
The Art of Thinking Long-Term Even When Money Is Running Out - davesuperman
https://medium.dave-bailey.com/why-visionary-founders-need-to-think-long-term-7ec4a5aae21a
======
duxup
"Developing new features versus refactoring existing code"

I like to do minor refactoring as part of any given new feature (even if
unrelated). It helps take bites out of the larger pieces over time.

"Tolerating a bad employee versus firing and rehiring"

Inversely this also gets into something I often see where companies sit and
wait for the best possible candidate (everyone claims to hire the best...) and
so rather than hire and try people out they take a long time and hire someone
and hiring being a non exact science.... doesn't work out. Maybe people need
to try folks out, even maybe the person who doesn't have every bit of alphabet
soup on their resume?

~~~
andrewstuart
>> I like to do minor refactoring as part of any given new feature (even if
unrelated). It helps take bites out of the larger pieces over time.

This hits the mark.

I don't think developers should even necessarily explain that this is what
they are doing, because then they have to ask permission to do it.

I'm constantly thanking "myself from the past" when I go to implement some new
feature and find that the surrounding code is clean and well organised and
ready for that new feature to be easily implemented.

~~~
freetime2
> I don't think developers should even necessarily explain that this is what
> they are doing, because then they have to ask permission to do it.

In my experience, it pays to be open with product managers and QA about what
you are working on, how you are implementing it, what the risks and benefits
are, etc. For example, it helps QA to focus their testing efforts on the areas
that are most likely to be broken by a refactor. And having some understanding
of how an app is built and where the problem points in the code lie helps
product managers to develop a sense of how much effort a certain change might
take, and reduces the chance that they will be surprised by some behavior in
the app as the result of a change.

And if someone on the team wants to question me about the cost/benefits of a
certain refactor and discuss alternatives, I think that is totally fair game.
Same way that if I want to ask a question about the cost/benefits of a new
feature and discuss alternatives, I feel empowered to do so. It's not about
asking permission so much as it is about developing a shared understanding of
the costs and benefits of the decisions that we make, and working together to
optimize them.

~~~
andrewstuart
You make good points and I tend to agree with you.

On the other hand I remember on some projects there being real (HUGE) pushback
from the client about doing anything that wasn't implementing features exactly
as they define and "are paying for".

As soon as you declare that you are doing something "optional", it gets
political, people start talking about it, it escalates to project manager,
their bosses boss etc and the shitfight starts. Ugh.

~~~
freetime2
Yup I guess what I was describing was more of an ideal software development
environment, but fully recognize that there are many cases where being too
transparent can cause issues. Hopefully those projects paid well, at least, to
make up for all the frustration. :)

~~~
TeMPOraL
The best general strategy may be simply "tit for tat". Try going the high road
first; if you see positive reaction, keep at it; if you see dysfunctional
reaction (like parent here had), revert to doing it without asking for
permission.

------
goatherders
We overestimate what we can do in a month and under estimate what we can do in
a year. Love that.

~~~
distant_hat
It's basically Amara's law in action: We tend to overestimate the effect of a
technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.

------
jodrellblank
_I was under a lot of pressure to increase sales. To boost the next month’s
sales, I pushed the button on a big marketing campaign in which we reached out
to a hundred potential clients with a time-limited promotion. The results were
disappointing. [..] I realised that sales are about relationships_

 _3) Tolerating a bad employee versus firing and rehiring. There is always a
short-term reason not to fire someone who’s underperforming_

Soooo you encouraged the board to fire you and hire someone who understands
sales already, yes? And/or you understand that underperforming can lead to
learning which can improve performing which you tolerate in yourself, so you
tolerate in your employees, yes?

~~~
lostcolony
Underperforming is not about making mistakes. It is consistently being unable
to learn and adapt. It is being unable to mesh with the rest of the team. It
is feeling like "I wish I had not hired this person".

~~~
freetime2
Also I think that different organizations have different thresholds for how
much they can tolerate with an underperforming employee. In larger
organizations, I have seen situations where an employee was not a great fit
for the role they were originally hired for, but over time were able to move
into a different role where they were effective. E.g. someone who can't write
code to save their life, but is actually quite effective as a middle manager.

But in a startup situation where every new hire is going to make a huge impact
on the team, and "money is running out" (as the article is titled), you might
necessarily need to be less forgiving.

------
zimpenfish
FWIW the "marshmallow experiment" failed when it was reproduced with more
participants from wider backgrounds. Probably not something you want to hook
your ideas onto.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-
test/561779/)

~~~
Hermel
No, the way you state is is simply wrong.

The study you link to _confirms_ the correlation between the ability to delay
gratification in the marshallow test and later success in life. However, it
also says that when taking other factors in to account, in particular the
wealth of the parents, the marshallow test does not add a significant amount
of information any more.

So all we know now is that we have a number of variables that correlate:

\- succeeding at the marshmallow test

\- having wealthy parents

\- be successful in life

Which one of these causes what is open for interpretation. For example,
growing up in a stable and reliable environment (which more affluent parents
can easier provide) might help to develop long-term thinking, which helps both
at the marshmallow test and generally in life.

In any case, the study confirmed that if you don't know anything else about a
person, the marshmallow test provides significant information about the
probable success later in the life of that person.

------
ksahin
How can we access this post without paying a Medium subscription?

~~~
mometsi
[https://outline.com/8SZ7hG](https://outline.com/8SZ7hG)

------
EugeneOZ
Paywall in front of such article looks especially funny.

------
paulpauper
down for me

