Thank you for the 10% insight. Here are some thoughts and questions:
1. "Be Super Efficient"... to reframe it ala Venkatesh Rao accuracy is what idealists ("clueless") focuses on, whilst precision is what opportunists ("sociopaths") focuses on. The former is slow to fast whilst the latter is slowing down to the right tempo. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
2. "if you’re in the right team and company: don’t" What if your speciality domain is rendered unhip as per technology adoption? Also, how do you identify the right team in the right company? What if they are the status quo and hates innovation?
3. "The rule of thumb to find such manager is they are managers who have managed managers (i.e. not a frontline manager)" In the theories of Alex Danco and Charman Anderson, middle management are often worse influences to the psyche compared to senrior management (C-suites) and frontline management (Supervisors, Team Leads, Operational Managers). With a diffence between the two, https://charman-anderson.com/2010/02/04/the-impenetrable-layer-of-suck/
Thanks for the comment Brad! Really thoughtful. I'll try to comment with my best knowledge:
1. Yep. Tho the point that I am trying to convey is at the highest level it's possible to be both efficient and effective. If you have to optimize your time, I'd encourage people to be effective first (slowing down to understand the destination)
2.a. Tho I think your comment is more on "should I pursue new opportunity vs sticking in knowing that I am in good team, good manager and good company."
2.b. Sadly I don't have a great answer for that. Personally, given the company and team situation are still satisfactory, I'd at least stick for 2 years in a company. The purpose is so that you're given enough opportunity to lead good projects and growing your career (from junior to mid, to senior, to staff or manager).
2.c. If you don't foresee you'd improve your career (either through promotion, salary increase, good equity, new title, or increase responsibility) in 2 years, you probably should move.
2.d. Additionally, I don't believe in chasing hypes. Yes you probably will miss some of the early adopter waves. But if something will stay, it will stay (Real Estate has not been changing for the last hundreds of years)
3. That's an interesting article, tho I have to slightly disagree with this one.
3.a. If I understand the article correctly, the thought process of the article is middle management always have other manager as their direct reports.
3.b. What I am getting into is: you should report to manager who has other managers reporting to them.
3.c. This means you will want to be at least as senior to manager, or be in position to report to "middle management"
3.d. Not only the middle management will be required to give you better support (cuz you directly report to them), they will also give better information and authority compared to if you report to the frontline managers.
3.e. Also another flag that I want to callout here is: look into their tenure. Mentioned in my post is you don't want to report to frontline manager who's been frontline manager for > 4 years. Cuz most likely it means they suck at management and you won't get good support anyway
4. Sadly I don't quite understand the reference here. Tho what I can comment on is: in order to become 10% engineer you have to reduce the time commitment you invest in a particular work, but still accomplish the same amount of work. I list out how to do it (at least the optimization that I know about) here: https://10percentengineer.substack.com/p/10-engineering-ingredient-be-insanely?s=w
> 3.a. If I understand the article correctly, the thought process of the article is middle management always have other manager as their direct reports.
Thank you for the 10% insight. Here are some thoughts and questions:
1. "Be Super Efficient"... to reframe it ala Venkatesh Rao accuracy is what idealists ("clueless") focuses on, whilst precision is what opportunists ("sociopaths") focuses on. The former is slow to fast whilst the latter is slowing down to the right tempo. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
2. "if you’re in the right team and company: don’t" What if your speciality domain is rendered unhip as per technology adoption? Also, how do you identify the right team in the right company? What if they are the status quo and hates innovation?
3. "The rule of thumb to find such manager is they are managers who have managed managers (i.e. not a frontline manager)" In the theories of Alex Danco and Charman Anderson, middle management are often worse influences to the psyche compared to senrior management (C-suites) and frontline management (Supervisors, Team Leads, Operational Managers). With a diffence between the two, https://charman-anderson.com/2010/02/04/the-impenetrable-layer-of-suck/
4. Isn't "optimizing your time" a kind of bizzaro-world move? Alternatively, when is prioritizing your time NOT frivilous? https://medium.com/hackernoon/on-the-infestation-of-small-souled-bugmen-6561ae922e07
Thanks for the comment Brad! Really thoughtful. I'll try to comment with my best knowledge:
1. Yep. Tho the point that I am trying to convey is at the highest level it's possible to be both efficient and effective. If you have to optimize your time, I'd encourage people to be effective first (slowing down to understand the destination)
2. There's this book called "So good they can't ignore you" by Carl Newport: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KFR64LQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 that I'd really recommend for people who're debating between "should I pursue new passion vs sticking with my area".
2.a. Tho I think your comment is more on "should I pursue new opportunity vs sticking in knowing that I am in good team, good manager and good company."
2.b. Sadly I don't have a great answer for that. Personally, given the company and team situation are still satisfactory, I'd at least stick for 2 years in a company. The purpose is so that you're given enough opportunity to lead good projects and growing your career (from junior to mid, to senior, to staff or manager).
2.c. If you don't foresee you'd improve your career (either through promotion, salary increase, good equity, new title, or increase responsibility) in 2 years, you probably should move.
2.d. Additionally, I don't believe in chasing hypes. Yes you probably will miss some of the early adopter waves. But if something will stay, it will stay (Real Estate has not been changing for the last hundreds of years)
3. That's an interesting article, tho I have to slightly disagree with this one.
3.a. If I understand the article correctly, the thought process of the article is middle management always have other manager as their direct reports.
3.b. What I am getting into is: you should report to manager who has other managers reporting to them.
3.c. This means you will want to be at least as senior to manager, or be in position to report to "middle management"
3.d. Not only the middle management will be required to give you better support (cuz you directly report to them), they will also give better information and authority compared to if you report to the frontline managers.
3.e. Also another flag that I want to callout here is: look into their tenure. Mentioned in my post is you don't want to report to frontline manager who's been frontline manager for > 4 years. Cuz most likely it means they suck at management and you won't get good support anyway
4. Sadly I don't quite understand the reference here. Tho what I can comment on is: in order to become 10% engineer you have to reduce the time commitment you invest in a particular work, but still accomplish the same amount of work. I list out how to do it (at least the optimization that I know about) here: https://10percentengineer.substack.com/p/10-engineering-ingredient-be-insanely?s=w
Thank you for the reply.
> 3.a. If I understand the article correctly, the thought process of the article is middle management always have other manager as their direct reports.
This article is not the only one I review, but also Danco and Bauer (and a funny diagram by Grant) https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of-social-class/ https://thecontextofthings.com/2021/01/25/the-three-tiers-of-work-and-life/ http://thecontextofthings.com/2018/07/08/senior-leadership-teams-spend-way-much-time/ https://thecontextofthings.com/2014/09/25/the-inherent-challenge-of-being-a-middle-manager/ https://archive.ph/0cap2
> 4. Sadly I don't quite understand the reference here.
The quote is "The bugman is intensely focused on making his life more ‘efficient’. If he outsources every chore and foregoes starting a family, he will have more time to consume and more time to whittle away on his pointless job and fashionable hobbies." It is more a sense of over-optimization giving away to inefficient time waste (lack of networking and lackluster innovation). Are there any house chores that are considered to be critical? With a processed critique from https://theunlikelyno.com/2018/07/14/the-exterminator-a-critique-of-the-bugman/ https://theunlikelyno.com/2018/07/20/the-exterminator-a-critique-of-the-bugman-pt-2/