In my last article, I brushed the surface on my theory of lifetime productivity.
After reading the past article, it seems as though the conclusion is that to do the best, one should evenly excel in all three categories. However, I would contend that the better strategy is to make sure one is always trying to improve all three categories.
So, here’s an example of how growing can beat out a long-term even approach:
Jimmy Plunko is a software developer. He’s bright, but pretty new at the profession, so we’ll call him a 5 in skill. He works at a big company building up a vanilla, but successful business application. He likes his job, but he’s not passionate about it. Work ethic 5, and direction 5.
He gets a call one day from a friend. His friend has an opening at a new company working on a software application for 3-d rendering new Frisbees designs. Plunko is a former UlimateFrisbee champion, and knows he’d be passionate about working on frisbees. But the frisbee industry is tough, and most companies fail. If he went there, he’d be working with some other talented and passionate people, because the risk involved in trying to break into the frisbee industry up is going to attract only the people that really love frisbees too. We’ll call the new opportunity work ethic 8, direction 2. 2 is a stretch. I mean, come on - its frisbees.
So, Plunko, thinks about the potential scores here:
Where he's at now: 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 (skill * work * direction)
At the Frisbees: 5 * 8 * 2 = 80
According to this, Plunko should stay where he’s at.
But, if Plunko works at the Frisbee company for a while, he’s going to learn some new tricks that he’d never learn at his big company, because there are just some problems you only have to solve when you’re building frisbee software. But knowing how to solve them will make him a little more skilled at solving all other problems. So, after a year because of the new problems he’ll have to solve, his skill will turn into a 7.
7 * 8 * 2 = 112
Plunko’s skill level isn’t going to rise as fast building up the business application. After a year, his skill will rise to 6, but his work ethic will drop to 4, because he finds the work boring and wishes he was working on frisbees instead.
6 * 4 * 5 = 120
If the frisbee company succeeds, the usefulness of his work goes from very low, to something good. If they become the #1 force in frisbee research, suddenly the direction of the company becomes 5. (Hey, we’re still talking frisbees here, not exactly life changing stuff).
Now his score becomes:
7 * 8 * 5 = 280
That’s way better than the 120 he’d be at working at the job he has now on the business application.
But of course, most Frisbee companies don’t make it. So we’ll say the company’s got a 20% chance of making it.
Even still, if the company goes belly up, he’ll be working now at a skill level of 7. And because he has a skill level of 7 now, maybe he works at another vanilla company in a position where he’s making more engaging decisions, and his work ethic is a 6.
So, two years later, if the Frisbee company fails, and he goes back to working on some other business application, he’s still much stronger than before at this score:
7*6*5 = 210
Just to sprinkle a little bit of expected value on this:
The 280 score is probably only 20% likely.
The 210 score is probably 80% likely.
So, the theoretical expected score is 280 * .2 + 210 * .8 or:
224.
So, the options are this:
Where he's at:
Score 125 for the next year, and 120 for the next 2 years:
With the frisbees:
Score 80 for 1 year, 112 for a year, and 224 the 3rd year.
That’s:
365 for staying put over the next 3 years.
416 for going after the Frisbee opportunity.
More importantly, no matter what, he’ll be in a better position to get more points down the line if he switches companies now, because his Skill level and Work ethic will be better after 3 years. And he won't second guess himself for never following his passion.
What this example illustrates is that putting yourself in a position to improve yourself can be a much better decision in the long run. I think the point was:
Concentrate more on building your long term prospects rather than creating something average now.
And:
If your potential is high, your output will naturally be high too.
Or maybe just:
Its good to work on what you're passionate about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Umm... did you just turn my life into D&D? Do I need to roll a d20 or something?
Very interesting concept. I like it. The takeaway I get is the three factors themselves need to be maximized, while also maximizing their rate of change. Any risks that impact either the factor itself or the future rate of change should be assessed. Based on that, perhaps Jimmy Plunko should seek an entry-level position at the most prominant frisbee company in the world. This allows him to start at his current skill level, while maximizing his effort and his direction. The expected rate of change for the factors in that situation would be pretty nice. His skill level would surely increase as he spent time at the well-established company just based on the experience that is sure to surround him. I guess his effort may or may not change, but he would surely be excited to be working on frisbees. Lastly, his direction has very low risk of a negative rate of change since the company is stable, well-established, and is the most prominant frisbee company in the world.
good point beelzy. I should have mentioned Rate of change as the thing to be maximized, rather than current value.
if you're a drag racer, you don't care about speed, you care about acceleration.
and i like your alternate suggestion for Plunko.
the values are very subjective, and what will motivate one person may not motivate another. so your Jimmy Plunko might be far more happy and productive at the established frisbee company. another guy's Plunko might enjoy working at his current company after all.
the point is to make people think about these things when making a big decision moreso than the actual value of the numbers.
Another commonality to be drawn from all of this: stasis is always a negative. If your motivation doesn't continually increase, it's unlikely your skill level or importance of direction will increase either.
This goes back to the theory that we should all be in perpetual motion, soaking up as much information and experience as possible. If the most frightening thing in the world, which prevents most people from living spectacular lives, is fear of the unknown, how much better would everyone's life be if their individual (and therefore collective) basis of "the unknown" was continually shrinking?
This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom my grandmother handed down, which was, "Keep your mouth shut and your nose clean."
Post a Comment