4 ms·

The 4.5 has better 'vibes' but isn't 'better', as a concrete example: > Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear,

The 4.5 has better 'vibes' but isn't 'better', as a concrete example: > Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear, achievable action. The "Mission is the operationalized version of vision" is not in the corpus that I am find and is obviously a confabulated mixture of classic Taylorist like "strategic planning" SOPs and metrics, which will be tied to compensation and the unfortunate ubiquitous nature of Taylorism would not result in shared purpose, but a bunch of Gantt charts past the planning horizon. IMHO I would consider "complex nuanced thought" as understanding the historical issues and at least respect the divide between classical and neo-classical org theory. Or at least avoid pollution of more modern theories with classical baggage that is a significant barrier to delivering value. Mission statements need to share strategic intent in an actionable way, strategy is not operationalization.

neom 2y ago
The statement "Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear, achievable action" isn't a Taylorist reduction of mission to mechanical processes - it's actually a nuanced understanding of how these organizational elements relate. You're misinterpreting what "operationalized" means in this context. From what i can tell, the 4.5 response isn't suggesting Taylorist implementation with Gantt charts etc it's describing how missions translate vision into actionable direction while remaining strategic. Instead of jargon, it's recognizing that founders need something between abstract vision and tactical execution. Missions serve this critical bridging function. CEO has vision, orgs capture the vision into their missions, people find their purpose when aligned via the 2. Without it, founders either get stuck in aspirational thinking or jump straight to implementation details without strategic guidance. The distinction matters exactly because it helps avoid the dysfunction that prevents startups from scaling effectively. I think you're assuming "operationalized" means tactical implementation (Gantt charts, SOPs) when in this context it means "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Missions != mission statements. Also, you're creating a false dichotomy between "strategic intent" and "operationalization" when they very much, exist on a spectrum. (If anything, connecting employees to mission and purpose is the opposite of Tayloristic thinking, which viewed workers more as interchangeable parts than as stakeholders in a shared mission towards responding to a shared vision of global change) - You are doing what o1 pro did, and as I said: As a tool for teaching business to founders, personally, I find the 4.5 response to be better.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  An example of a typical nieve definition of a mission statement is: Concise, clear, and memorable statement that outlines a company's core purpose, values, and target audience. > "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Taken the common definition from the first part of this plan, what do you think the average manager would do given that in the social sciences, operationalization is explicitly about measuring abstract qualities. [1] "operationalization" is a compromise, trying to quantify qualitative properties, it is not typically subject to methods like MECE principal, because there are too many unknown unknowns. You are correct that "operationalization" and "strategic intent" are not mutually exclusive in all aspects, but they are for mission statements that need to be durable across changes that no CEO can envision. The "made operational/actionable at a strategic level" is the exact claim of pseudo scientific management theory (Greater Taylorism) that Japan directly targeted to destroy the US manufacturing sector. You can look at the former CEO of Komatsu if you want direct evidence. GM:s failure to learn form Toyota at NUMII (sp?) is another. The planning process needs to be informed by stratagy, but planning is not strategic, it has a limited horizon. But you are correct that it is more nuanced and neither Taylor nor Tolstoy allowed for that. Neo-classical org theory is when bounded rationality was first acknowledged, although the Prussian military figured that out long before Taylor grabbed his stopwatch to time people loading pig iron into train cars. I encourage you to read: Strategy: A History By sir Lawrence Freedman For a more in depth discussion. [1] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.03%3A_Operationalization https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Intro...
  - neom 2y ago
    Your responses are interesting because they drive me to feel reinforced about my opinion. This conversation is precisely why I rate 4.5 over o1 pro. I prompted in a very very very specific way. I'm afraid to say your comments are highly disengaged for the realities of business and business building. Appreciate the historical context and recommended reading (although I assure you, I am extremely well versed). The term 'operationalized' here refers to strategic alignment, not Taylorist quantification, think guiding principles over rigid metrics. You are badly conflating operationalization in social sciences (which is about measurement) with strategic operationalization in management, which is not same. Again: operationalized in this context means making the mission actionable at a strategic level, not about quantification. Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged. Successful founders don't get caught in these theoretical distinctions. Founders taught be my, and I guess GPT 4.5, understand correctly, mission as the bridge between aspirational vision and practical action. This isn't "Greater Taylorism" but pragmatic leadership. While your historical references (NUMMI, not NUMII) demonstrate academic knowledge, they miss how effective missions actually guide organizations while remaining adaptable. The 4.5 response captured this practical reality well- it pointed to but it not create artificial boundaries between interconnected concepts. If we had some founders trained by you (o1 Pro) and me (Gpt 4.5) - I would be willing to bet my founders would out preform yours any day of the week.
ewoodrich 2y ago
I have been experimenting with 4.5 for a journaling app I am developing for my own personal needs, for example, turning bullet/unstructured thoughts into a consistent diary format/voice. The quality of writing can be much better than Claude 3.5/3.7 at times but struggling with similar confabulation of information that is not in the original text but "sounds good/flows well". Which isn't ideal for a personal journal... I am still playing around with the system prompt but given the astronomical cost (even with me as the only user) with marginal benefits I am probably going to end up sticking with Claude for now. Unless others have a recommendation for a less robot-y sounding model (that will, however, follow instructions precisely) with API access other than the mainstream Claude/OpenAI/Gemini models?
- neom 2y ago
  I've found this on par with 4.5 in tone, but not as nuanced in connecting super wide ideas in systems, 4.5 still does that best: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking (also: the person you are responding to is doing exactly what you're saying you don't want done, take something unrelated to the original text (Taylorism) but could sound good, and jam it in)

