Engineering
+Business
+ +Engineering
- Shape Up - Ryan Singer
- Thinking in Systems - Donella Meadows diff --git a/docs/powerful-patty-mccord.html b/docs/powerful-patty-mccord.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bde2d87 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/powerful-patty-mccord.html @@ -0,0 +1,213 @@ + + + + + + + +
- (I took these loose notes from the audio book, so some of the material may not be under the +correct chapter heading). +
- The feeling Netflix wanted was for people to come to work not despite the challenges due to +change, but because of them. They wanted work to feel like it was exhilarating. Netflix management +tried to thread the needle between challenging versus hair-raising. +
- People are motivated when they perceive they're part of a "dream team" and are facing intense +challenges. Those are the ultimate motivators. +
- "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood, divide the work, and give +orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." - The Little Prince. +
- Great teams are forged when the problem is hard and they have to dig deep. The best teams are made +when the startup is running out of venture funding and it must pivot to a new great idea or die. +
- You want people to think "God, this is hard; I'm so excited to be doing this. Because it's making +a difference in the world." +
- Patty learned in her experience prior to Netflix that bigger teams and more structure to support +those teams doesn't get you a better outcome. The smaller, well-coordinated team has the great +advantages of speed and flexibility. It's hard to turn a big ship. A big team can't grow and +change in response to changing market dynamics. +
- "It's a misconception that more people make better stuff." Instead, focus on discipline and lean +process. +
- After having to fire 40% of their staff:
+
-
+
- Everyone was working harder but having more fun. It was because only top performers were left. +
- Also, they now had smaller, more nimble teams. +
+ - It's hard work to manage large numbers of people. +
- So, with this in mind, they just started cutting things out of their process and their teams to +see if they could keep getting improved productivity and happiness by doing so. +
- Abolishing yearly planning
+
-
+
- They realized that their yearly plan was always off. It was false precision to think that they +could make yearly headcount plans. So, they stopped doing them. They switched to only doing +quarterly plans at that time, because that's the level of planning that was useful. Everything +else was just wasted effort. +
- They didn't do any more yearly roadmap planning or yearly revenue projections because they were +wrong all the time. They were making it up. So they switched to quarterly. +
- She experimented with everything she could think of to get rid of unnecessary rules and +constraints on teams. Once she got rid of all expense tracking and budgets and said "just use +your judgment; spend the company's money wisely." And it was fine. +
+ - When everyone is intimately up to speed on the business, controls and management are less +necessary. +
- Employees need to see the view of the business landscape from the C suite. +
- To provide education, Netflix instituted an employee college. This was a day of education with +long presentations from all of the executives about their departments, the goals of those +departments, and the challenges they expect. +
- Show a business overview deck to every new employee who joins. They found that the business +changed and the questions changed pretty quickly, so they had to update the deck every single +quarter. They had to be on top of changing the message and evolving it all the time. +
- What adults need from you most is honesty. They need to be able to feel like they are getting your +true opinion. +
- Being blunt with people is a way of making them feel respected if they can handle it. It shows +they are being honest and digging into the core of the issue and you really want to hear their +true opinion. +
- Encourage employees to give feedback to each other face-to-face. If an employee came to her as a +manager and had feedback about one of her reports, she would encourage that person to just go talk +to the report directly. +
- In her experience, when people first join Netflix, the amount of direct negative feedback they get +from peers is a bit of a shock. But they could get over it, and then are thankful for the feedback +because it's helping them improve. And they start delivering that type of feedback to others. +
- Any constructive critical feedback needs to provide specific examples of the behavior change being +requested. And it needs to be actionable. +
- As opposed to criticizing some essential quality of their being that they can't change, like +"you're forgetful", "you don't seem to get enough things done." +
- Most people value getting a better view of themselves from the eyes of others if the feedback is +not delivered in a hostile way. +
- She likes using the phrase "data informed", rather than "data driven". No key decision is made +entirely in response to a data set. Every product decision they made which moved the needle +required a huge amount of judgment applied. +
- Consumer science meeting
+
-
+
- (This sounds like a product review meeting or an experiment review meeting.) +
- People would present the results and the data and the conclusions from all of the consumer +testing they had done that month. Heads of product and founders would attend. These meetings +required a lot of prep for the people presenting the data, but it helped ensure that the level +of rigor was high. +
+ - One important benefit of this meeting was that it helped them realize that no one person could +intuit what customers wanted or needed based on their own judgment. The data always run counter to +somebody's expectations. +
- When hosting debates about product issues, they favored small groups. Small group allows the +debate to stay civil, and it also ensures that no one can hide and not voice their opinion. Also +it's a good way to mix together people from different functions so that everybody can learn about +different viewpoints on the problem. +
- "A company is like a sports team, not a family." +
- Their cultural model is that of a sports team. They want the very best team composition. As the +business changes, the team composition must also change. And so they made it explicit that the +goal of management was to put together the best team and that would mean sometimes, they must +bring in people from outside, or let existing people people go, or have people change roles. Just +like a sports team: they're always scouting for new talent and shaping the best team given the +talent they have. +
- Career planning
+
-
+
