4 ms·

The author of the post does address your Scott Galloway example by stating that that is an obvious weakness that needs correcting. I think if we're starting wi

The author of the post does address your Scott Galloway example by stating that that is an obvious weakness that needs correcting. I think if we're starting with an individual with no obvious weaknesses, perhaps they are just average at many things for example, the ROI is better for things one has a natural aptitude in. Correcting an obvious weakness would generate a better ROI as per your examples.

ghaff 5y ago
There was an older consultant "StrengthFinder" thing. The idea was to systematically identify strengths and weaknesses and, as I recall, one of the ideas was that, assuming no gross deficiencies relative to career, you may want to focus on the things that you may not already be A+ in but you have some level of skill in. For example, a very good coder who is OK but not great at presenting or writing may want to spend some effort on those areas.
xyzelement 5y ago
> I think if we're starting with an individual with no obvious weaknesses, perhaps they are just average at many things for example I didn't mean that the weaknesses have to be obvious. I agree the first example I used was a blatant one, but in the other case the person had lived 5 decades without recognizing the impact that lack of communication skills had on his life. He always just thought "that's how I am." So in your case, of someone who is "just average at many things" - perhaps there's a fear of chasing a direction, a reluctance to commit, an inability to focus, etc. that probably got them to "just be ok" and living below their potential, and probably overcoming that thing is a meta-skill that they need to gain.
- ihodes 5y ago
  I think I agree with your argument, directionally, but in the case of the C++ hacker, might it be the case that he needed to find a different role, job, and/or manager to really leverage the power of a 98%tile C++ programmer?
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    That's a legit option and actually that's what happened with this guy - we moved him to a parser team from a client-facing team. But we both recognized that as a bit of "defeat" - we failed to improve his communication, so as plan B how do we help him not get fired. The point I am making and that I don't want to get lost is: there's a huge difference between "I am consciously choosing to be a C++ hacker" vs "I am falling into this bucket because I fear doing other stuff". First one is fine, second one means a person is under-living their potential.
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      Why is that a defeat? Did he think he was good with people, or want to interact with clients? Or at your company was the parser team a professional dead-end or something?
      - xyzelement 5y ago
        Good question. It's a three part defeat: First, are you living your own best life? If you ask him "do you want to be limited by comms skills for the rest of your life, in all the ways it affects you and home and at work" he's say "no, I'd rather not have this problem" but then we couldn't really get it to change. So he fell short of his own recognition of what his life could be. Second, it just limits you. There's nothing wrong with writing parsers and someone has to do that, but there's a difference between "choosing" that and "being limited to it." Versatility and capability is important. Say he wanted to go work somewhere else, the more skills and versatility you have, the more options you have. Third, even within such a job you're still limited. EG: are you having a technical debate on your team? The better you can communicate, the more likely you are to advocate well for your solution, the more likely your good ideas will materialize, etc.

ghaff 5y ago

There was an older consultant "StrengthFinder" thing. The idea was to systematically identify strengths and weaknesses and, as I recall, one of the ideas was that, assuming no gross deficiencies relative to career, you may want to focus on the things that you may not already be A+ in but you have some level of skill in. For example, a very good coder who is OK but not great at presenting or writing may want to spend some effort on those areas.

xyzelement 5y ago

> I think if we're starting with an individual with no obvious weaknesses, perhaps they are just average at many things for example I didn't mean that the weaknesses have to be obvious. I agree the first example I used was a blatant one, but in the other case the person had lived 5 decades without recognizing the impact that lack of communication skills had on his life. He always just thought "that's how I am." So in your case, of someone who is "just average at many things" - perhaps there's a fear of chasing a direction, a reluctance to commit, an inability to focus, etc. that probably got them to "just be ok" and living below their potential, and probably overcoming that thing is a meta-skill that they need to gain.

ihodes 5y ago
I think I agree with your argument, directionally, but in the case of the C++ hacker, might it be the case that he needed to find a different role, job, and/or manager to really leverage the power of a 98%tile C++ programmer?
- xyzelement 5y ago
  That's a legit option and actually that's what happened with this guy - we moved him to a parser team from a client-facing team. But we both recognized that as a bit of "defeat" - we failed to improve his communication, so as plan B how do we help him not get fired. The point I am making and that I don't want to get lost is: there's a huge difference between "I am consciously choosing to be a C++ hacker" vs "I am falling into this bucket because I fear doing other stuff". First one is fine, second one means a person is under-living their potential.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Why is that a defeat? Did he think he was good with people, or want to interact with clients? Or at your company was the parser team a professional dead-end or something?
    - xyzelement 5y ago
      Good question. It's a three part defeat: First, are you living your own best life? If you ask him "do you want to be limited by comms skills for the rest of your life, in all the ways it affects you and home and at work" he's say "no, I'd rather not have this problem" but then we couldn't really get it to change. So he fell short of his own recognition of what his life could be. Second, it just limits you. There's nothing wrong with writing parsers and someone has to do that, but there's a difference between "choosing" that and "being limited to it." Versatility and capability is important. Say he wanted to go work somewhere else, the more skills and versatility you have, the more options you have. Third, even within such a job you're still limited. EG: are you having a technical debate on your team? The better you can communicate, the more likely you are to advocate well for your solution, the more likely your good ideas will materialize, etc.