5 ms·

Discretionary time is usually given to projects which otherwise didn't get any time, it's not usually hoarded for the director himself.

• nitrogen 6y ago
  I hadn't heard of this concept before, but I find it appealing. It's kind of like an insurance policy against groupthink, or a diversified long bet. More projects should have a small percentage of time dedicated to a drastically different allocation process, with iron-clad protection (like "director's discretion") to prevent manipulation, to help prevent getting stuck.
  • amenghra 6y ago
    At tech companies, it’s often in the form of hackathons, hackweeks, or 20% time.
    • wolco 6y ago
      Is 20% a real thing anywhere, aside from select google employees?
      • marcyb5st 6y ago
        Googler here. Yes, in my team we have a colleague that is spending one day a week trying to solve a particular problem we have with a completely novel approach. He had an idea after we presented what we are up to in one of our Org summit. Furthermore, it is really a streamlined process, ie you only need your manager approval.
        • sukilot 6y ago
          That's not 20% time. That's a project for your primary work area.
      • BurningFrog 6y ago
        When I was at Google (long ago), you were very welcome to do a 20% project. But it was not considered in your performance review. So you'd better do it outside of your regular job, adding up to a 120% workload.
      • mensetmanusman 6y ago
        It is at 3M
  • BbzzbB 6y ago
    I find that asymmetric/concentrated power in the appropriate (!) hands can lead to better results for most things. For instance, I'd rather put my money in a company where the CEO has the proper vision and considerable agency over one that is ruled by committee, like most tech titants. I wouldn't advocate for a regression to authoritary regimes, but I think they can stabilize and accelerate progression towards greater objectives as opposed to a segmented and elected political power which rules on a 4 (maybe 8) years "vision" (colored heavily by polls optimization), for example China or ex-Yugoslavia. Linux probably benefited greatly from having Linus. It can obviously go wrong (North Korea, too many kings to count, WeWork, Theranos..). I think it's a good hedge for NASA to have this policy, they probably selected a good pick in the first place, and if it went wrong they could probably easily replace the position [source needed].
    • cobookman 6y ago
      Good example is Google vs Amazon/Apple. Google's culture is very much a democracy of sort inside. Apple/Amazon more top down direction.
      • mrkstu 6y ago
        The problem, of course, is survivorship bias. Its similar to Monarchy vs Democracy. A great monarch can get a lot more done than a leader in a democracy. They can also do a lot more harm. If you want to maximize the potential of a company, you must choose a great CEO and give them near-unlimited power. The problem is that most boards aren't qualified/able to find one, which is why founders that survive the filter to growing into a mega-company are the ones you listed- they are the ones who've already got one. Tim Cook is doing fine, but he doesn't wield near the influence Jobs did- look how long it took him to finesse Joni Ive out of the company, despite his choices causing massive problems for Apple.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
    • noir_lord 6y ago