6 ms·

> Critical path/flow diagrams [0] are incredibly useful for both laying out what has to happen in serial vs what can be parallelized. That being said, I've almo

by roenxi 1y ago

> Critical path/flow diagrams [0] are incredibly useful for both laying out what has to happen in serial vs what can be parallelized. That being said, I've almost NEVER seen them used... Making technically good decisions is one of a distressing number of domains where making any attempt at all will put someone a long way ahead of the game vs most people who wield power. Several advanced techniques that nearly nobody seems to do: "Do we have evidence that this is a good idea?" "What if we assume that we achieve the most likely outcome of this action, based on past experience and checking what happened when other people tried doing it? Is it a good idea?" [0] "Assuming we just keep doing what we're doing, where will we be in 12 months?" [0] Please someone get this one into the mainstream US debate next time they're trying to start a war.

bombcar 1y ago
99% of all leadership is making a decision and then asking for data to support that decision unfortunately.
- balderdash 1y ago
  I’ve literally never seen that happen. It’s always problem, initial hypothesis, request for data (then data is either unavailable or typically supports the hypothesis, occasionally the data doesn't and you go back to the drawing board.
  - morkalork 1y ago
    Have you worked on a data team? I've seen that bs a number of times, it's how I mentally grade different managers and PM/POs. Re the unavailable data: Smart people ask before a big change, get told what devs are missing and need to instrument/record and then leverage those new metrics for the before/after comparison. Not-smart people yolo the changes, ask for the metrics after and go whoops it's too hard or impossible to check.
    - balderdash 1y ago
      I’m sure it does happen but a number of times does not come close to all (99%)
- bsoles 1y ago
  Like when my company's bosses decided: - (pre-Covid) No working from home, face-to-face time is essential for innovation and collaboration. - (during Covid) We are doing a great job WFH. Our productivity did not decline. - (after Covid) Return to the office. Face-to-face time is essential for innovation and collaboration. And always supported with "data".
  - dataflow 1y ago
    Those are not contradictory. Edit: changed question mark to period to clarify.
    - regular_trash 1y ago
      I think the point was that they are contradictory, yet "data" was shown to indicate they were each sound decisions, implying an inherent dishonesty and willingness to bend data to support an already drawn conclusion.
      - dataflow 1y ago
        No, I'm stating that those aren't contradictory. Perhaps they were inaccurate paraphrases of statements that were contradictory, I have no idea. But taking what's written at face value, they are not hard to reconcile. E.g., being productive doesn't necessarily imply innovating.
        james_marks 1y ago
        Not hard to reconcile _if you try in good faith to do so, with the necessary faculties, interest, time, and access_. This caveat pretty much defines reality.
        dataflow 1y ago
        I... don't really follow.
  - 1y ago
- nothercastle 1y ago
  I’ll settle for making decisions. Most leaders can’t even do that
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  This is also - disturbingly - how the human brain operates. 1. Some subconscious process makes a cynical decision about what course of action is most beneficial for you. 2. Another part, known as the "Press Secretary" comes up with a good sounding motivation for why this is the morally right thing to do. 3. You now genuinely believe you're doing the right thing, and can execute your cynical plan, full of righteous zeal! I'm as autism-brained as anyone, and would probably prefer brutal honesty in all communications, but I also think you have to accept that well functioning human organizations don't operate like that, and if you want to be part of such organizations it's best for everyone to accept how they work.
