4 ms·

a) A simple idea doesn't infer a simplistic idea. b) Building a company is like building a baseball team... Which is pretty much exactly what the article says

by astrec 18y ago

a) A simple idea doesn't infer a simplistic idea. b) Building a company is like building a baseball team... Which is pretty much exactly what the article says: What if you were hiring a receptionist? What spare-time activities would suggest to you that a candidate might be a star? Well, what do star receptionists do? Don't think of all the million things they might do. Just think of the one or two most important things. Perhaps the best ones are super friendly and well organized. Well, if a candidate likes to spend his spare time alone reading a book, he probably won't be your star. But if he throws a dinner party once a week, you'll know you've got a winner. Greg Davis, my friend the fishing guide, is on the water fishing with clients six days a week. Can you guess what he does on his one day off?

TomOfTTB 18y ago
You said: Which is pretty much exactly what the article says: Not really. In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great skill to being a receptionist other than being social (which I believe to be a bit elitist btw). That is why it differs. But in every other part of the article the author suggest hiring people who are obsessed with their area of expertise so much so that they spend their spare time on it (even the last sentence you quote about Greg Davis alludes to that point). The point I was making is that some people are useful because they are contradictions. The programmer who spends his free time playing guitar in a band might bring perceptions to a discussion that the programmer who codes at night would never think of. Even though being in a band at night does not fit the rigid ideal this article suggests.
- astrec 18y ago
  In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great skill to being a receptionist other than being social. Really? What an incredibly long bow to draw.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    I'll be honest, I have no idea what the sentence means (long bow?) But let me try to elaborate on my point. The author gives several examples and in each example he cites the person's job and then points out how the fact that they spend their time using the same skills in their personal life makes them the best qualified for their job. Examples Greg Daniels: Job: Fishing Guide - Free Time: Spent Fishing Captain Sullenberg: Job: Pilot - Free Time: Accident Investigator for Airlines So his premise is that people who spend their spare time using the same skills as they use in their jobs make better employees. He then brought up the Receptionist example and cited "throwing dinner parties" meaning the skill behind throwing parties is what he think applies to being a receptionist. But his thesis is the same he just sees the skill behind receptionist as socializing My counter point to his argument was that diversity is valuable and that people who hone skills other than the ones directly related to their job are just as valuable because they can generate insights from those unrelated skills. That's why it's important to have those people along with the people who spend their free time on work related skills.

by astrec 18y ago

TomOfTTB 18y ago

You said: Which is pretty much exactly what the article says: Not really. In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great skill to being a receptionist other than being social (which I believe to be a bit elitist btw). That is why it differs. But in every other part of the article the author suggest hiring people who are obsessed with their area of expertise so much so that they spend their spare time on it (even the last sentence you quote about Greg Davis alludes to that point). The point I was making is that some people are useful because they are contradictions. The programmer who spends his free time playing guitar in a band might bring perceptions to a discussion that the programmer who codes at night would never think of. Even though being in a band at night does not fit the rigid ideal this article suggests.

astrec 18y ago
In this one paragraph he's actually suggesting there is no great skill to being a receptionist other than being social. Really? What an incredibly long bow to draw.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  I'll be honest, I have no idea what the sentence means (long bow?) But let me try to elaborate on my point. The author gives several examples and in each example he cites the person's job and then points out how the fact that they spend their time using the same skills in their personal life makes them the best qualified for their job. Examples Greg Daniels: Job: Fishing Guide - Free Time: Spent Fishing Captain Sullenberg: Job: Pilot - Free Time: Accident Investigator for Airlines So his premise is that people who spend their spare time using the same skills as they use in their jobs make better employees. He then brought up the Receptionist example and cited "throwing dinner parties" meaning the skill behind throwing parties is what he think applies to being a receptionist. But his thesis is the same he just sees the skill behind receptionist as socializing My counter point to his argument was that diversity is valuable and that people who hone skills other than the ones directly related to their job are just as valuable because they can generate insights from those unrelated skills. That's why it's important to have those people along with the people who spend their free time on work related skills.