4 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
by memish 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
- gambiting 4y agoI mean, it's possible, but the organisation would need to be extremely disfunctional for that to be the case - that's the level of bloat I'd expect out of a government agency not a private corporation. If you have teams where 8 out of 10 people do literally nothing or pretend, it should be obvious.
- sokoloff 4y agoThat's not what the Pareto Principle says, when reasonably applied to the engineering department [or employees in general] at Twitter. It says that 80% of the results come from 20% of the sources. That's not 8/10 people are doing nothing, but rather 8/10 people are doing things that only contribute to 20% of what makes Twitter Twitter. On any given team of ten, it's likely that the entire team is in either the 80 or the 20 bucket, by virtue of what they're working on, not by virtue of how hard they're working or how talented they are.
- shagie 4y agoPrice's Law works better there. > Derek de Solla Price, a British physicist, historian of science, and information scientist, discovered something about his peers in academia. He noticed that there were always a handful of people who dominated the publications within a subject. Price recognized a pattern which was later named after him. > What is Price’s Law? > 50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work. https://expressingthegeniuswithin.com/prices-law-and-how-it-applies-to-everything/ https://expressingthegeniuswithin.com/prices-law-and-how-it-... https://entreresource.com/prices-law/ https://entreresource.com/prices-law/
- sokoloff 4y agoThey’re getting at two different things: Pareto is getting at whether the work should be done at all; Price is getting at who does the work that gets done. Both are reasonable lenses to consider.
- kansface 4y agoEven if this were correct, the specific 20% matters.
- epistasis 4y agoThese sorts of massive cuts, coupled with massively decreasing workplace quality, and with removing any chance of financial reward (no more liquidity in shares of the company!!), are going to cause the most talented people to go to greener pastures. The people who stay will be those with the least options. Musk has made employment at Twitter hugely risky, with no possibility of reward. Really boneheaded business, completely incompetent cutting off the workforce, honestly. Hard to imagine a worse way of pruning the workforce.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Yoofie 4y ago> are going to cause the most talented people to go to greener pastures. People keep repeating this trope as if Twitter is some paragon of technical excellence and innovation. It is no such thing. It is a popular website with a textbox for user input. You don't need "talent", you simply need to people who get the job done.
- epistasis 4y agoSaying something like this just demonstrates that you have extremely limited technical knowledge, and are willing to say anything to defend Musk. And defenses like this go a looooong ways towards destructing the myth that Musk had technical acumen, because the only people defending him are those that can't do the work.
- memish 4y agoThe projection on here is getting cartoonish. John Carmack, "Elon is definitely an engineer. He is deeply involved with technical decisions at spacex and Tesla. He doesn’t write code or do CAD today, but he is perfectly capable of doing so."
- epistasis 4y agoAgreed that the projection is cartoonish, but looking at the actual actions at Twitter speak for themselves. And discounting the scale of Twitter is also quite cartoonish projection.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoSimplistic answers to difficult and chaotic questions are bogus, heuristics. They may work on average, but twitter is not an average company.