I heard this on Lex Fridman's podcast with Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott on "storytelling"
Lex Fridman: Microsoft has 50-60 thousand engineers. What does it take to lead such a large group of brilliant people?
Kevin Scott: ...(snipped)... One central idea in Yuval Harari’s book Sapiens is that “storytelling” is the quintessential thing for coordinating the activities of large groups of people once you get past Dunbar’s number. I’ve really seen that, just managing engineering teams. You can brute-force things with small teams, but past that things start to fail catastrophically if you don’t have some set of shared goals. Even though this is sort of touchy feely, and technical people balk at the idea that you need to have a clear mission, it’s very important.
Lex Fridman: Stories are sort of the fabric that connects all of us, and that works for companies too.
Kevin Scott: It works for everything. If you sort of think about it, our currency is a story. Our constitution is a story. Our laws are a story. We believe very strongly in them, and thank God we do, but they’re just abstract things, they’re just words. If we don’t believe in them, they’re nothing.
Lex Fridman: In some sense, those stories are platforms.
I’m a part of a very quickly growing startup, and I’ve realized the power of narrative/storytelling big time in the last few months. It just doesn’t scale to tell everyone what to do, you have to get them all bought in on the Why via a compelling story and allow them to drive towards that through their own ideas.
Devil's advocate: story telling doesn't give people self direction. A lot of people need to be told what to do. HN isn't a great audience for this because there's a lot of entrepreneurs and doers here. Not everyone knows how to properly prioritize tasks or even how to come up with their own task list.
Strongly agree. For many people, it's just a job. Clear direction is a must. However it need not exclude narrative story telling. A leader needs to adapt their style of leadership to the people they lead and the situation they are in.
So then you need more layers of management. It is impossible for a CEO to tell everybody what to do. If the line engineers can't prioritize themselves then there needs to be layers of management who interpret the vision and convert it into priorities.
No one said it does. But if you tell someone "fix whatever is causing the disks on this machine to fill up" they're going to be more motivated to do so, and more able to make the best decisions about how to do so, if they know what the purpose, or "story," is, that they're a part of.
It's just like if you told someone to play the part of a random extra in a convenience store in a movie, they will do a better job if they know what the movie is about. Even the way you play an extra is different in a slapstick comedy vs. a movie about blood diamonds, for example.
That's why you still have a traditional management organization. Moreover, you avoid putting those people to whom you refer into decision-making roles. Strong narratives and storytelling help to guide those who are in decision-making roles so that they are aligned with you.
Very true. I built a business as a sole founder five years ago, and to this date, coming up with task lists and what to do next is the largest hurdle I face, almost daily.
A lot of projects to work on, a lot of things —create new stuff, do recurring tasks— to complete, but deciding what to do now, and what to do when, is incredibly difficult when you're on your own.
I have a few freelancers and an assistant and even deciding of their tasks is a little improvised.
"Why is it every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?" - Henry Ford
"Hon Hai (parent of Foxconn) has a workforce of over one million worldwide and as human beings are also animals, to manage one million animals gives me a headache" - Terry Gou
You're correct. You can't tell everyone what to do. Therefore you delegate and add middle management and have overarching goals.
Telling a narrative that everyone can interpret willy nilly and pick and choose the bits they like is basically "hoping" things go as you imagined them.
You need hope, but you also just need to check and follow up.
Different types of stories work with different people though.
Some perhaps joined for the mission. They want to continue believing in it. Some perhaps joined for business success, so they need to hear a different story, or the same story told through a different lens that relates to their goals.
I actually find this practice really annoying. If I'm on contract cutting together some hack's godawful kung fu action film, the last thing I want to hear is the fiction he tells himself to get to sleep every night. Narrative is what we give to the public when we want to trick them into thinking that buying low-quality shoes will end world poverty. It has no place inside the company. Maybe it's helpful for customers to believe in the fantasy version of your company, but inside, you want people who know what is really going on, and are willing to participate without the use of such tricks.
