| description | This page describes the architecture of my personality and how I think and behave. |
|---|
TODO: Need to organize the below into themes. The early iteration was more a list of disclosures, we are at "50%" because the aspiration is getting to an architecture to communicate the underlying thinking and behaviors.
Here’s some basic things to know about working with me:
Most things are 1 or 0 to me. Either things are correct and as they should be (a “1”), or things are wrong and need to be fixed or de-prioritized (a “0”). I don't naturally think “in between”; I agree, disagree, or need more information. My views are naturally quantized rather than interpolated. For example, I’ll perceive a skill set at “1” at a director-level and “0” at a VP-level, rather than as someone who’s “0.5”. I think of professional skills, my own included, as a sets of 1s and 0s at different levels.
What works: Clarity on definitions. Simple logic.
What doesn't work: Being vague. Being complicated.
Facts or logic can change my world view quickly. I welcome answer-first communications (what McKinsey calls “pyramid principle”) as a way to change my thinking. I am constantly poking at assumptions until they hit the bedrock of fact. I struggle with "story"-based communication that doesn't get to the point--but I'll use story when working with people who need that style. I react very badly to people who essentially say "trust me" because it signals to me they have no confidence in their plan and/or they have very weak communication skills.
What works: Facts and logic. Getting to the point.
What doesn't work: Long-winded communication style. Saying "trust me".
My energy increases when I’m communicating with other people (including on video calls, via messaging and in-person). When I am working alone for long periods of time, my energy decreases. Depending on the mix of introverts and extroverts in a conversation, I try to adjust my style to make the most of our time together.
What works: Talking through solutions
What doesn't work: Asking me to "think about it and talk later"
I think in systems. It’s hard for me to evaluate an isolated tactic without understanding the principles of the overall system. For example, I can’t understand why a feature would go into a certain product bundle unless I understand what is our overall purpose for product bundles, who are they for, what is the buyer also considering, etc. The strategy should define the tactic, don’t let the tactic define the strategy.
What works: Results. Second best is systems as a path to strong results.
What doesn't work: Discussing activities not framed in a system to drive end results
My brain is naturally intuiting and judging (versus sensing and perceiving). As I absorb information my mind is running multiple, loosely-held hypotheses in parallel and my questions may seem to jump across multiple theories as I decide whether to eliminate or further explore different hypotheses.
What works: Frameworks, then data and logic to shape the hypothesis
What doesn't work: Diving into mid-level and low-level without a framework
Here are some things to know about me in special situations:
When discussing something important, I sometimes use a tool called “precision question and answer” to understand facts through a series of specific, often close-ended questions: What is the definition of X? What was X last month versus this month? How did we measure X? How is X calculated in case B? This can feel uncomfortable for some people. Please know that I treat everyone the same with these questions. They are just a technique to make the best use of limited time.
Please be careful reading too much into my questions, especially when we're discussing high stakes, one-way decisions. As brainstorming discussions seem to converge on a path, I may start asking questions in the opposite direction to explore “what if”. I may backtrack on options people thought we eliminated. This happens because my mind is working in parallel, thinking is often not cut-off, but only de-prioritized in my mind. When a team nears a conclusion, I may revisit unlikely options so when we make a final decision to confirm our team has thought through things thoroughly.
If you're not a native English-speaker and I'm talking too fast, please signal me with a facial expression or find a way to let me know my communication isn't working. I know how you feel. In addition to English, I speak conversational Mandarin in an accent that can make me sound more fluent than I am. I struggle when a native speaker talks fast and uses advanced vocabulary.
Tell me if we’re making a two-way or one-way decision, and expect a two-way decision to be easier than a one-way. A two-way decision is easily reversible or testable, such as a quarterly sales incentive, testing a new marketing page, or spending engineering time on a prototype and it’s generally easier for me to agree. Decisions that are difficult to reverse–equity financing, open sourcing one of our few paid features, most title promotions–are one-way, and please expect to be held to a higher standard.
If you are seeking feedback from me on multiple options, please select one to be the “recommendation” and other options as “also considered”, even if you aren’t sure which is the best option. This lets me share a “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know” with you quickly and open the conversation to other options as needed. Please AVOID sending me “equal options” and hiding your opinion, as my Yes/No brain will consider the first option you present as your recommendation and if it’s not, we’ll have bad data mixed into our discussion.
When I have detailed questions or requests, people who essentially say “trust me” set off alarm bells for me because of bad experiences I’ve had in the past. My mental model is someone who has things under control is eager to openly share, dive into detail and talk about risks and key decisions in a process that is otherwise under control. When things aren’t under control, discussions avoid detail, and there’s a lack of critique and constructive discussion.
If I’m wrong, and things are headed for a good outcome, the easy way to flip me is a note like:
- “Our key risks as [X] and our mitigations are [Y], here’s a link to documentation on our process. I’ve queued a discussion for [Y] meeting, let me know if you want to meet before.”
Feedback like “I’ve done this before, don’t worry” and “that person is doing great, trust me” freaks me out.
There’s nothing wrong with occasional failures–and we actually want some failures happening all the time so we know we’re exploring, growing and pushing into the unknown. When something breaks, we need to rebuild it stronger so it won’t break the next time. This means doing root cause analysis and teaching others, and me, what went wrong and how we prevent the issue in future. When something fails the basic answer I am looking for is something like “This failed because we have Process A and on step 4 and 6 we had X go wrong. We’ve fixed the process to avoid X, and also problems Y and Z which are akin to X.”
An outstanding answer would add detail one level lower, such as
1) “The error caused an incorrect reading of 234 instead of 124, here is a spreadsheet with formulas showing the correct calculation with steps 4 and 6 highlighted in Process A”, or
2) “Here is a link to the updated documentation that should fix our process in future”.
When something has failed, please AVOID answers like “Don’t worry about it, it’s fixed now” as my Yes/No brain will assume the lack of detail, teaching and remediation signals a lack of understanding.
Don’t prioritize being liked over making the right decision. Hold the work up above all else. Great organizations will respect that. Leaders who care too much about being liked set a bad example.
If you’re taking over on an item, please BCC on the thread as you take it so I know it’s handled, or DM me. I need something in writing so I have a “stub” to use for tracking and asking questions. If you only share verbally, I need to send you an email or DM to confirm, which is extra work for everyone.
Some functions provide natural oversight to others. For example: Quality assurance provides oversight to engineering while legal and finance provide oversight to sales. When practical, avoid having the function providing oversight report into the function receiving it. Regardless of our good intentions, the reporting structure creates bias. As the saying goes: “who’s bread I eat, her song I sing”.