust »

kradroy wrote: post #125
astrodust wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you can coach and pivot someone from that "must make everything perfect" mentality to one where they can take a more pragmatic approach to things.

This is really hard. Really hard. It can take years to get an engineer to that sweet spot. When I build teams I usually select "builders" and "improvers." Improvers can't create new systems because they spend all day theorizing edge cases and what-ifs. Builders can't improve systems because they spend all day theorizing new systems to replace the legacy one they see as imperfect. You also have to get the right ratio…

This is part of a larger spectrum of developer preferences: openers, sustainers and closers.

Openers want to create new things, they love a blank canvas. Where some people are scared of this, they thrive in a place where you can lay down rules, define parameters, and create structures that are a good fit for the problem domain.

Sustainers like to work within a project that's evolving, but largely defined, where they can get a lot of things done and move the ball forward. They may create more work along the way, go on excursions, but the overall direction is roughly towards the goal. They have to make many compromises along the way.

Closers like finishing things, closing out bugs, wrapping up features, taking care of a myriad of loose ends and "TODO" type tasks. They're interested in completing work, not creating more work. This is where you have to make harsh judgement calls, implement ugly hacks, anything to wrap things up.

It's rare you'll find someone who excels at or even likes to do all three. We often have our bias.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#152

Post by slededit »

AWildC182 wrote: post #47
friendly_chap wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a 10x developer if they don't know how to write maintanable software, you just thought they are. The dev you describe sounds like a junior who can crank out code at high velocity.

This is why the 10x is a unicorn. HN likes to shift the definition every time it's found to have some quality we don't like. In the real world there is a broad spectrum of devs and their capabilities. Each one has strengths, weaknesses, areas of expertise, and character flaws. You'll basically never find one that just blindly produces 10x the code of the rest of your team without some downside.

They are Unicorns but you know them when you see them. Cranking out code at high velocity that looks and feels right. When they don't know how to do something they actually research and look at the field. If no prior art exists at all (they frequently find themselves in this situation) they're already on their third iteration before anyone else has a prototype - even they can't get it perfect the very first time.

E.g. If they previously wrote compilers and you tasked them with graphics you'd see a book explaining affine transforms on their desk. Or parsing theory for the reverse transition.

A key part however is the ability to switch between fields. I've seen people I thought were 10x completely fail when tasked with something new.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#153

Post by slededit »

Swizec wrote: post #145
rcavezza wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so interesting. I have met many people that others considered "geniuses" because they solved hard problems and got things done fast. And then 3 years later, people still complain about having to deal with "[Name of Developer] Code". I guess if you move fast and write code that others can't read, it's easy to get labeled a genius.

> And then 3 years later, people still complain about having to deal with "[Name of Developer] Code" You're saying their code was so good it survived 3 years of real world use and project evolution. That's extremely rare.

Counter intuitive, like the "put the armor where the bullet holes aren't" story about WWII bombers.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#154

Post by brianmcc »

catherd wrote: post #42
brianmcc wrote: post #11

Read about Belbin team roles if you've never done so. If you're someone that thrives on finding new things and learning them, revel in it, don't beat yourself up - that's valuable. Others thrive on crossing 't's and dotting 'i's - and good luck to them, the whole point is that teams succeed with the right blend of people. https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/ Bottom line if you try to be perfect at all dime…

I feel like all too often that leads to an outlook where you assume whatever job you end up in must meet your preferences in all things, and it's a pretty brittle way to conduct your career. Sure, from an individual standpoint that would optimize your short term happiness, but I've found the ability to know what the role requires and be that person is a skill that's rewarding in it's own way (and often, but not alway…

Agree 100% - if you as an individual decide you're clearly a "Plant" and so don't need to take care of details, that's bad. Or if you decide you're an "Implementer" and will never do well in a more creative, explorer style role, that's also bad.

I think the Belbin stuff's explicitly designed for managers though: if you have a team of "Implementers" and you know the concepts here, you might go out of your way to blend in a "Plant" to open the team's ideas up.

Much as an extravert might bring a nice element to a team of introverts. Although that could also backfire terribly depending on the personalities.

Obviously all of this has the same limitations and caveats as any other kind of pigeon-holing excercise but I think it's a worthwhile "stretch goal" when it comes to hiring, e.g. I need an accomplished JavaScript person and as a bonus let's look for one that complements and rounds of our current team.

Also agree that team members who can grind away without fuss or drama and finish things are just generally worth their weight in gold. More of those please!

