Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stu255's avatar

Interesting. I recognise all the strategy and management works but far fewer of the political ones.

It’s an interesting arc too; politics, management, research, complexity, math and physics.

The arc feels like a journey from messy to distilled truth. I guess you typed it out in this order? Which would say something itself.

It’s a rare juxtaposition to have the hard analytical skills alongside the subjective people management experience, but then the organisational and historical awareness is another facet that has come from a huge amount of reading and research. It’s genuinely very rare.

Occasionally someone you meet thinks they have a unique spectrum of understanding, but they usually don’t. Often they haven’t read anything outside the beaten path and don’t really know anything outside their undergrad literature.

It’s a shame that recruitment often can’t appraise multifaceted people. So often recruitment looks for a very specific thing (to fill a predefined role) and attaches zero worth to all other skills. It tries to fit a job specification and fit the job specification only. Recruitment assumes that organisational architecture is perfect when the organisation was architected with no prior sight of the talent.

This is why I think a lot of the very best teams are put together by the founder hand picking people. I think it’s a very critical stage (probably the defining moment) of creating a high performing team you have to pick the people before you rigidly define the roles. The best people almost always tend to be multifaceted, it’s a strong sign of enduring curiosity, open mindedness and a willingness to continue learning. If you define the roles and then seek to fill them, you prioritise for single faceted people and you create a network populated by group thinkers with one dimensional worldviews and a team with weak connections between domains.

Steve Jobs really understood this and reading about how he put together the Macintosh team and then NEXT gives you a really good handle of the trajectory he was on as he moved towards iPhone (probably the most important product ever made). Walter Isaacson's biography on Jobs is really great.

This understanding of picking a team was an extremely hard won lesson for me. But I have found it’s much more difficult to build a great team with single faceted people selected to excel in a predefined role than it is to build a team with multifaceted people and more fluid / flexible / dynamic roles. After all a team is something that exists as an intersubjective vehicle, in this context it seems obvious that a team of multifaceted members would outperform single faceted members.

At the same time, I always prefer depth of talent over bandwidth, you want people who have abseiled the bleeding edge in their field but who retain some kind of multidomain curiosity. So you don't need the person furthest down the cliff, but you need someone on that cliff face over the bleeding edge who is also multifaceted. These are the people to bring to your team. They are extremely rare but instantly identifiable.

I like strategy and management, and also system architecture. I actually enjoy process design too, I think of this as doing Taylorism at the departmental / inter team level instead of the individual level. I’m a fan of individual autonomy but scientific management at the organisational level is a nice counter to bureaucracy, all institutions should have a mechanism that continually trims and prunes the otherwise default trend towards ever more bureaucratic process sprawl. There are some management tools that are good for identifying and cutting out unnecessary things (channel your inner Kelly Johnson).

I think this bureaucratic sprawl is one major source of the entropy that eventually kills great teams. It’s a kind of metastatic condition of “continuous improvement” or “quality excellence” or some such uncapped convergence on the impossible.

I’ll see if I can think of a good book on this. Unlikely.

A really great book on complexity is Emergence by a guy called Steve Johnson, the book has a hugely important central point. That vastly complex sprawling systems can (and usually do) emerge from a relatively small and simple set of rules. The book details dozens of such systems that exist in the real world; like ants, traffic, brains… you soon realise a human society is exactly such a system too.

But the magic is how complexity scales with scale. You have 5 agents following a set of rules and you get certain behaviours and interactions, but then 500 agents following the same rules as the original 5 and you get different interactions, more sophisticated things emerge. Then 50,000 agents and 5m and it’s amazing what emerges as the system scales even when exactly the same rules are implemented. You get new behaviours you see second and third order patterns emerge.

Not enough people understand this phenomena when looking at and interpreting the world.

This book is mana from heaven for start ups, yet practically nobody has read it.

Expand full comment
Alex Wilks's avatar

Great stuff. Do you still actively use Anki to remember all this? I feel like Nielsen's essay on it should be a first port of call before getting too trigger happy with the buy-it-now button on Amazon, as is my tendency.

Expand full comment
152 more comments...

No posts