Intergalactic Dance

Whenever a company dominates an industry for many years and continues attract top talent, it pays to examine how they operate.  Google is one such company.    Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg wrote it all down in a book called “How Google Works.”

The book has a lot of tactical advice about things like fostering innovation, designing products, hiring and retaining talent, and decision-making, but I think there is an underlying philosophy common to all the advice: Invest time and money in Going Deep to find the best solution to the problem.

That might seem simple, obvious, and probably something all companies claim to do.  But you probably know that’s more talk than action.   Think of losing weight, it’s simple: eat less and exercise more.  Very hard to execute. Very few people do it.

The concept is best articulated in their discussion on product development: “Bet on Technical Insights, not market research.”  A technical insight is a solution that emerges only after a very deep understanding of a topic; something that addresses the absolute core of a problem or a need (as opposed to tackling symptoms).  Schmidt and Rosenberg define a Technical Insight as “a new way of applying technology or design that either drives down the cost or increases the functions and usability of the product by a significant factor.   A “significant factor” means that the results of using a Technical Insight should be “obvious” and clear to any user, requiring very little marketing.

For example, when Google was developing the original search algorithm, the Insight was that the best results would be dependent not just identifying the content of the website, but having a understanding of the context of the website.  The standard Search approach at the time was to find the optimal match between the search terms and the content of website. They added on a layer of context to evaluate the quality of the website (i.e. :how many pages link to it, and what type of web pages). The insight was coming up with a way to judge the quality of page that took into account more than just surface level matching.

To me, this approach is similar to a “First principles” thinking concept: You get to the very core or essence of the use case or problem you are looking at, and then build out from there.
To be clear: you can still have a great success and progress by taking an incremental approach: this means using your competitive advantages to move into adjacent markets or make improvement in pricing, marketing or distribution.  Such strategies CAN be well-served by market research and are useful for established businesses, looking for steady growth in healthy markets.  But, when you need 10x growth, or when you’re fundamentally trying to disrupt an industry with a new product, you need to get to that technical insight that is true shift in how to solve the use case.

“Going Deep” applies to more than just product development, but people development (hiring and promoting), goal setting, and decision-making.   When you’re really looking to achieve superior performance in any of these areas, there are no lightweight solutions.  It’s time and money and effort. Of course, not everything can take this approach, and you can certainly achieve great performance allowing incremental progress to compound over time.  But the Google approach is to strives for 10x changes, that’s how the company is designed, it is the underlying architecture of the “Operating System” as it were, behind How Google Works.

“People are fallible and computers are unforgiving”  Came across this sentence in reference to a computer bug.  It explains so much about Product Management and Engineering.

Scott Adams is the author of the popular comic strip Dilbert.  I decided to read How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big after hearing Scott talk through his approach to success on podcasts and other interviews.  I recommend this book for anyone interested in self-improvement for a few reasons:  1) the recommendations are extremely practical 2) it’s well-written (i.e Scott gets to the point, doesn’t add a lot of fluff, and there’s a good amount of humor as well) and 3) there some new and interesting ideas in there that will likely change your perspective on things.   Below are my three key-takeaways:

1.  Willpower is a Scarce Resource:

This is the most important concept in the book in my opinion.  It’s one of those ideas that seems obvious, but is rarely applied or talked about in the context of self-improvement.  The idea is that since Willpower is a scarce resource, you can’t rely on it to help you overcome ALL your problems or drive towards your goals.  On the contrary, relying on Willpower is a surefire way to fail.

I think there is tendency, particular with people who have used Willpower effectively in their lives, to believe that it is a renewable resource; that we can continually push ourselves by sheer force of our “wills” or mental toughness to move forwards and make progress towards our goals.    If we fail in our diets it’s because we lacked willpower;  if you don’t go to the gym as often as you want, it’s lack of willpower;  if you didn’t produce a good enough result at work, it’s because you lacked willpower…and so on.

Scott calls bullshit on this line of thinking and asks us to acknowledge that Willpower is a scarce resource.  Just like you can only drive a certain number of miles on a tank of gas, you can only use a certain amount of Willpower on any given day.   If your gas tank is close to empty you’re probably not going to take a lot of detours to tourist attractions until you get to gas station.

Of course you need willpower to succeed.  It is required to do anything hard and can lead to amazing results, often beyond your wildest dreams. So the Big Idea is to organize your life so that you are using Willpower in the most effective way possible.  If you take anything away from this book it’s the idea that you need to use your Willpower wisely.

2.  Systems Instead of Goals:

A key concept for the efficient use of Willpower is using Systems instead of Goals to guide your behavior.   Systems Thinking combines of the idea of “process over results” with a hint of “shortcuts” or simplification.  The idea is replace Willpower with systems as much as possible.

This seems counter-intuitive.  Don’t you need clear goals in order to make sure you’re doing the right things and to measure that you’re actually getting closer to them?  Maybe, but there is real psychological issue with this approach: while you’re striving for you goals you’re in constant state of near-failure.  You might be tracking towards your goal, but you’re also one wrong move away from going down the wrong path.  This just puts you in bad mental state, drains your energy, and makes it harder for you to do the things you need to do to succeed.

