Tagged: Dan Hon Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Doug Belshaw 1:06 pm on January 21, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Dan Hon, software, starting   

    All of this is to say: if your focus is solely upon shipping and finishing, I think you’re missing at least half the picture. Your research will generate insights. You and your team will need to come up with hypotheses, whether you realize you’re doing that explicitly or doing it implicitly “because this is how you build software”. But there’s a creative, generative process involved, and that creative process isn’t easy and it isn’t worthless without shipping.

    For me, this has meant a very slow and gradual calibration and quite vigirously latching on to an analogy made by my partner after one after-dinner unloading of my frustrations. You can think of the generative part of work, or a generative person as flint. You can think of building on that spark as kindling and that together these are complementary skills and people. Not enough flint? Your kindling won’t get anywhere. Not enough kindling? Your flint is going to just keep generating sparks that don’t get anywhere (and, in my experience, will just get bored and go elsewhere).


    So, personal appeal: if you think of yourself as a starter and not a finisher, and you think this is a terrible thing, please consider the opposite.

    And the professional, work version? Perhaps think about how these different skills are recognized in ways that they might not currently be, and how they fit together at different times.

    Dan Hon
  • Doug Belshaw 8:45 am on January 4, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Dan Hon   

    I was negotiating with my 6 year old kid about how much screen time / television he could watch the other day and asked him how long he wanted. His answer: “The whole bar”. Because he meant the progress bar. Because that’s how we measure time now. In progress bars. He is not entirely wrong. Dan Hon
  • Doug Belshaw 12:33 pm on April 14, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Dan Hon, ,   

    My suspicion – especially if you’ve been following along – is that processes are alluring for a number of reasons. They relieve the burden of decision-making, which in general we like because thinking is hard and expends energy. They also relieve us of the burden of fault: us humans are a fickle bunch and it’s easy for something to make us feel guilty (when we haven’t lived up to our own standards), or ashamed (when we don’t live up to others’ standards) or angry (when we’re stopped from achieving an outcome that we desire). The existence of process can be an emotional shield that means that we don’t have to be responsible. In Bezos’ example above, the junior leader who defends a bad outcome with “Well, we followed the process” is also someone who is able to defend an attack on their character and also of their self worth, if their sense of self worth is weighted to include the outcome of their actions.

    dan hon, s4e12: End of Process
  • Doug Belshaw 7:22 am on February 25, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: culture change, Dan Hon, organisationa   

    Cultural change within large organisations is hard 

    CC0 Andrew Branch

    Dan Hon is [back](http://tinyletter.com/danhon/letters/s4e03-what-next)! He restarted his rambling (but super-smart) daily newsletter again this week, after some mental health issues which he’s always very upfront about.

    He’s been helping set up the Child Welfare Digital Service in California. It’s a tough project, but one that has the opportunity to have a huge positive impact on thousands of vulnerable children.

    Dan writes, however, that cultural change is hard because you’re having to criticise the current environment:

    It doesn’t matter whether the environment was willed into being in a singular act or whether it accreted over time (say, thirty years worth of reactive policy and practices building up like some sort of regulatory ring of limescale scum in a student house bathtub), all that matters is that it’s there.

    > That environment, though, effectively implicates everyone who has a stake in that environment.

    And there it is. So, you’d think, perhaps it’s better to create an ‘innovation unit’?

    > Put it this way: you land on a planet that has hardly any free energy so the only type of life that can survive there is slow and large. The approach that I’m using right now is essentially nuking it so that quick, fast life can thrive, but it’s a bit of a blunt instrument because you end up *nuking the entire planet*. Where a planet is a department or an agency, of course. 

    > There is no “lab” here. And the struggle I’m dealing with is: how well do you want to solve this problem? Do you want to solve it properly, for ever? Does that inevitably, inexorably mean changing the entire organizational structure, and is the best way to do that top-down? Or, can you do it bottom-up? Can you start a couple cells and have them do a sort of reverse-takeover?

    > This is why I think innovation labs don’t work: they silo off the danger to the organization and they let all the different stuff happen elsewhere where they can’t affect the environment of the host organism. It’s as if you were able to deal with cancer by saying: okay cancer, come right in, you can have just my left foot, but I’m going to make sure you can’t get to the rest of my body. 

    > In my naive understanding, when cancer wins, the host organism dies. You don’t just get big undifferentiated blobs of cancer or innovation. They don’t take over the organism in a useful parasitic way. 

    > This isn’t to say that you can’t get good results by, say, embedding a small multi-disciplinary team inside a department and empowering them to get stuff done. But my worry is: so what? So they get some stuff done. Do you win the war? How do you get from that one small team and change the way *the entire department* works? 

    > I’m more or less sure that at this stage of my so-called career, I haven’t seen any successful examples of cell or bottom-up based organizational change. They only ever come from the top. You can win small battles, but I worry about longevity. 

    > What this says about government in the large doesn’t inspire me with confidence. At least, not in my lifetime.

    > On the contra, for what it’s worth, here’s an opportunity. Any time anyone’s going to upgrade or replace a legacy system and they’ve got money to do it (and in most government cases, it’s stupid money), the legacy system replacement is the best excuse you’ve got to do org and culture change.

    In other words, what passes for true cultural change depends on what kind of organisation you’re dealing with. For some places, like government and university departments, the rate of change might be glacial.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc