Optimizing Synergies With Strength Versus Weakness Distribution

This is not checkers; this is motherfuckin' chess.

           - Ben Horowitz, The Hard Thing About Hard Things

Generally speaking, a greater emphasis is placed on fixing weaknesses rather than improving strengths. However, this may be the wrong criteria for analytics in a variety of scenarios. In the book The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, Mr. Horowitz talks about the hiring process, specifically the strength versus weakness tradeoff. He notes a common mistake is "valuing lack of weakness rather than strength." A person who has little or no visible weaknesses is consistently viewed as superior to someone who has obvious weaknesses, and the strengths are then subsequently dismissed. However, this may not be the best way of comparing individuals, businesses, etc.

For example, person A has no apparent disadvantages but is decidedly average across the board. On the other hand, person B is terrible at X (and is quickly dismissed), although she happens to be excellent and Y and Z. Too often person A is favored over person B based on the "feel test" when it should be the other way around.

This problem is very situational. Ultimately, the decision maker must decide which weaknesses are acceptable and can be dealt with and/or improved on in order to determine what is the best course of action. While predominantly we tend to avoid weaknesses, we may be better off looking at the strength-weakness tradeoff from a different perspective. Specifically, is it worth improving strengths instead of trying to cover up weaknesses? Many times the answer is yes.

I often see this problem among team athletics. For example, in the spirit of the World Cup lets say there is a soccer team with the following talent distribution amongst starters:

• 4 excellent players
• 4 average players
• 3 poor players

Keep in mind soccer has 11 starters. The above talent distribution is rather common as soccer tends to have parity amongst teams. That is, each team has a fairly similar mix of talent. No team has 11 all-stars and no team has 11 terrible players.

So what does the coach do? For the sake of this example, lets say all 10 field players can play offense, defense, and midfield at a level equal to their overall talent level. How does the coach arrange the lineup in order to give the team the best chance to win?

Similar to the aforementioned discussion, too often a coach tries to cover up weaknesses by putting one excellent player at offense, two excellent players at midfield, and one excellent player at defense, thereby having an average offense, average midfield, and average defense in an attempt to cover up any and all weaknesses.

But perhaps the coach should consider a different strategy. Perhaps the coach should put all the excellent players on offense and accept having a poor defense, or perhaps the coach should put all the excellent players on defense and accept having a poor offense. Or maybe the coach should put all the excellent players at midfield. Why might these strategies of grouping the talent together and accepting certain weaknesses be superior to being average across the board? The answer has to do with synergy.

Synergy is the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. In simpler terms, two people working together can produce a greater effect than each can individually. One plus one can equal three with synergy. On the soccer field, the four excellent players are better off working together than being spread apart, unable to utilize each other. While this may come with one or two weaknesses, focusing on having strengths as opposed to hiding weaknesses often produces superior results.

This is also true for organizations in business. Being great at one aspect of your business is likely better than be average at everything. And even if you have a few weaknesses (which is likely no matter what), you can distinguish yourself by standing out in certain areas.

- Joe

The First Thing You Should Do Every Day

May of each year I look forward to listening to a few of the commencement speeches given to college graduates around the country. Usually there are two or three excellent speeches that contain timeless advice. My favorite this year was the University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address given by Admiral William H. McRaven. I would highly encourage you to view it here.

One of the points that Admiral McRaven makes is that you should start each day by making your bed, a practice regularly found in the military. He notes two important reasons why you should do this:

1. To start the day off with an accomplished task which will compound into "another and another" productive task.
2. To have a nice bed to come home to if you happened to have a miserable day, signify the opportunity for a new start tomorrow.

He says "The little things matter... If you can't do the little things right, you will never be able to do the big things right." I think it is important to start the day off with a productive task. Rather than dragging yourself in front of the TV and watching SportsCenter on repeat for two hours, by beginning each day accomplishing the simple yet significant task of making your bed, you are setting yourself up for a productive day.

Admittedly, I never use to make my bed. After watching this commencement address about a month ago, I have made my bed first thing every morning with positive results. Like Admiral McRaven points out, one would be surprised how meaningful a positive task can be to start one's day. Additionally, it always is better going to bed at night in a bed that is made compared to one that is messy.

I would highly encourage everyone to watch the entirety of Admiral McRaven's 2014 University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address and begin each day by making your bed.

-Joe

Fiction vs. Non-fiction

I recently finished reading Mr. Mercedes by Stephen King. I have read the last 4 or 5 Stephen King books and have been entertained by them all. I think there might be a misconception about Stephen King's genre of books - many of them are not the horror type stories that everyone associates with him. For example, Mr. Mercedes is a mystery and suspense type book. Either way, I would encourage anyone to read some of Stephen King's books as he is an exceptional writer. In my opinion, one of this greatest strengths is the ability to cover multiple perspectives in the same novel which I enjoy.

I read Stephen King and fiction books in general for entertainment purposes. However, often I learn just as much from fiction books as I do non-fiction books. I think it is important for any reader to vary the type of books he or she reads. While my balance between fiction and non-fiction is probably in the 20% fiction to 80% nonfiction range, I believe that having some variety is good. And I find both types of books fulfill the overall purpose of my reading - to learn.

For example, a few one-liners from Mr. Mercedes that are think are particularly interesting regardless of context:

"Don't complicate what's simple."
"It's hard to change your life when you're old."

