johnmaconline

Do they becken you or do they torture you?

It might be a physical piece of paper or the just-opened “Document1” file in Word. Maybe it’s the “untitled” project in GarageBand or the squarish vehicle that’s been sitting under a tarp in your backyard for 20 years. It could be the empty space or the old, worn-out couch in the corner of your basement. It may be the “Live Video” button on the “Create post” screen. It might be the scraggy patch of grass and weeds between the patio and the garage.

Whatever your blank page and whether it’s beckoning or torturing you, it’s time to start. Add one line, or one beat. Remove the cover. Charge up the drill and uncover the saw. Grab your shovel and tiller.

We don’t leave blank pages around for nothing.

Principles.

Everyone says they have them. Some like to shout about why theirs are the right ones, while others argue with only themselves.

But watch what they do.

I’ve spent a career making things for other people to use. The biggest takeaway I have is that people generally do the easy thing. Because we can’t always do the hard thing. Sometimes we need to just do the easy thing. Even if it goes against our principles.

So, if you’re a maker, a builder, or a creator of useful things, make the right thing to do the easy thing to do.

Adding manpower to a late (software) project makes it later.

As people get promoted into increasingly higher positions within an organization, they start to lose their minds. Like they’ve never been the person in the trenches and have never experienced or understood the issues at that ground level. For example, throwing more people at the problem.

If two are good, eight are better. The Costco principle. 

But if you’re doing the work, you know two things:

1. If you’re already late, adding more responsibilities to your plate, such as bringing people up to speed, communicating with more people, and herding more cats, slows you down. 
2. You can’t make a baby in one month with nine women. Some things take the time they take based on physics, biology, God, or whatever. 

Every team project has an academically correct amount of people performing the correct roles and tasks. Each person working at capacity and contributing exactly what is needed from them. 

No team project in history has ever experienced this.

However, good leadership can approach it. Good leaders can assess the state of the crew, fix priorities, and help grease the skids. Good leaders are in tune with the work to be done and the team itself. Then, they can figure out if and where to add manpower.

Thwarting Brooke’s Law takes awareness, communication between leadership and the team, and the willingness to admit that maybe it’s gonna take what it’s gonna take. 

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

“Murphy’s Law” originated in the late 1940s at Edwards Air Force Base. Edward A. Murphy, Jr. was an engineer working on an experiment designed to determine how much sudden deceleration a person could withstand in a crash. Murphy had a problem. Specifically, he had a team competence problem. A technician had wired the experiment incorrectly, consequently leading to a failure to obtain the crucial data during the test. Exasperated, he exclaimed something close to the law we now know and use frequently.

Then it got legs because it resonates with all of us. You already know this one. You’ve seen it in your life and probably cited it, usually in a moment of frustration or a pessimistic prediction of the future.

However, what if, at its core, it’s really a call to optimism?

Murphy’s Law encourages us to plan ahead, be resilient and flexible, understand risks, and innovate on solutions. It serves as a reminder not just of the inevitability of problems, but of our capacity to anticipate, adapt to, and overcome them.

Murphy’s Law is your friend.

The cognitive limit to the number of stable social relationships that one can maintain is around 150. 

Kevin Kelly wrote a famous blog post about “1000 True Fans.” If you’re someone who makes things, or making things happen, you should read this.

He argues that if you can cultivate 1000 true fans of whatever it is you’re making or doing, you have a sustainable business. You can bypass the traditional channels that require someone or some group to select you for success, such as record labels, book publishers, media publishers, HR departments in corporations, etc. 

But what about the subgroup of 150 people inside that group of 1000 true fans? Your inner circle. 

What if every day you woke up and nurtured a true and meaningful relationship with one or a few of those 150 people. Not 150 every day. Just a few. Over the course of the year, you’ve touched them all. 

Now, what if each person on this planet did the same.

What kind of a world would we live in if each and every one of us cared about, nurtured, and built a relationship with our 150?

The attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse through unintended consequences. 

Economic theory states that you usually get what you incentivize properly. This one is closely related to Goodhart’s Law. 

Colonial India had a live cobra problem. So, the government offered a reward for every dead cobra. This worked. Eventually, there are very few live cobras. 

But now, the people making money from the incentive had a dead cobra problem. So, the people started breeding cobras just to kill them. This worked.

But then the government caught wind of the scam and eliminated the reward. So, the breeders just released all the captive snakes back into the wild.

And once again, colonial India had a live cobra problem.

Removing older, more polluting vehicles from the road can increase overall emissions due to the environmental cost of manufacturing new vehicles.

Using antibiotics to promote livestock growth can lead to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Pay-as-you-throw schemes to encourage recycling and reduce waste can increase illegal dumping.

Traffic congestion taxes to reduce center city traffic can lead to grid-lock in neighborhoods just outside the fee zone.

Solutions to multi-variable and complex problems require rigorous analysis, experimentation, and assessment of consequences and reactions to incentive schemes. Reassessment of data. Adjustments over time. Willingness to change directions. Admission of false starts. Unbiased rethinking. Empathy and kindness. Forgiveness. 

What doesn’t work is soundbite-worthy, toggle-switch, single-variable, fist-pumping slogans. 