- Patty thinks it's an outdated notion that managers have to also be career planners. The only +thing they do for their employees is make the best possible product, and the best possible team +to build that product. That's what gets everybody motivated and that's what's good for the +company and that will ensure that their careers are successful. Over-optimizing for career +planning leads to specially-crafted roles which don't make sense, or promoting people into +positions they're not qualified for. +
+ - They would regularly encourage the employees to interview elsewhere just to get a survey of the +opportunities and make sure that they thought that their current role of Netflix was the very best +for them. If it wasn't, they wanted them to go elsewhere. +
- Hire the people you need for the future, now. Create a vision of the org 6 months out and build a +roadmap for it, just like you would a product. +
- Good managers are constantly scouting for new talent and culling their current talent. +
- Don't be afraid to ask questions like: would you be better off by getting a more expensive person +on the team and reducing the team's size to account for that? +
- If you're not good at hiring great people, you'll never feel comfortable letting good people go. +
- Good managers can let even good people go if their contributions are no longer the right fit for +the team. +
- The most competitive companies are the ones that manage to stay limber. She thinks the way to do +that is to have malleable talent — constantly bringing in the best talent and changing teams to +maximize skill to task. +
- She doesn't think it's related to perks at all. Nobody stays or quit the company because of perks. +What makes for lasting engagement is a feeling of success that the company is doing something +useful and they're good at it and achieving success with the customers in the market, and the +effort is a team effort. +
- "The best thing you can do for employees is hire only high performers to work alongside them." +"Excellent colleagues, a clear purpose, and well-understood deliverables: that's the powerful +combination." +
- Netflix pays competitive salaries just so they can compete with Google and Facebook for top tech +talent. "I didn't discuss compensation in the interview process until they knew that the candidate +was willing to accept the offer; I wanted to weed out people who were there for the money. Because +that's not a stable motivator." In fact if somebody was very concerned about whether Netflix can +improve upon the compensation, they would say "you're not the right fit for us at this point in +your career, and you should go chase the money." +
- They didn't feel like they were constrained by being able to make a good offer. They didn't have +strict salary bands, or a strict bell curve distribution, where people get 6% raises each year. +They're able to do what they needed to get a talent. +
- She didn't believe in bonus programs. Intense challenge is what generates motivation. +
- You must decouple the performance review process from compensation. The performance review process +is not a good input into what somebody should be paid. It's ridiculously expensive and imprecise. +It doesn't account for the value that the person has accrued working for the company. If they +become the single expert for an important area, then you must recognize that with a lot more pay. +Rather than keeping them in the standard salary bands. Or the external market will recognize that +and give them much higher offers. +
- If you can't pay market for every position, focus on paying the highest rates for the most +important position for your company. It seems like a no brainer. Having a universal compensation +schedule where you you tie your compensation to some percentile of what you perceive as market is +too coarse of a strategy. There are some positions which are much more important to have stars and +then others. +
- Proactively let people go. Make that a part of your culture. It's good for the business, for the +team, and it's good for the person. The worst thing for a relationship is to have a sense of +dishonesty about it. That you've known for a while that they have been performing and haven't +fully told them. Or, they weren't informed about the change of requirements of the job and that +they were keeping up. Or, that you made a false promise, like they'll always be head of the +department woods just can't be true is not in this not a promise you should've made. +
- Get rid of PIPs. They're not great tools for genuinely changing performance. Instead, just be +candid and give very regular feedback in every 1:1. +
- Have a high bar. Ask yourself is this person excellent, do they love wheat they do, and does the +company really need someone great in that position? +
- Her anecdote about Larry was that he loved candor whenever he detected it. He craved it because he
+thought it was productive.
+
-
+
- (The anecdote made him seem like a gracious leader: when she criticized his motivations in an +email thread to the L-team, and she was gravely mistaken, but he didn't reprimand her for it.) +
+ - High quality relationships with your direct reports trickles down into the general culture. +Relationships don't scale, but culture does. +
-
+
There's a four quadrant image in the book:
+
+(care personally) + | + Ruinous empathy | Radical candor + | + ------------------------------------ (challenge directly) + | + Manipulative | Obnoxious + insincerity | Aggression + | +
+ -
+
"It's called management, and it's your job." It requires a lot of "emotional labor."
+
+ -
+
Kim prefers the label "boss" to manager or leader.
+
+ -
+
The boss is responsible for results. A boss guides a team to achieve results.
+
+ -
+
Framework
+-
+
- Dimension 1: "care personally". Past work — care for them as a human being. +
- Dimension 2: "challenge directly". Hard feedback, high standards. +
+ -
+
Both together build trust.
+
+ -
+
Bosses can easily make reportees feel inferior, as pawns on a chess board. Being a boss is a job, +not a value judgement.
+-
+
- All leaders should regularly be doing "some of the dirty work". They're not above other people +in the company. Like doing the dishes when you see them piled up in the office kitchen. +
+ -
+
Avoid "robotic professionalism": "bring your whole self to work". Don't repress feelings because +of the "keep it professional" mantra.
+
+ -
+
Care about the "whole person": what motivates them in and beyond work. What scares them.
+
+ -
+
"When what you say hurts, acknowledge the other person's pain. Don't pretend it doesn't hurt or +say it 'shouldn't hurt' — just show that you care. Eliminate the phrase 'don't take it +personally' from your vocabulary — it's insulting."
+
+ -
+
What radical candor is not:
+-
+
- Gratuitously harsh. This isn't caring personally; it's being a jerk. +
- License to nitpick. Only communicate critically and deeply on the important stuff. +
+ -
+
When delivering hard feedback or decisions, voice to yourself and possibly to the other person how +you think they may feel, so your recognition of their emotions is explicit. E.g. "You have a new +manager over you... you may feel X, but really I think Y of you."