"Here at CinemaX we believe in our people, clarity of message to our stakeholders, employees as well as our customers. That's why we practice radical information theory - we let our employees know what's really going on to embolden maximum participation from our team members, or as we call them, CEOs. Other companies are built on fantasy - that has no place here."
Anything can be turned into a narrative, even your anti-narrative narrative.
Narratives are things that fill in the holes between the facts. You can't make sense of the world without them. We also call them "models" sometimes. Whenever there's ambiguity or not enough evidence, or uncertainty about how something might play out, it's a narrative (informed by the facts, but not a fact itself) that tells you how to proceed.
> If I'm on contract cutting together some hack's godawful kung fu action film, the last thing I want to hear is the fiction he tells himself to get to sleep every night.
Hum, no, that would be a lot of bullshit to accept. But I am sure you'll like to know you are helping creating a godawful kung fu action film. And it's very likely you'll like to hear on how successful the move will be.
I could tell a story around your work about how you are focused on the ultimate bottom line and how your efforts bring that clarity to the people around you, and I bet you'd eat it up.
I need some authenticity. It's clear to me that you just made all that up, because you've never really observed me working. Now I'm suspicious about all your compliments because I know you're willing to invent stories. I barely know you and I already feel uneasy about working with you.
Hypothetically, I think I'd rather not hire you in the first place.
On one hand, I want to treat you as a person with autonomy and empower you to bring your special qualities and skills every day.
On the other hand, I need people who can be managed effectively and know how to be part of a team - that means rolling your eyes quietly during the 'c-suite bullcrap', but also being able to take from it whatever is needed to provide direction in which to get running.
Instead, I'm sensing a 'rock management' vibe from you: you know what rock you don't like if I present it to you, but you can't define what rock you do like - and I don't need the overhead that comes with trying to help you work that out.
Bottom Line: leadership is a two way street. It takes hard work and authenticity on behalf of leaders. It also takes a level of faith, openness and understanding on behalf of the team. If either party doesn't show up, things get much, much harder.
Speaking factually, not hypothetically, you want me on your team.
I'm the guy who split his check three ways and raided dumpsters for food, just to make sure everyone got paid. As a private contractor, I have more bosses than I know what to do with: 9 clients at the moment, 7 repeat offenders; with each and every single one of them I don't leave a discussion until I have received a concrete request, established a delivery schedule, and read the whole plan back to the client to reassure everyone that their direction has been received exactly as they want it. If a client comes up and says "I want you to go into overdrive" I am not leaving until he or she explains what is really wanted: for me to produce a rush-ordered video before the end of the month, on top of the two I already have in the pipeline.
And I am also lucid enough to know without being told, when my feedback is wanted, and when my colleague just wants me to keep my mouth shut and listen to him or her talk about the Learning Annex book he or she was reading yesterday.
Fyi- you just proved the opposing view by selling yourself with a great story.
Conclusion: Stories work when they feel authentic and don't suck. That's why all those movies have all those random AA scenes. It's an easy cop out for injecting "this sh-t's real" vibe in order not to lose the viewers to the lagging plot.
Not exactly sure why this is relevant or where you wanted to take this, but ok:
in that case you didn't sell anything. You created scarcity because you convinced someone that there are not many like you. You simply created desire in the other person which stays unmet in that moment because, as you say, you weren't for sale. He/she realizes that they desire the traits you have in who they're looking for, so they try to find someone like you elsewhere.
the flipside would be: some person next to you on a plane... incidentally and unintentionally, and in a way that doesn't annoy you, a relaxed casual no-bs conversation starts quietly between you two. At some point they drift into talking about something they're building. By the end, randomly, you feel like this is someone you would like to work with/for. Even though your skills turn out to be relevant, they're not hiring.
Some people are difficult, true. And a lot of leadership also depends on the chemistry between individuals. Some people just don't get along and that's fine, we all think in different way. But you shouldn't take disillusionment with BS as a sign of uncooperation. Sure in some cases you should just cut your losses and move on, but I feel you have to be in touch with reality in all circumstances.
