Man, this resonated. Too often, I’ve been in environments- and I’ve been guilty of- trying to quantize everything everyone does so there can be no question about performance, and calibration with other team members becomes just a math problem (this person checked off 62 boxes while this one checked of 71, so QED, 71>62). It never works.
Maybe it is a cop out - but 100% early stage folks must deal w ambiguity, right? The best we can do is share context, a vision, and shared set of tasks, and enable a transparent matching of expertise to needed work, to be revisited frequently. On the other hand at a certain point the annual reviews start, OKRs etc.. which I suppose is a necessary set of processes…. Anyway another good one, thank you
Oh for sure! And on creative teams the ambiguity is constant and relentless, too. Being able to thrive in that kind of environment really is important. However, I just ALSO want to maintain a healthy skepticism that we as leaders don't let ourselves off the hook!
Man, this resonated. Too often, I’ve been in environments- and I’ve been guilty of- trying to quantize everything everyone does so there can be no question about performance, and calibration with other team members becomes just a math problem (this person checked off 62 boxes while this one checked of 71, so QED, 71>62). It never works.
Maybe it is a cop out - but 100% early stage folks must deal w ambiguity, right? The best we can do is share context, a vision, and shared set of tasks, and enable a transparent matching of expertise to needed work, to be revisited frequently. On the other hand at a certain point the annual reviews start, OKRs etc.. which I suppose is a necessary set of processes…. Anyway another good one, thank you
Oh for sure! And on creative teams the ambiguity is constant and relentless, too. Being able to thrive in that kind of environment really is important. However, I just ALSO want to maintain a healthy skepticism that we as leaders don't let ourselves off the hook!