
How to lead by first principles - kposehn
https://medium.com/@mmccue/the-most-powerful-lesson-i-ve-ever-learned-in-business-4d89e95ab250#.mqqole6ib
======
restalis
Even assuming that there are such things that may be called "first
principles", there usually is an awful amount of movement (leeway) around them
which may not be always admitted openly and which makes the object of
politics. (The problem in the example given, about a company faced with an
important decision about how to respond to an external force, is an
omnipresent problem that independent tribes, city-states, or nations had/have,
and is nothing but a political decision - "do we fight or do we surrender?")

Read again this: _" Were we really destined to be a profitable company that
nobody really cared about except for a few carriers? Is this what our team
signed up for?"_ and say it's not a political rhetoric in every way? For the
same situation different people can lead their audience to totally different
"obvious" conclusions depending on how will they construct the decision
rationale (what will they take into account or emphasize and what will they
ignore or downplay). The real craft/trick here is how to appear like an
impartial judge (i.e. neutral) in the process.

------
zazen
Apparently, the first "first principle" he reached for was the one that shone
immediate light on the situation. If that's true, he got amazingly lucky.
Reasoning solely from established facts is wonderful when you can do it; but I
don't think this article is painting a realistic picture of the difficulties
involved. Such reasoning may take time, with many false starts, and it may not
get you all the way to the conclusion you need.

~~~
zazen
Actually, on re-reading the piece, the author isn't claiming he thought up
this argument on the spur of the moment. I got confused because of the
dramatic narrative, which started with the meeting already going on before the
author started talking about his thought process. I now think the author is
saying this "first-principles" reasoning is a good way to credibly explain
strategic decisions, which makes a lot more sense than using it to deduce
strategic decisions.

------
solipsism
These are not "first principles". First principles are fundamental and
universal. All the things the author is calling "first principles" are
actually "facts". Instead of "arguing from first principles" the author is
"using logic".

~~~
jadc
I quite liked the article but I agree with you that these are not really
"first principles". Seem like the story was shoe-horned to fit the analogy.
The author could have taken the same story and used it to illustrate the power
of open questions such as "what do I know to be true" instead of first
principles.

------
codingdave
Rather than first principles, I've seen this work better when a company
decides what their core principles are. These are not decided at a time of
crisis or are a big decision, but early in the company's development. When you
decide exactly what you are doing, why, and what your goals are. And you use
those principles to drive your decisions, strategies, and plans from then on.

Of course, at first glance, startups would seem to be against this kind of
definition of principles, because they "pivot" to find a market - but that in
itself is a core principle. You are not defined by your product, but by your
final goal - large revenue and growth matter more than details of the product.

The way to get to your core principles is to ask yourself what aspects of your
company are so critical to its integrity that you would rather shut down the
company than break those principles.

Answer that, let those answers guide you, let those answers be known when
hiring your team, and you will build a company that makes decisions easier,
and with less internal conflict.

~~~
restalis
I hate to be cynical, but I somehow feel a duty to help (seemingly
enlightened) people like you, so... _" The way to get to your core principles
is to ask yourself what aspects of your company are so critical to its
integrity that you would rather shut down the company than break those
principles."_ How would anyone know the quality of the principles obtained
through such a rationale - that those principles aren't far-fetched, or don't
impose unnecessary hurdles that may hurt the company and everyone in it, or
are too unsubstantiated to mean anything, and so on? On the individual level
such principles have at least the animal nature to start with - survive (which
is not a choice) and replicate, and pretty much everything we do will
contribute in some way or another to those two. But how can one come up with
similar a reason for a company, the existence of which is in itself optional
to start with? For companies I haven't found yet any hard principles (other
than companies being a form of group effort to address in the end the same
individual survival and replication, which as a goal isn't that often
reflected in the actual organizational behavior).

~~~
codingdave
That isn't being cynical, it is a legitimate discussion to figure out what is
too abstract, and what is helpful.