If I, as a manager, would see someone rolling their eyes during a 'c-suite bullcrap' presentation I'd later ask them what's wrong and try to understand their point of view (unless there was an obvious reason). That is the two-way street you talk about, but don't see you strongly conveying. Being open to feedback, even the negative kind, is when you know you can truly trust your leaders.
Based on that you can reasses is there discrepancy between words and actions, or is the person just generally very anti-authority and doesn't like their higher ups no matter what. Either way you build up a rapport and see if you can turn things around in both cases, but if the person is being unreasonable I guess you just should cut your losses.
Leadership is not entitled to the trust of their team. It must be earned. There's no reason for people to put themselves on the line for leadership that, statistically, will most likely not reciprocate.
Also, the paragraph about "rock management" was entirely unjustified and un-called-for. You appear to have confused GP with someone else.
I thought the article got better later on, but, the opening couple of paragraphs that emphasized story telling were very weak.
Senior leadership has a much better understanding of the business context and long term plan than I do, but, I have a much better understanding of the problem details in my specific domain.
What I find most valuable from senior leadership is clear feedback about how what we are doing fits in the broader context of what the company is doing, as well as specific high level feedback on the roadmap of our org.
The story format can be helpful to frame a vision of how you'd like a product launch to go, but, it's not suitable at all for most of the communication a CEO/SVP does.
Internal communication FROM the CEO is important, and it's nice to see a comprehensive article review a lot of important tactics.
However, where a lot of executives also fail is not allowing/encouraging/listening to the discussion that is ABOUT the CEO and Organization. Employee perspective can be very valuable too.
Just talking at someone is never the right or effective way, 99.9% of the time.
It's not storytelling or any other skill. It's who you know. Look at the recycled clowns that are many CEOs. Buy back shares. Hire more recycled faces. Nothing interesting there.
I'd caution that "narrative" and "story telling" can lead to fables. You should understand this as defining a clear vision, why it matters, how to get there, what it will look like on Monday morning once you've arrived and then ensure individuals and teams have clearly defined roles and own those roles. This is what Jobs' reality distortion field was built on.
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.
> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.
...and after that:
- give them clear, measurable objectives.
- provide concrete feedback on performance.
- plan, update & communicate
only setting wishy washy north stars and visions is a fantastic way to drive your company into an unguided chaos.
Yep.thats the hardest part. Anybody could set the north stars and hide behind the generalities. Whoever sets that vision should also be able to articulate 1 to 2 level below that so each level has sense of purpose and direction.
> Imagine joining an engineering team. You’re excited and full of ideas, probably just out of school and a world of clean, beautiful designs, awe-inspiring in their aesthetic unity of purpose, economy, and strength. You start by meeting Mary, project leader for a bridge in a major metropolitan area. Mary introduces you to Fred, after you get through the fifteen security checks installed by Dave because Dave had his sweater stolen off his desk once and Never Again. Fred only works with wood, so you ask why he’s involved because this bridge is supposed to allow rush-hour traffic full of cars full of mortal humans to cross a 200-foot drop over rapids. Don’t worry, says Mary, Fred’s going to handle the walkways. What walkways? Well Fred made a good case for walkways and they’re going to add to the bridge’s appeal. Of course, they’ll have to be built without railings, because there’s a strict no railings rule enforced by Phil, who’s not an engineer. Nobody’s sure what Phil does, but it’s definitely full of synergy and has to do with upper management, whom none of the engineers want to deal with so they just let Phil do what he wants. Sara, meanwhile, has found several hemorrhaging-edge paving techniques, and worked them all into the bridge design, so you’ll have to build around each one as the bridge progresses, since each one means different underlying support and safety concerns. Tom and Harry have been working together for years, but have an ongoing feud over whether to use metric or imperial measurements, and it’s become a case of “whoever got to that part of the design first.” This has been such a headache for the people actually screwing things together, they’ve given up and just forced, hammered, or welded their way through the day with whatever parts were handy. Also, the bridge was designed as a suspension bridge, but nobody actually knew how to build a suspension bridge, so they got halfway through it and then just added extra support columns to keep the thing standing, but they left the suspension cables because they’re still sort of holding up parts of the bridge. Nobody knows which parts, but everybody’s pretty sure they’re important parts.
