4 ms·

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 proj

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

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