Despite my desire for some fiction and nonfiction balance, I am still very selective about what fiction books I decide to read. Specifically, I have two key factors I follow:

1. Read exceptional authors. (i.e. Stephen King)
2. Read books that are culturally significant.

While number one is straightforward, number two is best explained with examples. Factor number two has resulted in my reading of books such as Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, all of which I have greatly enjoyed and learned a lot from.

Overall, even with the goal of learning, I believe it is important to read a mix of fiction and non-fiction books, and I find that fiction sometimes is just as thought-provoking as non-fiction.

-Joe

How To Score High Grades In College While Studying Less

I just finished reading How to Become a Straight-A Student: The Unconventional Strategies Real College Students Use to Score High While Studying Less by Cal NewPort. Normally I do not read these kinds of books for two reasons: One, I do not believe they are effective. Two, I believe what works for one person may or may not work for another. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for academic success. Despite these hesitations, I decided to give this book a chance. (Somewhat ironic considering I just graduated from college last month and I am likely done with all schooling.) I was pleasantly suprised. In my opinion, this book was one of the better academic self-help type books I have read. (admittedly, I have read very few for my standards). Part of the reason I think I enjoyed it is because it acknowledged the importance of leading a well-balanced academic life, something I think is important. For example, consider the following excerpts:

"Above all, remember that college is a multifaceted experience, of which grades are just one of many important pieces. It's my hope that this book will help you painlessly conquer this one piece so you can have more time and energy to explore all of the others - the friends, the unburdened idealism, the heroic beer consumption - that make these four years so rich."

"All the people I ever admired and respected led balanced lives - studying hard, partying hard, as well as being involved in activities and getting a decent amount of sleep each night. I really think this is the only logical defensible way of doing things."

While high grades are certainly important, they are not the only thing.

There are two other reasons I liked this book. One, the author wrote it by compiling survey answers from various straight-A college students. The advice was from students, not some random author. Two, the author stressed systems for being productive, something I have written about in the past. 

Overall, is this book worth a read? Probably not. But is it possibly worth a quick skim? Depending on your circumstances, I would say yes.

-Joe

Goals Are For Losers

On of my colleagues, Andrew Stewart, recently had a post on Medium discussing the problems with New Years Resolutions. Here is a noteworthy excerpt from his post:

One of the biggest perpetrators of our “insanity” is partaking in New Years resolutions. The idea behind resolutions is great. The New Year is symbolic with the chance to start fresh. We can take all our failures from the past year, tear them up, and throw them in the garbage. Great idea, love it! Unfortunately for most of us that’s not how our new years resolutions turn out. The trips to the gym last about two weeks and about a month for us “hardcore resolutionists.” The three books we bought begin to collect dust on the shelves alongside the books we bought last year. The first page of our journal is covered with fantastic ideas and resolutions for the upcoming year, but the second page remains untouched. February arrives and we realize that once again we spend too much time on social media, watching our favorite TV shows a bit too much, and other seemingly small destructive habits that we wanted to break. At least we get to look forward to next year’s resolutions right, because this year’s resolutions didn’t quite work out. Does this sound a little like insanity to you? It does to me.

Andrew goes on to identify two main reasons for New Years Resolution failures: 1) Lack of conviction and 2) Complacency. He then proceeds to propose a few possible solutions for turning resolutions around. I encourage you to read the article, and it can be found here.

Permit me to propose my own solution. First, it helps to set "S.M.A.R.T." goals. These are goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable/Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. A more detailed explanation of these types of goals can be found here. However, even "S.M.A.R.T." goals often go unachieved.

Rather, I think the only true solution is to establish systems instead of setting goals. Scott Adams, the creator of the comic "Dilbert," explains this well:

To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That's literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.

Instead of setting a goal, one should work on establishing a system. This is because the goal itself actually does nothing to contribute to the completion of the goal. Rather, a system designed with a purpose in mind will allow one to succeed daily, thereby increasingly getting closer to completion.

So lets revisit the lose 10 pounds goal but with the intention to create a system. As part of this system, one would eliminate soda drinking and run a mile each day. Every day that goes by without drinking soda is a success. Every day that goes by during which one ran a mile is a success. Fairly soon these small changes compound, just like the idea of financial compounding interest, to result in successful completion of the initial purpose (in this case lose 10 pounds) the system was designed around. The book The Compound Effect by Darren Hardy talks about this concept.

Here is an outline of the "lose 10 pounds" example. Hopefully it is clear why one is better off with a system rather than a goal.

Goal based
Day One - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Two - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Three - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Four - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Five - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Six - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Seven - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Eight - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Nine - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure
Day Ten - did you lose 10 pounds? no = failure

System based
Day One - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Two - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Three - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Four - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Five - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Six - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Seven - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Eight - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Nine - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success
Day Ten - did you avoid soda and run a mile? yes = success

Fairly soon you are seeing the results (lose 10 pounds) with the system, all the while succeeding each day. However, with the goal you step on the scale each night having failed until you become impatient, frustrated, etc.

The system is all about putting ones self in a position to succeed. And the system will help one to keep a positive mindset.

So lets say your New Years Resolution is to get that promotion at work you have always wanted. Rather than setting that goal and failing every day you do not get the promotion, create a system. Maybe you decide to go in to work 15 minutes earlier each day and then let the rest take care of itself. This does not mean be passive as opposed to proactive about accomplishing your desires. Instead, it is about creating a well-thoughtout system that will put you in a position to succeed, not just for the big reason, but on a daily basis.

Accomplishing goals is not about making herculean efforts in order to make huge changes. Rather, it is about doing the little things correct day after day. In the words of James Watkins, "A river cuts through rock, not because of its power, but because of its persistence."

-Joe