+
+ - Anecdotes from the book:
+
-
+
- "You sound stupid": how Sheryl Sandberg told Kim she sounds stupid when saying "uhm" too much, +and got Kim a speech coach. +
- "It's not mean, it's clear!": what a stranger said when showing a dog owner how to make the dog +sit when near traffic. +
+ - Giving praise
+
-
+
- Be specific, and say why you feel this way. E.g. "it makes me want to work harder, and I can see +it improving the team.". +
- (See also the concept of "descriptive praise" from the book "How to Talk So Kids Will Listen") +
+ - Don't personalize. Externalize and criticize the behavior, not the person's core. Very hard and +important to do in spousal relationships. +
- Obnoxious aggression
+
-
+
- This is the second best style, besides radical candor, and is why competent assholes can still +be effective bosses. +
+ - Manipulative insincerity
+
-
+
- This is selfish. Don't hold your punches because you desire to be liked. It's insincere. +
+ - Ruinous empathy
+
-
+
- Only giving positive feedback is suspect. It does not build trust, and creates an environment +where people feel there are things which are going unsaid, below the surface, with both their +boss and peers. +
+ - Benefits of radical candor
+
-
+
- Broadcasts humility, if you frame it as "I know I"m wrong a lot and want to know when, so tell +me." +
- You will get lots more data. +
- It builds trust with your team. +
+ - Balancing praise and criticism: try to have more praise, because it's motivating and reinforces +good direction. But avoid padding in weak/trivial praise. It comes off as insincere. +
- Criticism: must make it clear that the work itself is not good enough, while still reinforcing +your confidence in the person's abilities. +
- "In my experience, people who are more concerned with getting to the right answer than with being +right make the best bosses." +
- Vocab used: rockstars (people with a gradual growth trajectory), superstars (people with a steep
+growth trajectory)
+
-
+
- People fall into these categories at different times in their lives. +
- A good team needs both kinds of people. +
- It might be due to life events, like an infirmed relative, having a kid, needing money for a +house. +
- Recognize the whole person: in total, they may be growing a lot (e.g. having kids) even if they +are on a gradual trajectory at work. +
+ - General strategy: "help everyone move in the direction of their dreams."
+
-
+
- Don't feel like you need to provide purpose as a boss. It's over-stepping, and will feel like +BS. +
- Get to know each direct report well enough to understand how each one derives meaning from their +work. +
+ - Be a partner, not an absentee manager or micromanager
+
-
+
- Help them make their work better. +
- Don't ignore your good people, giving them complete autonomy. +
- "Managers often devote more time to those who are struggling than to those who are succeeding. +But that's not fair to those who are succeeding — nor is it good for the team as a whole. +Seeing what truly exceptional performance looks like will help those who are failing to see more +clearly what's expected of them." +
+ - The top performers probably crave recognition the most
+
-
+
- This does not mean promotion. That often puts people in roles they're not a top performer at. +
- Ways to provide recognition: compensation, domain expert designation, teaching role. +
- Avoid an "up or out" framing. You want long-tenured domain experts, and they should feel +recognized for accumulating experience. E.g. tenure awards, guru status. +
+ - Don't get overly dependent on top-performers. "I often thought of these people as shooting stars +— my team and I were lucky to have them in our orbit for a time, but trying to hold them there was +futile." So ensure they're working on making themselves replaceable. +
- Management and growth should not be conflated. Recognize "potential", not "leadership potential." +You need a strong IC ladder to handle superstar ICs. +
- Managing the middle players
+
-
+
- "Your job as a boss is to set and uphold a quality bar." Lowering it is "ruinous empathy." +
- "Generally, by the time one of your direct report's poor performance has come to your attention, +it's been driving their peers nuts for a long time." +
- A common lie managers tell themselves is "it will get better". But ask yourself in detail: "how? +And will it be enough?" +
- When firing, try reframing the problem to both you, and the person you're firing: "it's not the
+person who sucks, it's the job that sucks — at least for this person. What job would be great
+for that person? Can I help by making an introduction?"
+
-
+
- E.g. a good "launch and iterate" person from Google joining Apple and failing there. +
+
+ - Relentless focus on "getting it right": "I didn't say Steve Jobs is always right... I said he +always gets it right in the end." +
- Kim has a framework of "get stuff done" with phases: Listen, clarify, debate, decide, persuade,
+execute, learn.
+
-
+
- She argues that this non-autocratic style allows people to collaboratively solve big problems, +and it's how Google and Apple operate. +
- (To me, it sounds inefficient and bureaucratic.) +
+ - Creating a culture of listening: give the quiet ones a voice, especially in meetings dominated by +a few vocal speakers. +
- Clarify: when an idea is nascent, it can die easily if it moves into the debate stage. Instead,
+require that it be "clarified" (fleshed out) so it can stand up to debate.
+
-
+
- "You need to push them to communicate with such precision and clarity that it's impossible not +to grasp their argument." +
+ - Keep the conversation focused on ideas, not people. Avoid phrases which attribute ownership to +ideas. +
- Create an "obligation to dissent"
+
-
+
- In heated debates, ask each team to argue the other's side, so they can see both sides of the +argument. +
- "When people know that they will be asked to argue another person's point, they will naturally +listen more attentively." +
- Consider even funny props like an "ego coat check" outside the door of the meeting room that +people can use as they enter. +
+ - Be clear when debate will end. It can reduce stress and improve clarity of the process to separate +the debate meeting from the decision meeting, or to time-box the debate. +
- "Kick-ass bosses often do not decide themselves, but rather create a clear decision-making process +that empowers people closest to the facts to make as many decisions as possible." This improves +both decision quality and morale. +
- The decider should get facts, not recommendations. Asking for a person's recommendation carries +the risk that the person's ego gets tied to it, which can lead to a political situation. +
- Go to direct sources of facts. Deep dive on some decisions, to stay connected to the org.
