Latest Commonplace piece is about the difference between exec development and training individual contributors.
Conversation
This is one of those essays where I'm not 100% sure of the conclusions — I'll have to put it to practice before I can say for certain.
But there *does* seem to be a tension between 'handholding' ICs, and 'throwing execs into the deep end', and it seems productive to investigate.
1
1
One thing that I'm actively chewing over: perhaps 'throwing people into the deep end' is simply a pedagogical thing, but for high potential hires.
4
3
Replying to
One thing worth thinking about here might be the two error rates. Who could have done the job and drops out? Who "passes" the training but is a bad fit? Throwing in at the deep end has a low rate of the latter but a high rate for the former. Supportive training the opposite
1
3
This might be the right trade offs for execs vs ICs. The wrong exec can do a lot of damage, and is a huge opportunity cost. The wrong IC matters less, so it's worth giving them more of a chance
1
2
Replying to
I think what's so bizarre about Diller's approach is that it goes against all the usual common sense things I know about management. Throwing execs into the deep end imply acceptance of things going wrong. It also implies ability to fire fast. Easy to say, hard to do.
But Diller has created so many CEO/execs/business leaders over his career that it's probably worth paying attention to him — especially the bits that go against 'common sense things I know about management'.
1
1
Replying to
I do still think the trick is the error rate tradeoff. Throw enough numbers at a process that produces a small % of amazing people and lots of failures and what you see is a process that produces lots of amazing people
1
2
Show replies
Replying to
I imagine the sort of person who likes throwing people in at the deep end doesn't find it hard to fire fast! Agreed about things going wrong though. Maybe there's something about a short and intense failure being better than a protracted one?
1