But when you start off with having "a duty to help seemingly enlightened
people like me", you turned what could have been a productive point into a
patronizing insult, so I'm not inclined to even have that discussion.

~~~
restalis
_«But when you start off with having "a duty to help seemingly enlightened
people like me", you turned what could have been a productive point into a
patronizing insult, so I'm not inclined to even have that discussion.»_

A positive person would rather have taken/considered the compliment from my
words. Sorry to offend you.

~~~
codingdave
Hey, it is the internet - no tone of voice or facial expressions to read, so
sometimes communication isn't so smooth. And you may be right, I don't default
to assuming positive intent from discussions online. That may be a personal
flaw with me. :)

------
ThomPete
These are not first principles. These are premises used to establish the logic
that follows.

As long as you can question the premise and dig deeper you are not reasoning
from first principle.

I don't even think it really applies to language but instead to science and
means something very different.

~~~
amatic
> These are not first principles. These are premises used to establish the
> logic that follows.

Aren't those the same thing?

It seems the author is referring to core beliefs or premises that the business
was found on, as well as relationships in the team. The point is to get to
'truths' everyone agrees upon. Not unlike first principles in physics - you
just assume because of the amount of evidence, that say, thermodynamic laws
are true, and everyone can agree on that.

~~~
ThomPete
Well the difference is the solidity of the premise.

Scientific first principles are not necessarily objectively true but they are
the best we know of. I.e. as far as we collectively know this is the first
principle.

This vs. I believe this and I am going to reason from here. Which is much more
likely to be subjective.

~~~
amatic
Yes, I suppose I agree. Given the lack of scientifically proven first
principles in management, psychology or social sciences, perhaps going to
'truth' agreed upon in the group is the best we can do in order to use this
reasoning tool.

------
xyzzy4
Well if you use first principles to an extreme, you might decide that work is
pointless (or even bad) and you'll decide to live in a small cabin instead
like Ted Kaczynski. People who claim to use first principle are usually
dishonest about it and have many assumptions they can't justify.

------
lhnz

      "I think its important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy." -- Elon Musk
    

Maybe this guy is the next Elon Musk?

Jokes aside, isn't reasoning from first principles about going deeper and
deeper to understand the root causes of problems, before working back from
them? This seems foundational to problem-solving, but not necessarily an
element of leadership.

~~~
adwn
> _Maybe this guy is the next Elon Musk?_

More likely, this guy read the same quote by Elon Musk.

~~~
meric
Hey, I think it was a pretty obvious idea. In high school, preparing for
physics exams, rather than memorising all the formulas, I worked on figuring
them out based on some root principles, on the fly. So every exam I spent the
first 10 minutes reading the exam and deriving all the formulas I gathered I
needed on the back of the answer booklet. It was a lot more effective than
memorising which type of questions needed which formula.

Like maybe 15 years ago my dad wanted to teach me maths and he kept repeating
the importance of learning the 'first principles'. I didn't get a word he was
saying at the time, but looking back, he had the idea too.

~~~
ska
This is standard physics pedagogy, and has been for generations.

~~~
meric
Yeah, I agree and it's unreasonable to attribute it to Elon Musk every time
someone brings the idea up.

------
perseusprime11
This is from wikipedia: "A first principle is a basic, foundational
proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or
assumption."

"We must pick one or risk failing at both" How is this first principle? Google
cannot say we will do search and not android. Are these first principles
unique to his business?

------
porter
I've noticed lawyers are good at this. They have a mastery of deductive logic
and ask you to agree with what appear to be obvious statements. Then from
those obvious statements they deduce an airtight conclusion. It's a brilliant
move.

~~~
restalis
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11161388](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11161388)
(in this page)

It's not only lawyer's trick, it's actually something pretty basic in
persuasion's toolkit.

------
azraomega
I wonder what are the other arguments from his 2 advisers. They had a clear
competitive advantage, and question should have been posted by both advisers
as they have been described to be very qualified. So, what else do they know
to be true?

------
dsjoerg
The art, the magic, is knowing which questions to ask.

