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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good generalization, but in the case of the failed start-up, did the guy not at least have an effect on his coworkers? In that case, perhaps there's a differentiation between immediate impact on the world at large and secondary impact on the world via person-to-person influence.
Also, who decides what the value of direction is? Someone working at a hospital would always be considered higher on the directionary food chain than someone working for a corporation, no?
Still, good food for thought...
Post a Comment