+
-
+
- Stevve Jobs would often go straight to the engineer who had the fact, rather than through their +boss. +
+ - Persuading
+
-
+
- This part of the work is necessary because only a small subset of the broader group were part of +the "listen, clarify, debate, decide" portions. For the whole org to execute the decision, they +must believe in it. +
- Aristotle, basic requirements of rhetoric:
+
-
+
- "To be legitimately persuasive, a speaker must address the audience's emotions, but also +establish the credibility and share the logic of the argument. These are the elements of +persuasion that have stood the test of time." +
+ - Logic: show your work. +
- Keep the "dirt under your fingernails" to remain credible. Always maintain some IC work. +
+ - Answering questions at all-hands meetings
+
-
+
- How well you answer these has huge leverage on the culture. +
- For Dick Costello, improv classes were a great way to equip him to find a way to have fun +answering all the awkward questions at all-hands meetings instead of dreading them. +
+ - Avoid the pressure to be consistent. "When the facts change, I change my mind." +
- "Work-life integration"
+
-
+
- Work and life both improve each other. It's not a balance or a zero-sum game. +
- "A very successful entrepreneur I know went to the gym both before and after work during crunch +times." +
+ - Stay centered:
+
-
+
- Being rested, balanced, and fulfilled at home and at work allows you to spare the energy to care +about others personally. +
- Don't blow off those meetings with yourself or let others schedule over them any more than you +would a meeting with your boss. +
+ - Trust needs to be built: with new reports, have frequent 1:1s, annual career conversations. Don't +start off by assuming there's lots of trust. +
- Allow for mental-health days
+
-
+
- If you have a terrible emotional situation in your life, stay home for a day. You don't want to +spread it around any more than you would a cold. +
+ - Walk, don't sit, for difficult conversations
+
-
+
- "When planning a difficult conversation, try taking a walk instead of sitting and talking. When +you're walking, the emotions are less on display and less likely to start resonating in a +destructive way. Also, walking and looking in the same direction often feels more collaborative +than sitting across the table." +
+ - "You are the exception to the 'criticize in private' rule of thumb." +
- "The bigger the team, the more leverage you get out of reacting well to criticism in private." +
- If you ask for feedback and the person didn't see it coming, they may brush you off. If someone +says "nothing comes to mind", give them 15 seconds to think of something. "I'm going to wait for +15 seconds while you think." +
- Beware of explaining yourself after hearing criticism. It cheapens the feedback. +
- Idea: "management fix-it weeks." People log annoying management issues, they're voted on, and +these bugs are assigned to managers. +
- Be humble. It disarms their defenses. Acknowledge that you may be wrong. +
- Situation, behavior, impact: this feedback construct is helpful in that it's not categorical, and +so doesn't question the person's intelligence. Comes across as less arrogant. +
- Don't personalize: say "that's wrong", not "you're wrong". +
- As part of criticism, "find a way to help them clarify the challenge they're facing — that +clarity is a gift that will enable them to move forward." This alone is very helpful; you don't +have to do the work for them. +
- Give feedback immediately
+
-
+
- "Putting criticism off is simply daunting and exhausting. It's much more effective and less +burdensome to just say it right away!". Because both sides lose hold of the concrete example, +and so you can't use the "situation, behavior, impact" framework. +
- Give the feedback in 2-3 minutes between meetings, so that you don't need an explicit meeting. +It should feel like brushing your teeth. +
+ - "Avoid black holes": if someone is doing research for you or building you a deck, that they won't +present themselves, funnel feedback/praise about the deck to the person who made it. +
- Give guidance in-person
+
-
+
- "The clarity of your guidance gets measured at the other person's ear, not at your mouth." +In-person allows you to confirm, via body language, their level of understanding. +
+ - Praise in public, criticize in private. +
- Biasing feedback for women
+
-
+
- "If you're a boss, it's your job to manage your fear of tears and not pull your punches when +criticizing women. Criticism is a gift, and you need to give it in equal measure to your male +and female direct reports." Holding back or softening criticism disadvantages female workers. +
- Don't use gendered language: do you use words like "abrasive", "shrill", "screechy", or "bossy", +that are rarely used to describe a man? +
+ - Prevent backstabbing: before being an intermediary, ask the person who is giving critical feedback +about someone to first have a discussion with that person directly, without you involved. +
- How to understand what motivates each person: have three 45m conversations:
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
- "Tell me your life story starting from kindergarten." Inquire about the reason they made +decisions in their big moments of change. This reveals motivators much better than abstract +discussions. This is all personal, but to "care personally", you must know each other +personally. Respect boundaries as needed. +
+ -
+
-
+
- "What are your dreams." Their description of work/life at the ideal. This is more telling and +human than "what are your professional aspirations?" Challenge inconsistencies with their stated +values. Break down which skills are needed for each dream, and action items for developing them. +
+ -
+
-
+
- 18-month plan: the translation of current work to future dreams is inspiring. Focus on the +next area to master or lesson to be learned, and how the role can be changed to get there +quickest. +
+
+ -
+
- Reward your rock stars
+
-
+
- Avoid promotion/status obsession
+
-
+
- Announcing promotions breeds unhealthy competition for the wrong things: documentation of +status rather than development of skill. +
- She recommends only announcing changes in role, so there's clarity throughout the org. +
- Focus on the work the person is doing, not on the status. +
+ - Gurus: give people opportunities to teach their mastery. +
- Public presentations: give people opportunities to be visible. +
+ - Avoid promotion/status obsession
+
- "You can think of collaboration as 'mental prostheses' for each other. What one person doesn't +enjoy and isn't good at is what another person loves and excels at." +
- Staff meetings
+
-
+
- Having up-to-date status prepared before meetings is generally unreliable if it requires getting +people to fill in notes sometime prior to the meeting. +
- Idea: "study hall": everyone writes their snippets into a shared doc for 5m, and everyone reads +them for 5m. This is more efficient and reliable. +
+ - "Big debate" meetings
+
-
+
- Encourage the debate part by removing the pressure to converge on a decision by the end of the +meeting. +
