The Hallmarks of a Great Boss

Great 4 minute video of Stanford professor and author Bob Sutton discussing the proper level of involvement of a manager:

http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/26/the-hallmarks-of-a-great-boss/

A key point is that the level of involvement and the approach has to be appropriate for the task and the people involved (their level of experience, preferences regarding work environment, etc.)

The entire 58 minute talk is here: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2564

The Art of the Quick Phone Call

Mark Suster has written a really useful blog post called The Art of the Quick Phone Call.

The main points are:

1. You can start informally with banter (but not too much)
2. Let them know why you’re calling
3. Don’t hang yourself (by droning on without giving them a chance for feedback)
4. Ask questions
5. Know what “the ask” is (only one)
6. Stick to your budgeted time – maybe less

Insights from Philip Su

Philip Su has an excellent post of insights based on his time at Microsoft as he departs for Facebook.  He makes many good points, but my favorites are:

Good ideas are a dime a dozen.  Great ideas are usually laughed at.  Neither sees the light of day without you taking action.  Do the work to prove your idea, or stop talking about it.  In an entrepreneurship class in college, I pitched the idea of an online grocery delivery service and got laughed off stage.  Hurt, but convinced of my great genius, I returned the following week to pitch the idea of online movie rentals using the postal service.  I called it NetVideo.  Everyone thought it was absurd.  I used to tell this story to bolster what I thought was my streak of unrecognized, prognosticating technical genius.  These days, I tell the story to remind myself that in the end, only action and execution matter.

and

Above all else:  Integrity.  You must be able to trust who you work with and for.  Theodore Roosevelt once fired a rancher who stole some neighboring cattle and added them to Roosevelt’s herd.  When asked about this by incredulous friends, Roosevelt simply replied, “A man who steals for me will also steal from me.” 

The Passing of Benoit Mandelbrot

According to the web site of Nassim Taleb, the intellectual giant Benoit Mandelbrot has passed away.  Links to other thoughts on his passing and his TED talk in February 2010 from John D. Cook and Scott Beale.

Valuing lack of weakness rather than strength

Ben Horowitz has an great post on hiring executives.  My favorite part is:

Valuing lack of weakness rather than strength—The more experience you have, the more you realize that there is something seriously wrong with every employee in your company (including you). Literally, nobody is perfect. As a result, it is imperative that you hire for strength rather than lack of weakness. Everybody has weaknesses; they are just easier to find in some people. Hiring for lack of weakness just means that you’ll optimize for pleasantness. Rather, you must figure out the strengths you require and find someone who is world class in those areas despite their weaknesses in other, less important domains.

Excellent Letter Expressing Disagreement

This letter written by Leonard Nimoy is an excellent example of how to express disagreement in a business relationship frankly, without resorting to threats.

Labor and Capital

At various points in my schooling, I was taught that the factors of production are land, labor, and capital, and later, land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.

I now realize there is only labor and capital. Land is a form of capital and entrepreneurship is a form of labor.

We are all born with the ability to perform labor. I can show up at a job site and perform labor, but I'm just a guy. If I work, and consume less than I produce (i.e., I save), then eventually I can buy a hammer. Now, I'm a guy with a hammer, and hopefully I can earn a higher wage. If I continue to save (which should be easier at the higher wage), I will eventually be able to buy a saw. Now, I'm a guy with a hammer and a saw. These tools (capital) help to leverage my labor to make me more productive and therefore able to command a higher wage.

Of course, hammers and saws are not the only tools. Some other tools are education, relationships, experience, and character. Some tools that are quite valuable do not require much money to acquire.

There are Two Kinds of People

Takers and givers. A person's response to this choice fundamentally determines their character and (therefore) behavior.

The World is not Fair

Fairness is a human construct. The world, as it exists, is not fair. It is left to humans to create fairness, justice, and mercy.

Corollary to Problem with Measurement Focus

There is an interesting corollary to my view that the more important something is, the harder it is to measure. That corollary was stated here in an economic context:

There may be less here than meets the eye because of the application of what economists call Goodhart's Law, i.e. once an economic indicator itself becomes the object of policy, it losses the information content which qualifies it as an indicator. In the context of China's goal of maintaining GDP growth of at least 8%, this means that China will misallocate capital and pursue sub-optimal policies just to hit that target. This results in asset bubbles and wasted resources in the long-run.

