> paying attention to what is happening is undervalued.
Heavily agree. But paying attention to what is happening _in nature_.
Pay little attention to what is happening in symbolia.
I got rid of my cell phone 2.5 years ago after my daughter kept saying "no phone dadda". Forces me to pay attention to nature and real world every moment I'm not at my computer. Huge life improvement in every way.
'individuals who consistently meet expectations' is not only not the same thing as 'superstars', it's nearly the opposite. doing the unexpected is a defining attribute of superstars. an individual who consistently meets expectations is incapable of simultaneously being a superstar. they must exceed them, and to an astounding degree, to qualify as a 'superstar' by any normal definition of the word
many superstars aren't even good at doing the expected when it would be a good idea, often because of drug addictions
this happens for two reasons. one is that if you're selecting people along two axes, the more harshly you select on one axis, the less candidates remain to select along the other, unless the axes are perfectly correlated. the other is that, whether you're a candidate selecting strategies or a judge selecting candidates, two axes along which you can select are mean and variance. in any event where you take the best of multiple trials, the top performers will almost always have high variance, not just a high mean
The only difference between what you wrote and what I wrote is that you removed the first filter and critiqued my comment becuase the second filter failed.
The ability to pay attention is where the unexpected comes from in my judgement. The whole world looks at something and tunes out early because they think they understand. An individual that is truly paying attention notices all the subtleties that that can be used for a fresh solution.
My point is that an inconsistent superstar is not as good as an individual with a consistently fresh solution.
Going out one more layer I thought the topic was how to have a stable organization with consistently fresh thinking. I responded to a topic discussing how to attract superstars. I believe anyone has the capability of being a superstar in the right environment.
i mostly agree with your first filter, but your second filter excludes all superstars, turning your comment into nonsense as a whole
whether 'an inconsistent superstar is not as good as an individual with a consistently fresh solution' depends on the situation. if you're in a situation where that's true, you're not looking for superstars, and you shouldn't try to intrude your decision criteria into discussions about people who are
> I believe anyone has the capability of being a superstar in the right environment
that's, i'm sorry, just bullshit. the wrong environment can prevent you from being a superstar—imagine if madonna had been born before recorded music, or in taliban-governed afghanistan—but the reverse is obviously false. no environment could have converted me, this body, into madonna or messi or jimi hendrix or bruce lee or meryl streep or jeff dean. that's pure wishful thinking
i don't think the discussion is about how to have a stable organization of any kind. it's about how a startup can kick ass. to what extent stability promotes that is a point under debate, not a premise we have stipulated. i can tell you that there is some degree of chaos that makes kicking ass impossible, but from experience, it can be remarkably high, and stability inevitably trades off against chasing superstars. that's because superstars are unpredictable by nature—not just when they fail but also when they succeed! a new product line that obsoletes everything your startup has done so far is a lot of instability, and it's what you are hoping for if you are trying to hire superstars in a startup
ignoring that is just self-deception, and trying to impose obviously ridiculous redefinitions on the conversation in order to cover it up doesn't do the discussion any service. if you want to argue that chasing superstars is a dumb idea, which is a reasonable point of view and correct in many situations, then make that argument—don't try to redefine common terms to conceal the disagreement
Indeed, attention and listening is undervalued in the mostly male, high-on-ego dev culture.
And it's also easy to speculate in a forum about super stars and "10x coders" and what team you should have.
But in reality, you have to play with the cards you have been dealt with. You can search for better folks, but until you find them, the show must go on.
In many card games, being dealt 8 Aces means losing the game, and the same is true for startup teams with all-alpha animal "leaders" who are all super smart but cannot agree on anything.
It really is. People have a hard time balancing focusing on their deliverables vs truly paying attention (either broadly or deeply). I tend to err toward the attention side which makes me a terrible task deliverer, but I think on balance paying attention has been more valuable.
I’m starting to think paying attention to what is happening is undervalued.