3 ms·
I am not buying this. Maybe that is a case of misunderstood definitions, as the author at the end alludes to the difference between polished work and good work.
by ptero 4y ago
I am not buying this. Maybe that is a case of misunderstood definitions, as the author at the end alludes to the difference between polished work and good work.
But as the definitions of those are missing it is hard to know if the problem I have with this approach is in the labels or the core of the claim.
- maxerickson 4y agoThe lack of widely accepted precise definitions makes the whole thing pretty arbitrary. Like the concept that it's possible to spend a lot of time doing work that doesn't really add much value is reasonable enough, but what that means is going to vary a huge amount based on the situation and task. I try to use automation to nitpick my work, which when it works ends up adding polish without taking much time (of course the initial investment in the automation is easier to justify when the work is at least somewhat repetitive). Spell check is a good general example, the automation eliminates a whole category of errors without taking much time.
- ptero 4y agoIt does not even need widely accepted definitions, a local definition of those terms would be enough.
- maxerickson 4y agoIt would improve the piece. I'm not sure they would create a way of labeling "power plays" that wasn't more or less arbitrary. It's probably easier to write a piece that argues for the concept that it is good to be mindful of the potential for diminishing returns to further work and to push back on those requests. It's also likely to be useful to more people.