4 ms·

Then they iterate? Nowhere does this say that the CEO stays out of the way. CEO can act as the editor, co-designer, arbiter, curator and whatever. Like you hear

by fsloth 8y ago

Then they iterate? Nowhere does this say that the CEO stays out of the way. CEO can act as the editor, co-designer, arbiter, curator and whatever. Like you hear how Steve Jobs operated. Mode two thinking does not mean you can't be critical. In fact, critique is critical for the best end result. It means you must understand how to skillfully switch between type 1 goal oriented and type 2 creative mode. That's the trick - you need BOTH. And utilizing mode 1 so that it does not kill mode 2 is really hard. You have to be compassionate, emphatic and work from the common understanding that everyone is striving towards the same goal. It's "Build this my grandest design to me now!" vs. "Ok, hotshot, show me what you can build and we can tweak that into the ultimate ship".

MichaelMoser123 8y ago
Thanks, there must be several styles of switching between the modes/management styles that determine how one is interacting with his colleagues. What are your thoughts here?
- fsloth 8y ago
  Mm, I'm really not an expert and don't have anything constructive to add except to simplify what I said: IMO the key thing is that the work is done in open mode, and the results are observed critically. This means that the constraints, implicit or explicit, should be as unlimiting as possible, because all constraints will limit the space of solutions that people can think of. This includes such limits as performance metrics and various financial incentives. Which means if you want creative output, you should generally fund peoples and projects, and not milestones. And then when they deliver something, gauge that critically, and if the thing they make sells well, give them a bonus so they will feel fairly treated. But don't incentivize the innovation process itself and don't hold the bonus up as a promised gift they will wait for. This is of course completely different way than you would incentivize sales people or people doing linear repetitive tasks where performance based incentives are shown to work pretty well. Dan Pink's TED lecture is pretty good. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en#t-906824 https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en...

by fsloth 8y ago

MichaelMoser123 8y ago

Thanks, there must be several styles of switching between the modes/management styles that determine how one is interacting with his colleagues. What are your thoughts here?

fsloth 8y ago
Mm, I'm really not an expert and don't have anything constructive to add except to simplify what I said: IMO the key thing is that the work is done in open mode, and the results are observed critically. This means that the constraints, implicit or explicit, should be as unlimiting as possible, because all constraints will limit the space of solutions that people can think of. This includes such limits as performance metrics and various financial incentives. Which means if you want creative output, you should generally fund peoples and projects, and not milestones. And then when they deliver something, gauge that critically, and if the thing they make sells well, give them a bonus so they will feel fairly treated. But don't incentivize the innovation process itself and don't hold the bonus up as a promised gift they will wait for. This is of course completely different way than you would incentivize sales people or people doing linear repetitive tasks where performance based incentives are shown to work pretty well. Dan Pink's TED lecture is pretty good. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en#t-906824 https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en...