2 ms·
> Anecdotally, yes. In my experience most projects are carried by a select few 'Heroes' doing the majority of the difficult implementation and innovation, tied
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
> Anecdotally, yes. In my experience most projects are carried by a select few 'Heroes' doing the majority of the difficult implementation and innovation, tied together by a larger volume of less impressive but still critical connective work.
But that's the nature of any project. 80% of it is 20% of the work. But the remaining 20% - the wicked problems - takes up the remaining 80%. Any given project, by "law", is going to require a hero or three.
Put another way, if you had the heros doing the less heroic stuff not only would that be a waste of resources but eventually they would update their CV and leave.
- RelativeDelta 4y agoThe author's point was that this dynamic does not apply to managerial positions. They are, in their argument, almost entirely composed of "non-heroes" and their actual work is of speculative value. Hence why they are suggesting that 50% of them can be randomly removed without a corresponding loss of effective productivity. I don't know if that's true or not (though I'd love to see it studied), but I can at least see that logic behind the claim - roughly summarized as: "The ability of a manager to increase the productivity of workers is inversely proportional to the complexity of the work being done."
- chiefalchemist 4y ago50% works cause you'd have an equal chance of eliminating good and bad. While good does good, bad does worse. So, in theory, 50% is a net win.