Discussion about this post

User's avatar
brendan_r's avatar

But these results aren't fine grained at all compared to reality! And they're also trivial.

Just this past week on a flag football team I run I had to figure out how to cope with certain new fairly talented players who are bad for chemistry because they're, a) not smart, b) arrogant, and c) always trying to switch our defensive schemes mid-game, sometimes with out consulting anybody else! (Anarchy is always a problem in these sorts of leagues because there is no official coach figure.)

You don't need to consult the literature to know that, in this context, a) you've gotta find a way prevent dumb ideas from influencing the team, and b) gladhanding the morons works better than demeaning them. (But they still are morons, and I wonder whether you're compartmentalizing your preference for decision-egalitarianism; you really think you'd maintain that attitude if forced to work frequently w/ common people?)

But there are an infinite variety of real world contexts, and what works will vary between them in far more ways than any study can capture.

I see zero evidence that having an extensive knowledge of any literature has anything to do w/ managing groups well. Rather it is some combo of IQ, charisma, objectivity, and gobs of real world experience.

That's because we've got good native mental modules for doing these sorts of things. And their existence makes it much less likely an academic can spread delusions here than in something like macroeconomics, which Keynes refers to.

Expand full comment
Ronfar's avatar

Putt's Laws Of Advice:

First Law of Advice: The correct advice to give is the advice that is desired.

Second Law: The desired advice is revealed by the structure of the hierarchy, not by the structure of technology

http://www.toppindavis.com/...

Expand full comment
6 more comments...