10,000 Hours with Reid Hoffman: What I Learned | Hacker News Reader

10,000 Hours with Reid Hoffman: What I Learned

casnocha.com

153 pointszt18 comments

I've found that observing highly successful people after they are already successful is not terribly useful. They do alot of the same, logical stuff that most reasonably intelligent people would do to advance their own goals. The difference is in how the world responds to their actions because of what they have already achieved. There are few people on this planet that won't give serious consideration to virtually any proposal by someone like Reid Hoffman - whereas the exact opposite is true for most everyone else.

> observing highly successful people after they are already successful is not terribly useful

Plus, successful people themselves start looking for the "why" only after the fact - and most often don't realize to what degree most of it was about being at the right place at the right time, not really about their "super power".

But I get it, this is how you sell books, for whatever they're worth.

In other words:

Ever met someone who wrote a book "These are my super powers that will make me rich in a couple of years - Just watch me"? No, you haven't - because nobody can tell in advance, even if they know exactly all they're strengths.

I'm writing a book like that. Well, it's been on hiatus for about a year, but I am technically still writing it. Just that most activity happens on the mailing list.

Yes; it's called thier blog :)

Actually, I wrote that to Mike Arrington several years ago.

Hehe

Anyway people who are kicking ass are too busy doing it to write a book on how they are doing it. And anyway few would read their book unless they succeeded. So they write it later and with help.

The closest I can think of is Rework by 37signals.

>>observing highly successful people after they are already successful is not terribly useful.

Its called Survival Bias!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Sometimes this is true. But lessons tend to be more memorable -- and thus more likely for us to internalize them -- when conveyed through an already-happened story that's remarkable.

My biggest takeaway from an amazing post:

> When there’s a complex list of pros and cons driving a potentially expensive action, Reid seeks a single decisive reason to go for it—not a blended reason. For example, we were once discussing whether it’d make sense for him to travel to China. There was the LinkedIn expansion activity in China; some fun intellectual events happening; the launch of The Start-Up of You in Chinese. A variety of possible good reasons to go, but none justified a trip in and of itself. He said, “There needs to be one decisive reason. And then the worthiness of the trip needs to be measured against that one reason. If I go, then we can backfill into the schedule all the other secondary activities. But if I go for a blended reason, I’ll almost surely come back and feel like it was a waste a time.”

That seems like a good way of limiting yourself from discovering potentially new and surprising things. I get the need to protect your time, but not at the total expense of randomness.

My takeaway wasn't literally the "time" consideration but the "one decisive reason" part. I believe that could extend into other types of decision-making like building products where there should be an overwhelmingly strong reason to do something vs 10 small reasons where you're just trying to convince yourself of something.

Somewhat off-topic, but why are we lionizing Reid Hoffman? It's well-documented that LinkedIn uses extremely shady growth hacking tactics. One of my friends granted LinkedIn access to her Gmail contact list, and LinkedIn proceeded to spam every single contact with an invitation to connect.

[0] http://marknugent.tumblr.com/post/98203319356/linkedins-evil... [1] https://gigaom.com/2013/09/21/linkedin-is-breaking-into-user...

Exactly my thoughts. I didn't finish the whole article but I felt that it was raising Hoffman too much. Could not continue.

But the truth is, what Gates craves, and what you might have, is information. A unique perspective. An insight on something that’s happening in your corner of the universe. He can’t buy that off a shelf. If you can connect information you know to something Gates needs—suppose your 10 year-old cousin is obsessed with a new app that may reveal a new trend in computing—he’ll find it valuable, and you’re more likely to be able to build a relationship with him.

This is a very powerful point and I think one that most people, myself included, never really think of.

"He is among the most selfless and externally-generous people I’ve met in my life."

His company has a complete opposite reputation: Pushy, spammy and invasive.

It's quite difficult to transition an organization to identifying and coupling upside-downside relationships, but it's worthwhile.

I like the values model in Patrick Lencioni's The Advantage and think the upside-downside model could be effectively combined with them. http://thesummitblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-you-hope-to-b...

On a lighter note:

Many of the super successful class think they are “over it” in terms of receiving praise and awards. Reid explained that Paul, now a legend in the industry, has this self-conception. Compliments do nothing for him anymore, Paul says; he’s heard enough nice things in his life about his intelligence. Begin to flatter him and he’ll say, “Oh stop, you don’t need to say those nice things about me. Come on–we’re peers!” Actually, Paul is deceiving himself. Paul expects people to kiss his ring. Paul expects some amount of deference or due recognition of his superior status before he’s ready to partner with a lower status professional.

Surely this is about Peter Thiel. :)

I don't know much about Hoffman or the author, but the piece was pretty interesting. I really liked the advice about having a single main reason to do things, if you're listing a bunch as a reason, then its not enough to do something.

This is great: "If you’re a manager and care seriously about speed, you’ll need to tell your people you’re wiling to accept the tradeoffs. Reid did this with me. We agreed I was going to make judgment calls on a range of issues on his behalf without checking with him. He told me, “In order to move fast, I expect you’ll make some foot faults. I’m okay with an error rate of 10-20% — times when I would have made a different decision in a given situation – if it means you can move fast.” I felt empowered to make decisions with this ratio in mind—and it was incredibly liberating.""

> 2. The best way to get a powerful person’s attention: offer to help them.

This is entirely consistent with what Sheryl Sandberg said at HBS's commencement in 2012. [1]

"When I was first at Facebook, a woman named Lori Goler, a 1997 graduate of HBS, was working in marketing at eBay and I knew her kind of socially. And she called me and said, I want to talk with you about coming to work with you at Facebook. So I thought about calling you, she said, and telling you all the things I’m good at and all the things I like to do. But I figured that everyone is doing that. So instead I want to know what’s your biggest problem and how can I solve it. My jaw hit the floor. I’d hired thousands of people up to that point in my career, but no one had ever said anything like that. I had never said anything like that. Job searches are always about the job searcher, but not in Laurie’s case. I said, you’re hired. My biggest problem is recruiting and you can solve it."

> "At PayPal, one cultural trait was: “Let the best idea win.” No answer or idea at PayPal would be taken at face value. Instead, the idea’s proprietor had to argue vigorously and withstand critiques from colleagues. The upside: analytical rigor tends to produce better ideas than “this is the way it’s always been done” or “the CEO said so.” The downside: a confrontational interpersonal culture can stress relationships at work and undermine possible collaboration. Moreover, this cultural undercurrent was effectively “anti-experience”: it was a harder place for experienced people to operate because they had to re-prove themselves.""

This reminds me of Julie Zhuo's writing about design being intentional and purposeful. [2]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-spe...

[2] https://medium.com/the-year-of-the-looking-glass/build-a-tru...

>> [PayPal] was a harder place for experienced people to operate because they had to re-prove themselves

Can confirm (PayPal employee here). That being said, the "senior" people that can't re-prove (or prove, for that matter) themselves aren't let go; they just end up working on projects similar to what the recent college grads take up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com