> 1. You want to find people with mastery, true depth.
> 2. The problem is, that isn’t enough. You need people who had failed and recovered. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.
> 3. Breadth, meaning curiosity about things beyond what you’re deep in.
> 4. Collaboration. Not a synonym for cooperation, but the ability to magnify others.
As a separate aside, I didn’t realize Apple invested that much in training.
The problems is #4. 1,2,3 are 'easy' given time and someone who's dedicated and actually LOVES that job.
#4 requites two (at least). In my 35y career I can count on the fingers of one hands the time where I really, REALLY "clicked" with someone and we both ran away with it. Needless to say, in all the cases, we still are on each other xmas card list, regardless of time/space.
But that's the scary bit, to really, REALLY "collaborate" you need someone who's already pretty much 'there' on the 1,2,3 listed there, and the chance of meeting someone like that is low. I don't say it's 'rare', I say it's 'low' and if you factor other things like personality, lifestyle and so on, it makes it actually 'rare'...
I treasure the people I can collaborate with, because it's magic. It's like, as a musician, when you jam and the band just 'gels' and stuff starts happening, it gives you a little shiver in the spine area that is unique.
But hell, it's rare.
In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later.
</personal-emotional-burst>
What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team.
I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.
That makes me extremely uncomfortable because I feel like in my career I've been a master in the reverse order, 4-1.
This could explain the unusual paths that I've taken, but I still feel like I'm a long way from reaching my full potential while still in my mid-30s.
Having kids helps underscore this. Let your kids fall. Just don't take them to the Grand canyon right away.
In my experience, the right leadership, converging on the right vision makes it happen. But you absolutely need the shared vision.
I have been incredibly fortunate in my career to have either been a part of, or leading groups that truly jelled. In every case, it doesn’t last forever, But while it lasts it is incredible.
For those that never experienced it, there are two parts to achieve it: 1. Find people who put the “mission” first. The only way true collaboration happens is when the people collaborating stop thinking about “what is in it for them” 2. Find something “worthy” of you to work on. It can be as grandiose as the company mission, or it can be as pedestrian as improving your tiny bit of the world. But whatever it is, it has to resonate with you at a deep emotional level.
What I have found is that #4 of the article is almost a natural outcome of you can manage my two items (Assuming the team has 1-3).
But yes, it is not something that “just happens”.
I can say this in all fairness as somebody who writes in that language fulltime for more than a decade.
since choosing such a language requires extra learning, that pretty much leaves all "want it easy right now" people behind.
Why? I don't see the correlation between the technology and the rampant immaturity or unrealistic expectations of people developing in it. I have also experienced this immature temperance from people with a long history of developing in other languages coming into JavaScript and deliberately sacrificing common sense for insecurity resolution, which suggests the immaturity isn't simply due to a low barrier of entry.
I suspect they are seen together when people make work their complete social circle so their emotional needs are not met unless collegues fill them too.
it doesn't take more than one thing of common interest to become friends (and that trust and support)
sometimes that common thing is a hobby, a lifestyle or a worldview. but sometimes it is work.
having friends at work doesn't mean that i hang out with those friends in my free time.
we have multiple social circles. at work, family, different groups of friends (eg different hobbies, each is another social circle), and in each of those circles we may have friends. some closer than others.
It was funny at the time, because other people in the office thought we hated each other in both cases. The arguments that came out from the whiteboard were known around the company, yet we hung out every weekend and knew almost everything about each other. The 'arguments' were really just us hashing out ideas and trying to find the best solution. Last I heard, some of the software we developed then is still in use today. For me at least, that feels like a success that we made some decent architectural decisions given the constraints at the time.
Luckily, one of the times for me the other person was 10 years older. He was able to give me perspective that the team dynamics we had were very rare and to cherish them. I knew he was right, but didn't expect them to be as rare as it turned out.
I just wanted to mention #4 is exactly what makes Apple Apple. Or the old Apple. Steve made it so a group of people working together could have the results more than hundreds working in other company combined. Apple did it in a era when they had much lower resources compared to all of its competitor. The collaboration was real, or as Steve would put it, hey balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts.
Today Apple seems more like cooperation under Tim Cook. They have 100x more resources, but bend gate on iPad Pro, XS Modem reception, MacBook Staingate, lots of horrid logic board design choices. Keyboard. The list goes on and on.
Otherwise, it's just crazy risky to put failures on your resume kind of thing.
Corporations are full of people competing on a political level, failure is just a stain, so risk taking is minimal. In a regular corporation you could get looked at very oddly for suggesting anything outside of normative.
In business politics, perception is the only thing that matters, so it's really hard to spin failure as success.
That is not more confidence. And likely, she does not want "difficult environment" job either - could have stayed for that. What you learn in such environment is to spot red flags sooner.
Such positions are not rewarded, she did not enjoyed that, she will likely seek different position next.
Hire smart people with a spark. Give clear directions without micromanaging. Make sure people are getting enough sleep to think clearly, and enough time to do upfront planning so they don't write those bugs they would get demoralized on in the first place. Be an inspiration to others, then hand them the reins and let them inspire everyone else.
What you what is someone with a strong knowledge of fundamentals, everything else follows from that.
Not too far away from your advice regarding fundamentals.
Though that literally seems to be the point of the article...