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    This is not entirely true. Daniel Kahneman wrote about it if you want a source. Humans generally have two ways of thinking: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is fast, heuristic-based, and not always accurate. Arguably, that's why things like racism and bigotry take hold. Type 2 is slow, analytical, and what lets us do things like send men to the Moon or write large software applications. The trouble is that you have to consciously shift to Type 2 thinking, it takes longer, and it's tiring. Dave Snowden of Cynefin fame has a great bit (paraphrasing here) about the purely Type 2 thinker in ancient days on the African savannah getting eaten by a lion. Because he or she sits there doing a complex analysis of "OK, felid, yellow fur, moving towards me, etc. etc." while the Type 1 thinker goes "Oh shit! Lion!" and runs away. Type 1 thinking has a role. You just have to be mindful about when you're misusing it.
    - BurningFrog 1y ago
      What I describe is a summary of the book "The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life". My take is that it's worse than you think, and Type 2 thinking is often used to justify or rationalize actions driven by Type 1 motives. Link: https://amzn.to/3KqLzF7 https://amzn.to/3KqLzF7
- zhengyi13 1y ago
  "If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess to anything"
psunavy03 1y ago
> [0] Please someone get this one into the mainstream US debate next time they're trying to start a war. Speaking as someone with 20 years in uniform and as a War College grad (if only by correspondence) . . . the military ironically has this wired more than any other institution in the Federal government. The reason the military gets drawn into so much of US foreign policy is not because of a fetish for blowing things up. It's because it's the only institution where formalized planning is a thing, the only one where feats of large-scale logistics are par for the course, and the only one where "I'm not going there because I might get hurt" isn't a valid excuse. As an example, one of the best ways for distributing aid after a natural disaster is an amphibious task force, because you can send the same Marines in to distribute aid that you would to take territory. And going into relatively unprepared areas and setting up infrastructure for follow-on forces is basically their bit either way. The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine. And when you involve all the other agencies plus scads of glory-seeking politicians, it's hard to keep things from becoming a shitshow.
- Ray20 1y ago
  > outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine. Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    Even just the military won't solve the Ukraine. Like lets say superman comes down and lasers all the Russians. Who gets what land? What happens to the people whose houses are destroyed? What happens to those whose farms are litered with landmines? This is the posters point. The military can execute on a lot of things effectively but in order to go from 80% to 100% you need more than just them.
    - vinceguidry 1y ago
      We have answers to all these questions, or can find them, but they can't be implemented in an active warzone.
lazyasciiart 1y ago
> What if we assume that we achieve the most likely outcome of this action, based on past experience and checking what happened when other people tried doing it? Is it a good idea?" [0] I’ve tried exactly this and it was shocking to me that even when faced with examples of themselves failing to do something, people would just willingly go on the record with this: Lindsay: Well, did it work for [us last time]? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but ... But it might work [this time].
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
milesvp 1y ago
"Assuming we just keep doing what we're doing, where will we be in 12 months?" I find this one interesting, a business youtuber I follow said he finally realized that his teams all got ~5% better every year if he just left them alone and changed nothing. He said he used to have all these ideas he wanted to implement, but that if they didn’t have a lot of potential upside, they weren’t worth the short term drops associated with reimplementing, retraining and the teams having to relearn and explore their new problem space.