Systems on the other hand put you in a state of constant, if small, successes. This increases your energy and makes it easier for you do the things you need to do.  Ultimately it conserves your Willpower for the truly hard tasks.

Naval Ravikant has a quote I like that sums this idea up well:  “Desire is a contract you make with yourself to be unhappy until you get what you want.”  A goals-oriented approach puts you in this constant desire state.  A Systems approach gives you positive momentum and reduces your reliance on Willpower.

3. Maximizing Energy: 

Prioritization is a common theme in the self-improvement literature. It’s also one of the hardest things to do.  Scott has a system for Prioritization and it is simple (not easy, but simple):  do things that maximize your personal energy.   I think of personal energy as the opposite of Willpower.  Things that increase your energy require minimal or zero Willpower.   Is skiing your absolute favorite thing to do? You could probably drive 2 hours in a car with a crying baby and it could barely tap into your will power.  You’ll probably feel your energy build up as you get closer to the mountain.   However, those same two hours would likely require immense will power if you’re driving to a Thanksgiving dinner with your dysfunctional family.  Think about how you feel walking towards the front door of that house.

To be clear: maximizing energy is not the same “do what you love.”  It’s more about understanding how you operate and acknowledging that there are activities that drain your energy and ones that increase it.  And since activities that drain energy require Willpower, be wary of doing them since they become obstacles towards to your success.    The idea is that as you go about prioritizing your time, be sure to place extra value on things that maximize your energy because it will ultimately lead to betters results in everything you need to do.

NOTE: There is a special category of things that increase Energy, like exercise and diet, that do require regular use of Willpower.  However, the tradeoff is worth it because doing those things will ultimately put you in a better state to take on other tasks in your life.  Scott also offers some systems on how to approach these types of activities

 

What am doing about it?

The next step for me is to do what I’m calling a  “systems assessment.”  I’m going to under which systems I’m using today (without necessarily knowing it) and then assess which areas of my life I should try and apply systems.

Keep it up

twitter.com/edlatimore/status/1016300129941446656

twitter.com/edlatimore/status/1016300129941446656

It’s more than just the ability to earn a profit over a sustainable operation.  It’s a group of people working to do that, in infinite permutations, constantly changing.  New ideas vs. tried and true.  At its worst, business represents the crudest elements of life: ignoring all morals and ethics and regard for another person, in order to earn a profit.  At it its best, business represents the most redeeming aspects of humanity: the ability to cooperate, each person doing their part, each person benefiting from the joint efforts.

Business is more about the idea of earning a profit, rather than earning it.  Many businesses will fail, or will fail to earn a profit in some years, or never at all.  But they’re still businesses.  The striving is what matters

This is differs from art then. Art is about the creation / expression of ideas, beauty, love.  Things our words alone cannot express.  It can be analyzed like business, but not judged.  Is that were the difference is?  If a business cannot earn profit, it may be a lot of things, have a lot of good ideas and rational decisions, but it cannot be deemed successful business.

Art, on the other hand, cannot be judged as systematically. It could take centuries to determine the success of an art piece.  Further, success in one century could be different in another.  How many of today’s pop masterpieces will be forgotten?  how many of yesterday’s failed creations are today highly praised?  Sure some business ideas may successful in different era’s, but that’s the idea not the business itself.

Business is temporary, fleeting, a product of the people conducting it at the time. With no people, there is no business. Art is timeless, it lives after the death of people creating it.

Had an interesting session today related bitcoin.  They talked about how we’re in the early stages, like the early 90s with the internet.  We’ve heard this before.  But he brought up a good metaphor: we’re inthe MP3 phase of digital music.  Meaning htat MP3 was critical to success of making people comfortable with digital music accessing music over the web.  However, today most people don’t use that technology, they religh on stream or itunes…they are not familiar with MP3 technologies.  What he’s basically saying is that we’re in “bridging” phase of bitcoin wherein its becoming useful enough so that people get comfortable and they’re a scaled base of users.  But like, MP3, it’ snot until there’s a scaled base of users that the real applcations will start to be developed. It took years of MP3 to get us to a Spotify or Beats Music.

Here’s the thing: he keep talking about financial transactions as the big promise of bitcoin.  However, financial transactions are like hte MP3s: it’s what bitcoin offers today.  I would suggest the breakthrough in Bitcoin is not going to be in financial transactions (for a number of reasons having to do with trust  /KYC /) but in some of other fields where the “open ledger” can dramatically change.

I was also creeped out someone with the talk of “open ledger” – does everyone want every transactin so publicly available?

Then there was the idea of making everything fungible: you could trade a book for food using bitcoin protocol rather than having to sell your book, get money, and use that money fo rfood. It seems like tha towuld take us back in time, not forward.  Further, I still think this would ultimately require an intermediary to determine the value inthe firs tplace.  Which takes us back to money.