A Practical Example of Measuring Your Effect

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.

A Way To Measure Your Effect On Society

Hypothesis: The most effective way for a person or group to effect positive change is to maximize skill, effort, and direction.

Skill : a combination of knowledge and natural ability. It can be increased through learning.

Effort : time spent working. It is bounded by the time of the day and the length of a lifetime.

Direction: how efficient your actions are in attaining your goal. In a large sense, direction is based on WHAT you decide to work on. In a small sense, direction is HOW you decide to work on it.

The best way to get something accomplished is to maximize Skill and Effort.

To make sure that what you are accomplishing is exacting positive change, you need direction.

Getting the most out of Skill * Work * Direction is a quick and effective means of measuring your effect. (I'm hypothesizing)

Here's a couple of examples:

A mediocre MRI technician, working part time at hospital.
5 skill * 5 work * 8 direction = 200 overall effect

A highly skilled programmer, working 70 hours a week on a start-up company that fails before it ever ships a product.
10 skill * 10 work * 0 direction = 0 overall effect.

A mastermind crime boss who steals from and kills the innocent:
10 skill * 10 work * (-10) direction = -1000 overall effect.

Of course, if the guy at the start-up succeeded and it became the next Google (direction 8, perhaps?), he'd have a score of 800, and would be blowing away the MRI guy in net effect.

What's your score?