4 ms·
- Does not conduct 1:1s - everything happens in a group setting. Wouldn’t in large meetings mostly the loudest and most political be heard? How do you hear eve
by aborsy 3y ago
- Does not conduct 1:1s - everything happens in a group setting.
Wouldn’t in large meetings mostly the loudest and most political be heard? How do you hear everyone in a large meeting? Who takes credit, assumes responsibility, be more or less paid, etc?
1:1 are important, at least to connect to people.
Nvidia bet on a good fast growing market early on (AI). Maybe that explains their success. Also, take these stories with a grain of salt, til the sources are clear.
- koromak 3y agoThe meetings he's are are already filled with people comfortable being loud and political. I'm sure the actual technical doers are having plenty of 1:1s
- itiro 3y agoConnection to people is important and grown ups can sort out how and when.
- mcoliver 3y agoYou know where people play politics? 1:1's. Stories get told, facts left out, no dissent, people take credit for things they shouldn't be taking credit for. Group accountability and transparency squashes all that.
- caminante 3y agoFor me, shadow governance is intrinsic to large organizations. It's going to happen. At these "open" nVidia meetings, I'm sure cliques are texting on MSFT Teams or SMS. I'm skeptical that 1:1 here means no 1:1 contact and rather no recurring meetings with reports.
- aborsy 3y agoPeople play politics everywhere possible. 1:1 at least guarantees that you have a chance to present your work. Problems with meetings: people don’t express themselves because they might offend others or create enemies, people follow each other, no defined rules on how the meeting operates, problems with credit, diluted responsibilities, opportunities for shifting the work and credit, as someone said in comments formation of cliques competing, etc. Both are probably needed. You need to mix.
- heisenbit 3y agoGroup settings favor bolder, louder folks. But then he has email sampling. Besides a top manager directly cutting through layers changes communication culture. When facts and not presentation becomes focus of the group other sets of skills than political are becoming valued more.
- kimixa 3y agoGroup emails are also places where the "loudest" get heard - it's not just physically having a strong voice, but being the sort of person who feels the need to speak even if they're unsure they're correct, or this is the right forum. I see the same people do that in both physical meetings and group email chains. Sampling group emails likely has a similar bias to sampling large meetings.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- marcinzm 3y agoIt seems to me that someone who can directly voice their views is a more efficient employee than someone who needs another person (their manager) to use their time do it for them. A company biasing to more efficient employees seems reasonable. Group meetings have other issues but if you can't even do it in async text form...
- kimixa 3y agoDirectly voicing views in a forthright manner is useful if the communication is meaningful and informed - which often isn't correlated with how "loud" it is.
- marcinzm 3y agoIf you consider it "loud" to be able to send out an email of five things to a group in a structured format that everyone at the company uses then I think we should just agree to disagree. I see that as not loud but having the expected level of communication skills to function in a company at anything beyond a junior level.
- agumonkey 3y agoI often wonder what's the right balance between group and personal, as you say, 1:1 has issues, but groups have some too (extrovert can use more space).
- fortran77 3y ago> Nvidia bet on a good fast growing market early on (AI) No. Early on they realized that supporting developers for GPGPU is important, and many industries have been well served by it, starting with computer graphics and gaming.
- cameldrv 3y agoThey bet on AI, but it's more than that. What I'd say they seem to be good at is noticing what weirdos are doing and fairly quickly allocating resources to it. 1. CUDA. They noticed that people were using graphics shaders to do compute (GPGPU). This was extremely (really extremely) painful to program in. They created CUDA which is only somewhat painful to program in. Now, at this point, it wasn't that clear that GPU compute was a great market, but it opened up a bunch of opportunities. 2. After CUDA came out, Alex Krizhevsky came around and used it to implement a neural network. Now, this wasn't the first time someone had made a neural network with a GPU, but CUDA made it a lot easier to make a sophisticated one. 3. NVIDIA noticed that people were using CUDA to make neural networks, and created CuDNN and started sending out free GPUs to all of the academic researchers they could find, further cementing their lead in this area over AMD. In big corporations it tends to be hard for some seemingly insignificant thing like people using your product for something it wasn't intended for to bubble up to top management where resources can be allocated to capitalize on it. It's especially hard to do this quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if this habit of Jensen's was responsible for NVIDIA being able to take advantage of these opportunities.
- marcinzm 3y ago>Wouldn’t in large meetings mostly the loudest and most political be heard? How do you hear everyone in a large meeting? Who takes credit, assumes responsibility, be more or less paid, etc? The top-5 mailing lists seem like the way that is achieved. My personal experience is that as a line manager at a company I actually know a ton more about who is doing well across departments than the CEO probably does. My view is direct and unmoderated while the CEOs is not. >1:1 are important, at least to connect to people. Why is connecting to people important?