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.

One of my friends and I have a funny little tension around the scheduling of software development work. We call it the 3X fudge factor. I look at the work he’s to do and I come up with my estimate of how long it should take him. I tell him, and then he immediately multiplies by three. If I say it should take a week, he says it’ll be three weeks.

It works in reverse also. If he gives me an estimate of three days, I immediately translate that as one day.

Who’s right? Well, we both are. Kind of.

I’m right if he’s totally focused, nobody gets in his way, and nothing goes wrong—the best-case scenario. But when does that happen? Never. So, his 3X estimate usually turns out to be closer to right and sometimes even aggressive, as the second clause of Hofstadter’s Law kicks in.

But you gotta know the best-case scenario to know how much Hofstadter’s Law will effect the final outcome. The longer the best-case, the more effect. Plus, if we need him to get it done ASAP, I can use my position to create the best possible environment by reassigning responsibilities, swatting flies, and giving him every possibility to remain focused.

One of the key leadership attributes is knowing how and when to apply Hofstadter’s Law.

Adding extra capacity sometimes leads to worse overall performance.

“More is better.”
“If I just had more money.”
“That’s easy for you, you have more money/time/land/etc.”

We often conflate abundance with advantage. It can be. But it isn’t automatically.

a) Don’t let them tell you why you can’t, what you can’t, or how amazing you can’t be with what you have.
b) Don’t tell yourself why you can’t, what you can’t, or how amazing you can’t be with what you have.

Last weekend, I drove to NYC to deposit my oldest son and his girlfriend back in Brooklyn after they had spent a nice weekend with us. Up and back through three of the five boroughs: Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. I’ve driven through NYC dozens, maybe 100’s of times, and even before they lived there, I was already a hardened veteran of NYC driving. As soon as I cross the Goethals Bridge or emerge from the Holland Tunnel into the canyons of lower Manhattan, I’m in NYC driver mode. Like flicking a switch.

I’m a freakin pro. And truth be told, I love it.

U-turn in the middle of the street? Yup. Turn left from the right lane? Of course. Just stop in the middle and double park? You betcha.

I’ve not (yet) had an accident, and I know why. Because when I’m driving around there, I expect any and all things all the time. Just as I don’t think twice about disregarding all traffic decorum, I expect all of those around me to do the same.

Of course you can cut me off. Oh, you want to stick your bumper into the 8-inch space separating me and the guy in front of me? Sure, go ahead. Going around me on the sidewalk to the right? Be my guest.

It’s all good because none of it is astonishing to me in this context. I expect it, I’m ready for it, I adjust, and it’s no big deal. And yeah, I do it also.

But what happens on the roads in the small rural community in eastern Pennsylvania in which I live? Nothing like that. It’s all slower, orderly, and calm. I don’t expect any of that.

But then someone gets cut off, and what happens? Boom. Accident. Or, at the very least, “You idiot! Where’d you learn to drive!” It might bother me for the rest of the day.

This is the Principle of Least Astonishment — minimizing confusion and unexpected behaviors while maximizing intuitive understanding.

We in the software development world use the Priniciple of Least Astonishment (also called the Law of Least Surprise) all the time.

If we’re doing our job and using this principle, you (the user) can figure out how to do things on your phone or computer that nobody has taught you explicitly. For example, nobody taught you how to find the settings on your phone. You know they’re in the “Settings” app. We use this principle under the covers as well, even in the nitty-gritty interworkings of the technology. We argue vehemently about how this API should work or what should data it requires.

Least astonishment changes with the intuition of the culture and its people. Which means it changes over time and with context. If you handed an iPhone to George Washington, he wouldn’t be able to find the settings, nor even understand how to turn it on because he doesn’t have any context or intuitive build-up for the technology.

He would be very astonished.

Next time you’re organizing your closet, developing a set of guidelines for your Church committee, or driving around your town, make sure you’re applying the Principle of Least Astonishment. It will serve you well.

Work expands to fill the time available for completion.

I hate meetings at work. And you do, too. I know you do. 

Long ago, bleary-eyed in the middle of the night, I learned a couple of valuable lessons about meetings. The first is we have way too many. Therefore, the first step in taking back ownership of your time is to decline useless meetings. But the second was just as important — meetings will last as long as the calendar says they will.

If you invite people to a one-hour meeting, someone, or sometimes several someones, will yammer on for 60 minutes until the bell dings. Then, the herd will just move on to the next meeting, where someone else will yammer on for the full 60 minutes.

It’s stupid. It’s a productivity killer (personally and organizationally). It sucks your energy and willingness to live. 

But it’s also not really someone’s fault. It’s just a trait of human beings. It’s kinda just in us. Hence, the naming of the phenomena. 

So how do you combat it? By also applying a little human psychology of your own.

1. Change your default meeting time to 15 minutes. Only selectively and intentionally schedule a discussion for longer than 15 minutes. 
2. Why have a meeting if you can work it out with a few exchanges on Slack? Do it.
3. Announce that you have hard stop at 15/30/60 minutes. Then leave/drop at that time. 

You can do this. Break the grip of Parkinson’s Law.