neom 2y ago

The statement "Mission is the operationalized version of vision; it translates aspiration into clear, achievable action" isn't a Taylorist reduction of mission to mechanical processes - it's actually a nuanced understanding of how these organizational elements relate. You're misinterpreting what "operationalized" means in this context. From what i can tell, the 4.5 response isn't suggesting Taylorist implementation with Gantt charts etc it's describing how missions translate vision into actionable direction while remaining strategic. Instead of jargon, it's recognizing that founders need something between abstract vision and tactical execution. Missions serve this critical bridging function. CEO has vision, orgs capture the vision into their missions, people find their purpose when aligned via the 2. Without it, founders either get stuck in aspirational thinking or jump straight to implementation details without strategic guidance. The distinction matters exactly because it helps avoid the dysfunction that prevents startups from scaling effectively. I think you're assuming "operationalized" means tactical implementation (Gantt charts, SOPs) when in this context it means "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Missions != mission statements. Also, you're creating a false dichotomy between "strategic intent" and "operationalization" when they very much, exist on a spectrum. (If anything, connecting employees to mission and purpose is the opposite of Tayloristic thinking, which viewed workers more as interchangeable parts than as stakeholders in a shared mission towards responding to a shared vision of global change) - You are doing what o1 pro did, and as I said: As a tool for teaching business to founders, personally, I find the 4.5 response to be better.

nyrikki 2y ago
An example of a typical nieve definition of a mission statement is: Concise, clear, and memorable statement that outlines a company's core purpose, values, and target audience. > "made operational/actionable at a strategic level". Taken the common definition from the first part of this plan, what do you think the average manager would do given that in the social sciences, operationalization is explicitly about measuring abstract qualities. [1] "operationalization" is a compromise, trying to quantify qualitative properties, it is not typically subject to methods like MECE principal, because there are too many unknown unknowns. You are correct that "operationalization" and "strategic intent" are not mutually exclusive in all aspects, but they are for mission statements that need to be durable across changes that no CEO can envision. The "made operational/actionable at a strategic level" is the exact claim of pseudo scientific management theory (Greater Taylorism) that Japan directly targeted to destroy the US manufacturing sector. You can look at the former CEO of Komatsu if you want direct evidence. GM:s failure to learn form Toyota at NUMII (sp?) is another. The planning process needs to be informed by stratagy, but planning is not strategic, it has a limited horizon. But you are correct that it is more nuanced and neither Taylor nor Tolstoy allowed for that. Neo-classical org theory is when bounded rationality was first acknowledged, although the Prussian military figured that out long before Taylor grabbed his stopwatch to time people loading pig iron into train cars. I encourage you to read: Strategy: A History By sir Lawrence Freedman For a more in depth discussion. [1] https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Research_Methods/Book%3A_Principles_of_Sociological_Inquiry__Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods_(Blackstone)/06%3A_Defining_and_Measuring_Concepts/6.03%3A_Operationalization https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Intro...
- neom 2y ago
  Your responses are interesting because they drive me to feel reinforced about my opinion. This conversation is precisely why I rate 4.5 over o1 pro. I prompted in a very very very specific way. I'm afraid to say your comments are highly disengaged for the realities of business and business building. Appreciate the historical context and recommended reading (although I assure you, I am extremely well versed). The term 'operationalized' here refers to strategic alignment, not Taylorist quantification, think guiding principles over rigid metrics. You are badly conflating operationalization in social sciences (which is about measurement) with strategic operationalization in management, which is not same. Again: operationalized in this context means making the mission actionable at a strategic level, not about quantification. Modern mission frameworks prioritize adaptability within durable purpose, avoiding the pitfalls you’ve rightly flagged. Successful founders don't get caught in these theoretical distinctions. Founders taught be my, and I guess GPT 4.5, understand correctly, mission as the bridge between aspirational vision and practical action. This isn't "Greater Taylorism" but pragmatic leadership. While your historical references (NUMMI, not NUMII) demonstrate academic knowledge, they miss how effective missions actually guide organizations while remaining adaptable. The 4.5 response captured this practical reality well- it pointed to but it not create artificial boundaries between interconnected concepts. If we had some founders trained by you (o1 Pro) and me (Gpt 4.5) - I would be willing to bet my founders would out preform yours any day of the week.

ewoodrich 2y ago

I have been experimenting with 4.5 for a journaling app I am developing for my own personal needs, for example, turning bullet/unstructured thoughts into a consistent diary format/voice. The quality of writing can be much better than Claude 3.5/3.7 at times but struggling with similar confabulation of information that is not in the original text but "sounds good/flows well". Which isn't ideal for a personal journal... I am still playing around with the system prompt but given the astronomical cost (even with me as the only user) with marginal benefits I am probably going to end up sticking with Claude for now. Unless others have a recommendation for a less robot-y sounding model (that will, however, follow instructions precisely) with API access other than the mainstream Claude/OpenAI/Gemini models?

neom 2y ago
I've found this on par with 4.5 in tone, but not as nuanced in connecting super wide ideas in systems, 4.5 still does that best: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking (also: the person you are responding to is doing exactly what you're saying you don't want done, take something unrelated to the original text (Taylorism) but could sound good, and jam it in)