- "Make it clear that everyone must check their egos at the door. The goal of debate is to work +together to come up with the best answer. There should be no 'winners' or 'losers'. A good norm +is to ask participants to switch roles halfway through each debate." +
+ - Kanban boards: makes workflows visible so it's clear what teams are doing, and where the +bottlenecks are. Otherwise, outsiders tend towards thinking the team does little. It fosters more +respect between teams. +
- Ensuring that people focus on the details
+
-
+
- Focus on them yourself. It shows that the standard is worth upholding. +
- Tell people when they complain about doing something that's not part of their job: "if +something's in your way, it's always your job to fix it!" +
+ - Efficiency and flexibility are opposing qualities in a team or business. Slack represents how far +from perfectly efficient you are willing to go, to achieve some level of flexibility. +
- You can keep a whole work force busy (fully utilized) if you allow work to buffer at each point in +the network (on each person's desk, or on each team's backlog). This has the downside of reducing +the velocity of tasks through the system. +
- Most employees equate control in their career as their main opportunity for growth
+
-
+
- "You have to give her some leeway, some opportunity to choose her own directions and make her +own mistakes. Mistakes are important here. If she has control over her choices only to the +extent that she makes the same ones that you would have made for her, she has no control at +all." +
- This can be called "control slack" — enough slack in the system to absorb suboptimal choices, +which provides the benefit of employee control. +
+ - "Slack is the way you invest in change. Slack represents operational capacity sacrificed in the +interests of long-term health." +
- On too much process:
+
-
+
- "As defense against failure, standard process is a kind of armor. The more worried you are about +failure, the heavier the armor you put on. But armor always has a side effect of reduced +mobility. The overarmored organization has lost the ability to move and move quickly." +
+ - The first requirement of vision is to know who we are. Someone who can say "product X might be +nice, but it just isn't us." +
- The efficiency-flexibility quandary: the more efficient you get, the harder it is to change. +
- Resource availability implies some inefficiency. +
- You increase efficiency by eliminating slack in the system. But slack is required for change. +
- The social convention for the effectiveness of someone is busyness — "utilization". Think of +Hollywood's standard depiction of a successful company: every employee is running around and "on +it." +
- Flattening the hierarchy and removing middle management for efficiency wins are rewarded in the +short-term by the stock market. +
- In cutting middle management, we cut the capacity to change.
+
-
+
- "The main activity of those managers is reinvention. It is the middle of the organization where +reinvention takes place. This is where the dynamic of today's organizational functioning is +examined, taken apart, analyzed, resynthesized." +
+ - "Very successful companies have never struck me as particularly busy; in fact, they are, as a +group, rather laid-back. Energy is evident in the workplace, but it's not the energy tinged with +fear that comes from being slightly behind on everything." +
- The value of a secretary that's not entirely utilized
+
-
+
- "She's available to do stuff that you or your people find you need to have done. That's part of +what's so great about Sylvia: when something comes up, she can usually get cracking on it right +away." +
+ - You can keep a whole work force busy (fully utilized) if you allow work to buffer at each point in +the network (on each person's desk, or on each team's backlog). This has the downside of reducing +the velocity of tasks through the system. +
- A common strategy in restructuring is to allocate people into a pool so their partial time can be +finely allocated to stakeholders. +
- "A highly partitioned worker can't be obsessively involved in any of his/her many fragmented +tasks, and so tends not to bind into the team. Whatever the productivity boost due to team action +may be, the partitioned worker does not benefit from it." +
- Task switching penalty =
+
-
+
- mechanics of moving to a new task + +
- rework due to inopportune abort of previous task + +
- immersion time for think-intensive tasks + +
- frustration (emotional immersion in previous task) + +
- loss of team binding effect +
+ - From a live study of software developers in 1984, "we modeled performance against task-switching +frequency and came to the conclusion that the best way to understand task switching was to assume +that each switch imposes a direct penalty of 20m of concentration." +
- So, restructuring which increases fragmentation of work for each worker carries a large +productivity penalty. +
- Author estimates ("in his experience") that no less than 15% loss in productivity (6hrs/week) +occurs from having a person do two jobs versus one (i.e. cover two bases, or work with two teams). +The penalty increases with many jobs. +
- For curious, hungry employees, work must be structured to provide growth. It's as essential as the +paycheck. +
- On trying to control the work of volunteers in a non-profit, which robs them of their motivation:
+
-
+
- "If you looked over their shoulders enough or imposed standards that were different from their +own, they would shrug and walk away from the work, leaving you to do it yourself. Control, as +they see it, is their payment for working." +
+ - Most employees equate control in their career as their main opportunity for growth
+
-
+
- "You have to give her some leeway, some opportunity to choose her own directions and make her +own mistakes. Mistakes are important here. If she has control over her choices only to the +extent that she makes the same ones that you would have made for her, she has no control at +all." +
- This can be called "control slack" — enough slack in the system to absorb suboptimal choices, +which provides the benefit of employee control. +
+ - "You have to create a real sense that control is not completely centralized in your hands, but +spread generously over the whole of your organization. Like a gifted helmsman, who knows that all +use of the rudder increases drag and thus holds the vessel back, you have to steer with the +lightest possible touch." +
- It is not healthy for the management hierarchy lines to be the only communication conduit between +partner orgs. These hierarchies are far too narrowband. +
- The benefits of having slack designed into the organization:
+
-
+
- Responsiveness +
- Flexibility +
- Better people retention +
- A capacity to invest +
+ - Ability to change is valuable, but it costs money. How much should you invest in having an ability +to change? +
- Ability to change cannot be siloed to dedicated "change specialists." It should be implemented in
+a diffuse way, as some portion of everyone's mindshare.