by roenxi 1y ago

bombcar 1y ago

99% of all leadership is making a decision and then asking for data to support that decision unfortunately.

balderdash 1y ago
I’ve literally never seen that happen. It’s always problem, initial hypothesis, request for data (then data is either unavailable or typically supports the hypothesis, occasionally the data doesn't and you go back to the drawing board.
- morkalork 1y ago
  Have you worked on a data team? I've seen that bs a number of times, it's how I mentally grade different managers and PM/POs. Re the unavailable data: Smart people ask before a big change, get told what devs are missing and need to instrument/record and then leverage those new metrics for the before/after comparison. Not-smart people yolo the changes, ask for the metrics after and go whoops it's too hard or impossible to check.
  - balderdash 1y ago
    I’m sure it does happen but a number of times does not come close to all (99%)
bsoles 1y ago
Like when my company's bosses decided: - (pre-Covid) No working from home, face-to-face time is essential for innovation and collaboration. - (during Covid) We are doing a great job WFH. Our productivity did not decline. - (after Covid) Return to the office. Face-to-face time is essential for innovation and collaboration. And always supported with "data".
- dataflow 1y ago
  Those are not contradictory. Edit: changed question mark to period to clarify.
  - regular_trash 1y ago
    I think the point was that they are contradictory, yet "data" was shown to indicate they were each sound decisions, implying an inherent dishonesty and willingness to bend data to support an already drawn conclusion.
    - dataflow 1y ago
      No, I'm stating that those aren't contradictory. Perhaps they were inaccurate paraphrases of statements that were contradictory, I have no idea. But taking what's written at face value, they are not hard to reconcile. E.g., being productive doesn't necessarily imply innovating.
      - james_marks 1y ago
        Not hard to reconcile _if you try in good faith to do so, with the necessary faculties, interest, time, and access_. This caveat pretty much defines reality.
        dataflow 1y ago
        I... don't really follow.
- 1y ago
nothercastle 1y ago
I’ll settle for making decisions. Most leaders can’t even do that
BurningFrog 1y ago
This is also - disturbingly - how the human brain operates. 1. Some subconscious process makes a cynical decision about what course of action is most beneficial for you. 2. Another part, known as the "Press Secretary" comes up with a good sounding motivation for why this is the morally right thing to do. 3. You now genuinely believe you're doing the right thing, and can execute your cynical plan, full of righteous zeal! I'm as autism-brained as anyone, and would probably prefer brutal honesty in all communications, but I also think you have to accept that well functioning human organizations don't operate like that, and if you want to be part of such organizations it's best for everyone to accept how they work.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  This is not entirely true. Daniel Kahneman wrote about it if you want a source. Humans generally have two ways of thinking: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is fast, heuristic-based, and not always accurate. Arguably, that's why things like racism and bigotry take hold. Type 2 is slow, analytical, and what lets us do things like send men to the Moon or write large software applications. The trouble is that you have to consciously shift to Type 2 thinking, it takes longer, and it's tiring. Dave Snowden of Cynefin fame has a great bit (paraphrasing here) about the purely Type 2 thinker in ancient days on the African savannah getting eaten by a lion. Because he or she sits there doing a complex analysis of "OK, felid, yellow fur, moving towards me, etc. etc." while the Type 1 thinker goes "Oh shit! Lion!" and runs away. Type 1 thinking has a role. You just have to be mindful about when you're misusing it.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    What I describe is a summary of the book "The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life". My take is that it's worse than you think, and Type 2 thinking is often used to justify or rationalize actions driven by Type 1 motives. Link: https://amzn.to/3KqLzF7 https://amzn.to/3KqLzF7
zhengyi13 1y ago
"If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess to anything"

psunavy03 1y ago

> [0] Please someone get this one into the mainstream US debate next time they're trying to start a war. Speaking as someone with 20 years in uniform and as a War College grad (if only by correspondence) . . . the military ironically has this wired more than any other institution in the Federal government. The reason the military gets drawn into so much of US foreign policy is not because of a fetish for blowing things up. It's because it's the only institution where formalized planning is a thing, the only one where feats of large-scale logistics are par for the course, and the only one where "I'm not going there because I might get hurt" isn't a valid excuse. As an example, one of the best ways for distributing aid after a natural disaster is an amphibious task force, because you can send the same Marines in to distribute aid that you would to take territory. And going into relatively unprepared areas and setting up infrastructure for follow-on forces is basically their bit either way. The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine. And when you involve all the other agencies plus scads of glory-seeking politicians, it's hard to keep things from becoming a shitshow.

Ray20 1y ago
> outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine. Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"
- lesuorac 1y ago
  Even just the military won't solve the Ukraine. Like lets say superman comes down and lasers all the Russians. Who gets what land? What happens to the people whose houses are destroyed? What happens to those whose farms are litered with landmines? This is the posters point. The military can execute on a lot of things effectively but in order to go from 80% to 100% you need more than just them.
  - vinceguidry 1y ago
    We have answers to all these questions, or can find them, but they can't be implemented in an active warzone.

lazyasciiart 1y ago

> What if we assume that we achieve the most likely outcome of this action, based on past experience and checking what happened when other people tried doing it? Is it a good idea?" [0] I’ve tried exactly this and it was shocking to me that even when faced with examples of themselves failing to do something, people would just willingly go on the record with this: Lindsay: Well, did it work for [us last time]? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but ... But it might work [this time].

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

milesvp 1y ago

"Assuming we just keep doing what we're doing, where will we be in 12 months?" I find this one interesting, a business youtuber I follow said he finally realized that his teams all got ~5% better every year if he just left them alone and changed nothing. He said he used to have all these ideas he wanted to implement, but that if they didn’t have a lot of potential upside, they weren’t worth the short term drops associated with reimplementing, retraining and the teams having to relearn and explore their new problem space.