These distortions are common in management as well. Engineers spend all of their time copying receipts for expense reports and filling out time cards, while the company lurches towards bankruptcy.

Software Development as Calvinball

"The only permanent rule in Calvinball is that you can't play it the same way twice!"

Calvinball, created by Bill Watterson in his comic strip Calvin and Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes), involves combining aspects of many different games into a single chaotic game.

In many ways, software development resembles Calvinball, even when, and perhaps especially when, it is being done well. This leads to many discussions regarding the best ecosystem for software development. The best environment for software development depends on the current activities and the current participants.

For example, sometimes software development is like chess. It requires intense, uninterrupted concentration. During these periods, it is inappropriate to ask the developer to do anything that would be inappropriate to ask a chess player to do. It would be ludicrous to set a phone next to a chess player and ask him to answer it several times an hour (on the first ring!). It would also not make sense to play the game in a cubicle next to various sales people and purchasing agents who must spend much of their time on the phone and in conversation.

At a chess tournament, when a game ends, the players quietly leave the playing area and go elsewhere to converse and await their next game. They don't celebrate and disrupt the other people who are still engrossed in their games.

At other times, software development is like charades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charades). The success of the task is dependent on spontaneous contributions from many individuals. The environment is boisterous and restrictions are kept to a minimum.

To maximize the effectiveness of a software development team, cultural norms and workspaces must be developed to allow the various aspects of software development to coexist as harmoniously as possible.

Software Developers Understand that People are not Machines

Some of the best ideas on management that I have read have come from the software development community. A large class of bad management practices insists that "what gets measured gets done" and assumes that management is as simple as measuring some variables and then tweaking the organization to get better numbers.

I wonder if the fact that software developers spend much of their time working with machines helps them see the differences between machines and people. If something is wrong with a program, I can attach a debugger and see what is going on. I have perfect information about the program and the program has no feelings as I inspect it and change it. For most programs, every time I run it with a certain set of inputs I get the same outputs.

All of this stands in stark contrast to working with people. The act of measurement itself has consequences even before the outcome is known.

I also wonder whether people in other fields that create or repair machines share the same insights. Maybe it is only people who don't work with machines that think people can be treated like machines.

How NOT to run a business

The Wall Street Journal has an article on How Bosses Stay in Charge. It describes how not to run a business. In this downturn, businesses have an opportunity to bring in very qualified people that they would otherwise not have a shot at. There is no such thing as overqualified. For a refreshing contrast, see this post. Relevant excerpt:

Phil Eagan recently reminded me of an investor meeting we did early in Viking’s history with one of our largest and most astute investors. I was asked about the commitment of Viking’s founders. I assured the investor that I was committed to our business. I also said that I believed that businesses must choose one of two paths. In the first path, the organization exists to serve the needs of the founders. In the second, the founders exist to serve the needs of the organization.

In the former, the founders maintain control. While they may delegate tasks, they make the key decisions. The founders may hire talented people to support them, but turnover will inevitably result as these individuals realize the limitations of their careers.

In the second path, the founders continually ask who in the organization is best able to fulfill each responsibility, without regard to title or tenure. As the talented new employees demonstrate their abilities, the founders will invite these individuals to share in the organization’s decision making process.

There is an irony in how these two paths are perceived by investors and other outside constituents. In the path where the organization revolves around the founders, constituents will take comfort in the perceived stability of the organization that, they believe, results from the consistency of the founders’ roles. But, I believe an outsider will underestimate the instability that exists at the levels below the founders.

In contrast, on the path where the founders exist to serve the organization, outsiders may perceive a level of instability. They will periodically be confronted with news that a founder has changed his role, ceded responsibility for some decision making, potentially reduced his work load or, possibly, left the organization altogether. However, if the organization has attracted talented individuals, helped to develop their skills and judgment, and established a process in which an individual’s merit determines the level of responsibility given, then the organization likely will endure. I believe Viking is this type of organization. I fully expect that, in the years to come, all of you will prove me right.