+
-
+
- "Everybody needs to have some capacity to devote to change. This is time that people dedicate to +rethinking how their piece of the whole works, and how it ought to work. Once the change is +under way, more time is required to practice new ways and master new skills. That's the cost. +The benefit is vitality and a firm grip on the future." +
+ - "Slack is the way you invest in change. Slack represents operational capacity sacrificed in the +interests of long-term health." +
- "The right way to think about domain knowledge is as a corporate capital asset, as dollars of +investment in the head of each knowledge worker, put there by organizational investment in that +employee. When that person leaves, the asset is gone. If you did a rigorous accounting of this +human capital, you would be obliged to declare an extraordinary loss each time one of your people +quit." +
- The cost of a departing employee is: their salary * (rampup time / 2) + opportunity cost + +training cost. +
- Multiply this by churn per month, and this is the cost the company is paying for human capital +drain. +
- High utilization of a worker makes them feel "used", and leads to churn. +
- "I am much more concerned when smaller companies invest outside of their own product areas. I see
+this as bankruptcy of inventiveness. It is particularly evident when companies find themselves
+with extra leverage due to run-up of their stock price. Their willingness to spend this found
+capital outside their own backyard is a signal that they have no real vision, no idea of how to
+grow in the arena that they know best."
+
-
+
- This bankruptcy can happen if there's not enough slack for resources to be set aside for +invention. +
- "Companies keep their people too damn busy to invent." +
+ - Management adding pressure doesn't produce much gain; maybe 10-15%, according to the author's +experience. In a dysfunctional org where there's lots of wasted time, it might deliver a larger +improvement. +
- Supplying additional pressure doesn't free up as much time as you'd expect within an already
+functioning org.
+
-
+
- "In a healthy knowledge-worker organization, people don't waste a lot of time anyway, since +wasted time is an affront to them as much as it is to their management. They are more likely to +be frustrated by wasted time than enjoy it." +
+ - Sprinting at the end of a marathon makes sense, but not the full duration of the marathon. +
- Many types of valuable knowledge work are error-prone, and can't be done well in the later +portions of a long work day. So a longer day doesn't increase the output for this type of work. +
- "When we measure human capital carefully and use the measurements to give a cash quantification to
+personnel turnover, it often becomes the second or third largest cost category."
+
-
+
- Overtime increases turnover; people feel used because they their personal lives took a hit. +
+ - Eliminating overtime puts pressure on the work culture, to be more efficient, so that deadlines +can be hit. E.g. fewer, smaller meetings, and higher friction to interrupt people. +
- It's bad optics to hire clerks and secretaries, but we really should. High-paid managers shouldn't
+be doing their own tech support or tweaking fonts in a deck.
+
-
+
- "We have become so obsessed with getting rid of people who are burdened with the +characterization of overhead that we have ended up with organizations where many high-priced +knowledge workers and managers are spending as much as a quarter of their time being their own +overhead." +
+ - Low-level support roles should add less interaction overhead to a team than a full IC, because the +interaction paths are "thinner" between them and each full IC, because interacting with a support +role should require less maintenance and brain power. +
- His argument: "by dividing up the work into four pieces instead of five, the total time spent +serving the interactions is reduced. The capacity of the four-person team plus clerk is thus +greater than that of the five-person team. Four developers plus a clerk also cost less than a +five-developer team." +
- The mindset that leads someone senior to spending so much time on lower-level responsibilities:
+
-
+
- "All the rest of your people are busy as hell; you don't want to further burden them with +another task, particularly not one that upper management found to be of so little importance +that they 'trimmed' the person who was doing it. Yet that 'whatever' still has to be done. Oh +well, you add it to your own burden and do it yourself." +
+ - "Assigning yourself to an unfilled position in your domain means that you unassign yourself (at +least partially) from the task of managing that domain." +
- Organizations discount the value of management, because managers are not making the product, and
+their interventions interrupt that process in the short term. But the reality is that the changes
+made by good managers greatly increase output in the long run.