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#155

Post by extragood »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #78

I'm smart, but wouldn't say I am super smart...but I am pretty damn tenacious to perfect whatever I am doing...this makes people impressed with my work but frustrated at my slow pace...to the point where the latter is interfering with my career.

My brother is a perfectionist who works in tech (as do I). I tell him that everyone needs at least 2 working speeds, and one of those speeds needs to be "quick" (aka "emergency").

I don't see it as a binary thing. You can be meticulous in the things that matter that they are done right, and quick for the things that need to be done. The metric for success in those things are different. Quickness is perfection in an emergency.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#157

Post by yesh123 »

pcpcpc wrote: post #144
throwaway713 wrote: post #82

I remember reading once that students who excel in high school (valedictorians and salutatorians) are underrepresented as successful company founders, meaning that they occur at a lower rate than one would expect from chance alone. I think the hypothesis was that these people tended to develop a perfectionistic (or even people pleasing) approach, and that this strategy works really well for "doing what you're told".…

It's anecdotal, but I've noticed this a lot in the years since I've graduated from a "top-ranked" school. I worked on Wall Street after graduating from school and burned out very quickly. I had a very high estimation of my own ability and importance and a desire to accumulate visible markers of success. I saw this in my peers too. I've been working through these feelings personally and now feel much more well adjuste…

Would love to hear what you are doing now and how you've moved away from those expectations. Going through a similar phase (worked in IB, now work in corp fin and do not like it).

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#158

Post by kradroy »

astrodust wrote: post #151
kradroy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really hard. Really hard. It can take years to get an engineer to that sweet spot. When I build teams I usually select "builders" and "improvers." Improvers can't create new systems because they spend all day theorizing edge cases and what-ifs. Builders can't improve systems because they spend all day theorizing new systems to replace the legacy one they see as imperfect. You also have to get the right ratio…

This is part of a larger spectrum of developer preferences: openers, sustainers and closers. Openers want to create new things, they love a blank canvas. Where some people are scared of this, they thrive in a place where you can lay down rules, define parameters, and create structures that are a good fit for the problem domain. Sustainers like to work within a project that's evolving, but largely defined, where they…

I disagree that "closer" is a distinct class. It's a necessary aspect in any class. In most companies if you don't "close", you get fired or put on a PIP (and you don't get coffee). There is another class that at some companies where closing isn't necessarily expected: "tinkerer". They just mess around with various projects to learn and make suggestions, but they don't have to close to keep their job.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#159

Post by ac2u »

pjungwir wrote: post #81
bootsz wrote: post #4

> 4. Smart people get bored easily. Being smart is not exactly the same as being curious, but if you have both these qualities you might find yourself becoming easily bored with executing the same behaviors over and over. Some types of success stem from creativity, but other types come from becoming an expert in a niche and performing a set of behaviors repeatedly. If you’re smart, curious, and have a love of learnin…

I think going deep on something is the key. It lets you keep learning without getting bored and needing to jump ship. One of my pet peeves is how programmers think "keep learning" means "learn another programming language". Not that that's bad, but after the twentieth or so, . . . instead try learning something "adjacent" to what you enjoy & do well. For example for a Ruby+JS web developer: read some HTTP RFCs, play…

I would piggyback on your answer to say that learning those adjacent skills will also help you work on your process of learning in general.

You're less likely to get stuck and give up because they're adjacent, and then when it comes to learning something not adjacent you're already a more experienced at learning and organising your thoughts when it comes to tackling a new problem.

Re: How Smart People Sabotage Their Success

#160

Post by astrodust »

kradroy wrote: post #158
astrodust wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of a larger spectrum of developer preferences: openers, sustainers and closers. Openers want to create new things, they love a blank canvas. Where some people are scared of this, they thrive in a place where you can lay down rules, define parameters, and create structures that are a good fit for the problem domain. Sustainers like to work within a project that's evolving, but largely defined, where they…

I disagree that "closer" is a distinct class. It's a necessary aspect in any class. In most companies if you don't "close", you get fired or put on a PIP (and you don't get coffee). There is another class that at some companies where closing isn't necessarily expected: "tinkerer". They just mess around with various projects to learn and make suggestions, but they don't have to close to keep their job.

I'm trying to distinguish between responsibilities and obligations, which you're forced to adhere to, and affinity.

Anyone can close if they're forced to, but some people actually like it. Clear objectives, solutions need to be focused, etc.

Post reply on HN