A common scenario at the office:
– The manager sets an unclear task
– The employee does it, but not well enough
– Because of the lack of clarity, the employee thinks he did it well enough
– Now the manager faces two options, both bad:
(Thread 1/7)
2/ Either the manager accepts how the employee did the task (sending the message that subpar performance is okay and lowering standards across the team),
Or he tells the employee he didn't deliver on an unclear objective, pissing him off and/or demotivating him.
3/ Lack of clarity is a problem that:
– Always comes to bite you back
– And you will have to address it at some point, willingly or unwillingly
Better to acknowledge it and front-load clarity.
4/ You will have to spend 20 minutes on clarifying your performance standards ANYWAY. Do not wait until when the task is completed (or even worse, until year-end evaluation)
Do it beforehand, during delegation
As a bonus, you'll get your people to do it right the first time
4B/ (Why will you have to spend time on clarifying ANYWAY? Because problems grow the size they need for you to acknowledge them.)
5/ Of course, setting clear objective is hard. Not only because it requires a bare minimum of communication skills, but also because setting unclear objective comes with several short-term advantages (see quoted thread)
6/ However, the costs of unclear objectives are even larger:
– demotivated employees
– lower and lower standards
– problems from badly-completed tasks
– and a vicious circle of all of the above
7/ Therefore, do yourself a favor.
You will have to clarify objectives, at some point.
You might as well be clear while setting objectives
Front-load clarity.
8/ By the way, on the topic of team management, I just published this book: gum.co/teams
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ In the quoted thread, I made the example of a skier participating to a championship made of 10 races.
3/ In a single race, the consequences of him breaking his knee are "just" that he loses that race.
Conversely, in a championship, the consequences of him breaking his knee during a race is that he loses that race AND ALL FOLLOWING ONES (because he cannot participate to them).
In school, if you partially complete a checklist, you get partial points
In life, there are checklists that give full points if partially completed and others that give no points
Much frustration comes from misunderstanding the kind of list you're dealing with
(examples below)
2/ Example #1: a checklist for authorship success could be:
– have a great idea
– write it down clearly
– promote it effectively
Only having a great idea is not sufficient. Worse, because of the lack of any success, you might learn the wrong lesson that it's a bad idea.
3/ Example #2: the checklist to write the perfect book has probably a hundred items on it. And yet, it's possible to achieve great success by only completing well a few.
But some might think that because their book doesn't check all the marks it isn't ready.
Economies of scale, and in particular large countries, have many pros (negotiation leverage, coordination for defense, lower transaction costs, some economies of scale) but also many cons.
Here are some:
(thread, 1/12)
2/ LESS INNOVATION
Many separate entities can undertake many more experiments than a single large one, even though the large one has a larger budget.
In innovation, you just have to be right once.
2B/ Decentralized innovation allows for many experiments to be made, and capital to be allocated to what works rather than to what makes sense.
"The reason to avoid communism is not because it is inefficient, but because it tries to be too intelligent." – @rorysutherland