+
-
+
- "Getting rid of management to save cost is like losing weight by giving blood." +
- Managers do lower-level jobs partly because they under-value the management work they're doing. +
+ - Blending management with your old IC work
+
-
+
- "Now I was not only a manager, but able to spend my days doing sublimely black-and-white work. +It seemed like the best of all worlds. But it wasn't. I was walking away from the challenge of +management to return to work I knew cold. The relief it gave me was the relief of retreat." +
+ - Why management is hard
+
-
+
- Unlike engineering, the problems are not well-defined, and what makes a good solution is not +black and white. +
- The skills are inherently difficult to master. +
+ - The paradox of over-staffing
+
-
+
- "The nature of project work is that whatever it is you're about to build, the early conceptual +phases are crucial. But this kind of conceptual work can't be done with a crowd of people. A +staff of no more than six might make perfect sense while the first-cut design decisions are +made. Burdening the project with an extra fifty people at this stage will only make the work go +slower." +
- In response to a larger-than-necessary team: "You're forced to partition the whole — this kind +of partitioning is the essence of design — along lines that are dictated by personnel-loading +considerations rather than design considerations. The result is sure to be a mediocre or poor +design, something that will encumber the project from this point on." +
+ - In an environment where the bottom X% get cut each year, "any failure by managers beside you on +the org chart thus has the effect of reducing pressure on you." +
- "Process obsession — developing a standard process for each problem — is an epidemic. It's +ill-suited for knowledge work." +
- Product standards — the interfaces of things — are very valuable. How-to standards are not. +
- On letting the team own its process, instead of standardizing a process across all of the teams,
+such that each team loses some ownership:
+
-
+
- "In both of these examples, ownership of the process is pushed downward. Instead of being a +corporate asset, it is a team asset. Somewhat lost is the flexibility to move people from one +team to another, since over time the teams may begin to deviate substantially from each other. +Offsetting this loss is a much more interesting workday for the workers, enhanced identification +wit the product (and its customer), lower turnover, and strongly felt loyalties to the team and +to the corporation." +
+ - Empowerment means "putting process ownership largely into the hands of the people doing the work. +That doesn't mean there should be no standard, only that whatever standard evolves should happen +at the level of the work itself. Ownership of the standard should be in the hands of those who do +the work." +
- "Process standardization from on high is disempowerment. It is a direct result of fearful +management, allergic to failure. It tries to avoid all chance of failure by having key decisions +made by a guru class (those who set the standards) and carried out mechanically by the regular +folk. As defense against failure, standard process is a kind of armor. The more worried you are +about failure, the heavier the armor you put on. But armor always has a side effect of reduced +mobility. The overarmored organization has lost the ability to move and move quickly." +
- He argues that the corporate headline of "quality programs" really means headlining "defect +prevention." While important, this tends to crowd out the team's and company's focus on much more +impactful things of product value, like uniqueness, and usefulness to the customer. +
- "Defect prevention and removal efforts may add sufficient overhead to the overall process so that +it is too slow and unresponsive to market needs." +
- "Any risky new endeavor is likely to result in an increasing pattern of defects; the Quality +Program thus may pit itself squarely against risk-taking efforts." +
- QA is tacked on at the end of a project and doesn't have the influence to extend the delivery time +to ensure QA is done well. +
- "Directing an entire organization is hard. Seeming to direct it, on the other hand, is easy. All +you have to do is note which way the drift is moving and instruct the organization to go that +way." +
- There is an "unfortunate side effect to optimization, first noted by geneticist R. A. Fisher, and
+now referred to as Fisher's fundamental theorem: 'The more highly adapted an organism becomes, the
+less adaptable it is to any new change.'" (e.g. the giraffe).
+
-
+
- "The more optimized an organism (organization) is, the more likely that the slack necessary to +help it become more effective has been eliminated." +
+ - "A fad from the 1950's" (ha) +
- It's a tool for incremental changes along the current direction. +
- "MBO is always based on stasis, the organization's present steady state. MBO sends the message 'Do
+everything the same as last year, only this year do more of X.'"
+
-
+
- I.e. it assumes the current direction is correct, and that we should just travel faster. +
+ - "Stasis plus just a bit of tinkering with the particulars is hardly a recipe for success in the +new economy." +
- Rather than a company being a vehicle of "production", which implies an ongoing steady-state, "the +new central organizing principal is the project. A company in this kind of flux can be viewed as a +portfolio of projects. Each project seeks to effect some change, and there is no longer a +long-running status quo. +
- The first requirement of vision is to know who we are. Someone who can say "product X might be +nice, but it just isn't us." +
- Drucker argues that culture is the one thing that cannot and should not change. It's the bedrock. +
- "When a vision statement walks perfectly between what is and what could be, and the could-be part +is wonderful but not impossible, acceptance by those listening is almost assured." +
- "People want to sign on. They want to be enrolled." +
- "Meaningful acts of leadership usually cause people to accept some short-term pain (extra cost or +effort, delayed gratification) in order to increase the long-term benefit. We need leadership for +this, because we all tend to be short-term thinkers." +
- "Blueprints" are a powerful and necessary part of leadership, because they make actionable the +challenging proclamation. +
- Starting with a new way of doing things: "people can make this kind of change, but they can only +make it if they feel safe. In an unsafe environment, people are not likely to let themselves be +thrust into a position of inexperience." +
- Change has an intrinsic cost. While time may have made the old way no longer the best way, the old +way has the advantage that it's familiar and people have mastered it. +
- Effective leaders quickly acquire trust by giving it
+
-
+
- "The giving of trust is an enormously powerful gesture. The recipient gives back loyalty as an +almost autonomous response." +
- Good leaders "give responsibility well before it's been completely earned. They know when to +turn their backs and take their chances." +
- This is how parents progressively empower their kids — with responsibility and trust on the +edge of their capabilities. +
+ - In periods of growth, people feel like they're winning, and have less anxiety about change. Change +is perceived differently, as "growth-related change", e.g. necessary scaling and refactoring now +that our team or business is larger. It's good. This is the easiest time to introduce chance. +
- Introducing change during decline carries the added baggage that people are anxious about +corporate health, and maybe their jobs. +
- Middle managers are the change agents — the implementers of reinvention. If they get trimmed for +the sake of efficiency, the org will find it much harder to execute change. +
- Companies "have hurt themselves by encouraging their middle managers to stay extremely busy. In
+order to enable change, companies have to learn that keeping managers busy is a blunder."
+
-
+
- They need slack for non-routine or unplanned work; reinvention. +
+ - Competition between middle managers, creating silos
+
-
+
- "Over the years, I have come to believe that this kind of competition is almost never explicitly +designed into an organization; rather, it happens without anyone really wanting it." +
+ - "In knowledge work, all internal competition is destructive." It inhibits cooperation, which is +essential in knowledge work. +
- "Slackless organizations tend to be authoritarian. When efficiency is the principal goal, decision +making can't be distributed. It has to be in the hands of one person (or a few), with everyone +else taking direction without question and acting quickly to carry out orders. This is a fine +formula for getting a lot done, but a dismal way to encourage reinvention and learning." +
- A key element of training is the slow-down characteristic: the person learning is given the space +to perform a new skill at a much slower speed than an expert. Argues that efficiency-obsessed orgs +do not allow for long, slow training/ramp-up periods. +
- Don't expect your organization to overcome all adversity. It's unrealistic, and ends up +discouraging risk-taking. +
- "An organization that has suffered no important setbacks has in fact taken no real risks." +
- "Risk management" means planning for failure, and deploying enough slack in the system to +accommodate failure. +
- Stochastic control: control over a variable (e.g. employee churn), with influential, but imperfect +levers (e.g. employee comp). This form of control doesn't feel sufficient when managing a single +team or project, but at a company level with a portfolio of teams and projects, it can be +sufficiently effective. +
- "Risk management is the explicit quantitative declaration of uncertainty."
+
-
+
- Delivery date of a project should be shown as a probability distribution function. +
+ - "Risk diagrams": for each component, a list of outcomes, and a probability for each. +
- Risk containment: when risk materializes and costs you unplanned money or delay, this gets paid
+out of a reserve (i.e. a buffer). Intentional risk planning sets aside an explicit reserve.
+
-
+
- "The major effort is to keep the risk reserve from being eliminated by someone who wants +desperately to hear lower numbers." +
- In corporate life, there is constant downward pressure on explicit risk reserves. +
+ - Many risk containment strategies require pre-materialization work. Like installing fire +extinguishers in a school before the crisis of a fire occurs. This work is often not prioritized, +because we're busy. +
- Management by default favors zero-risk projects. The author argues those resources are better
+spent on big, transformational wins, given the modern business environment.
+
-
+
- "The only new initiative you can afford to take on today is one that is full of risk. It's got +to be something that thrusts you into a new market or exploits a brand-new technology, one that +transforms your company." +
+
+
+
+ Powerful - Patty McCord
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/radical-candor-kim-scott.html b/docs/radical-candor-kim-scott.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..53f829b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/radical-candor-kim-scott.html
@@ -0,0 +1,453 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ General notes
+-
+
Treat people like adults (chap 1)
+-
+
Communicate the challenge; the job to be done (chap 2)
+-
+
Practice radical honesty (chap 3)
+-
+
Debate vigorously (chap 4)
+-
+
Focus on the future: hiring, promoting, managing teams (chap 5)
+-
+
What motivates people? (chap 6)
+-
+
Performance reviews (chap 7, 8)
+-
+
+
+
+ Radical Candor - Kim Scott
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/slack-tom-demarco.html b/docs/slack-tom-demarco.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6459ad4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/slack-tom-demarco.html
@@ -0,0 +1,489 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Intro
+-
+
Overview of the framework (chap 1)
+-
+
Encourage guidance (chap 2)
+-
+
Understand what motivates each person on your team (chap 3)
+-
+
Drive results collaboratively (chap 4)
+-
+
Relationships (chap 5)
+-
+
Guidance (chap 6)
+-
+
Team (chap 7)
+-
+
Results (chap 8)
+-
+
+
+
+ Slack - Tom DeMarco
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/docs/styles.css b/docs/styles.css
index 20840d2..32aead6 100644
--- a/docs/styles.css
+++ b/docs/styles.css
@@ -91,6 +91,21 @@ footer {
#index-page a#home, #index-page footer {
display: none;
}
+/* We move the github icon down to be next to the page title. This CSS is a bit fragile
+ * if the height of the h1 changes due to other style changegs. */
+#index-page nav {
+ position: absolute;
+ width: var(--width);
+ height: 80px; /* The empirical height of the h1 */
+ margin: 0 auto;
+ inset: 0; /* Center this absolutely positioned element. */
+ pointer-events: none; /* Disable pointer events because this now sits on top of the h1 */
+ top: var(--padding);
+}
+
+#index-page nav a#github {
+ pointer-events: auto;
+}
@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
:root {
Gems
+-
+
Prelude
+-
+
Madmen in the halls (chap 1)
+-
+
Busyness (chap 2)
+-
+
The myth of fungible resources (chap 3)
+-
+
Managing Eve (chap 5)
+-
+
Business instead of busyness (chap 6)
+-
+
The cost of pressure (chap 7)
+-
+
Overtime (chap 9)
+-
+
Power sweeper (chap 11)
+-
+
The second law of bad management ("put yourself in as your own utility infielder") (chap 12)
+-
+
Culture of fear (chap 13)
+-
+
Litigation (chap 14)
+-
+
Process obsession (chap 15)
+-
+
Quality (chap 16)
+-
+
Efficient and/or effective (chap 17)
+-
+
Management by objectives (chap 18)
+-
+
Vision (chap 19)
+-
+
Leadership and "leadership" (chap 20)
+-
+
Fear and safety (chap 22)
+-
+
Trust and trustworthiness (chap 23)
+-
+
Timing of change (chap 24)
+-
+
What middle management is there for (chap 25)
+-
+
Danger in the white space (chap 27)
+-
+
Uncommon sense (chap 29)
+-
+
Risk management: the minimal prescription (chap 30)
+-
+
Learning to live with risk (chap 32)
+-
+