You left out the best part! (Although, to be fair, the entire article could very well be called "the best part")
> After the introductions are made, you are invited to come up with some new ideas, but you don’t have any because you’re a propulsion engineer and don’t know anything about bridges.
I love the sentiment and there is clearly a nugget of truth in it, but I can point to companies that successfully build ships by drumming up people and assigning them tasks and work. Can you point to any that build ships through the teaching of longing?
I think this happens at the middle management level. Most the upper management exercises of corporate mottos, vision, mission statements, etc. is an abstraction too far removed from day to day work to be useful to lower level employees. Maybe it helps them with their planning, but even on that I'm skeptical.
Those things have worked for some Japanese companies with a very different culture around collective work, but they don't really work as well applied in the West, IMO.
Now at the middle management to immediate supervisor level, there's a huge boost to morale, and I believe ultimately productivity & innovation that happens when you include employees in your own thinking and motivations. It's a lot easier to please someone when you know how they think and why they want certain aspects of a project to go the way they want, and allows you to better predict when it might be appropriate to go off script a little or make a perpendicular suggestion. Otherwise, when you treat a human like a machine, and dissuade them from any bigger picture thinking, you can get all sorts of problems. Micromanagement, malicious compliance, and most importantly: you are isolating them from the natural group dynamics and teamwork that humans do well under.
US Army. We call this communicating intent. The idea is to allow subordinate commanders freedom to accomplish the goals of their boss.
The strength of this approach is that things can change between the issue of tasks and the completion of those tasks. Instead of having the subordinate leader wait for additional guidance or confirmation they are allowed to adjust their approach immediately without permission to meet the demands of the changing environment.
It goes to the heart of a CEO’s job—leadership. Keeping all the of the company engaged in shares objectives, values, goals. You delegate the collection of wood. And if it’s the 15th century, you inspire sailors to risk the unknown and help them cope with the fear of falling of the edge of the world.
To be fair, the whole quote is about getting people excited to do work not by telling them the actual actions they have to perform, but selling them a dream to long for and work towards.
It could be that his goal was to get people to repeat his quote about building ships. And he did it by selling some dream about being motivational by telling a grand story.
How do you know that? As an internationally famous author, he has certainly influenced people in some way. It's just incredibly hard to measure how exactly. Arguably, he precisely described the role for artists in society with that quote.
You begin to identify how much a CEO is selling smoke.
The ratio is imho easiest to identify by keeping track of buzzwords (ie business lingo). The more vague (yet at the same time oddly specific) the lingo is, historically the more likely the CEO and company is pulling one over the investors eyes. The more straight forward and normal the lingo is the more likely they are to being honest, because they can't avoid the hard facts when being forward with their language.
When it comes to investing in companies this is one of the key things I look for. It can be used on multiple levels, however, some companies will spin buzzwords who are legitimate. The key is identifying the difference between empty buzzwords and meaningful business language.
At each level of management, you can probably reduce the cadence of formal communications:
1. Direct team lead (including leadership of very small start-ups) - weekly or biweekly, depending on how many interesting things you normally have to share
2. Director/manager-of-managers - monthly, again conditional on having enough interesting things to share
3. VP and above/leadership of 100+ person company - quarterly
It's critical that you actually have interesting content, data, or strategy to share, and it's worth putting effort into gathering this content and presenting it in a compelling way. A common anti-pattern is to have regular all-hands meetings with boring or repetitive content, which causes people to zone out or look for reasons to skip it so they can get their work done instead.
It can be hard to identify this, because the bored people won't respond to surveys, or won't respond honestly. A good rule-of-thumb would be that if you're not spending at least a couple hours prepping for the meeting, then it's probably not worth having.
I like the reasoning here but don’t you think that senior leadership only communicating once a quarter (your example of 100+ employees) seems a bit out of touch and all the risks that entails?
Once/quarter is for "broadcast" communication - all-hands meetings, email newsletters, etc. In addition to that, they should be engaging with each individual team that reports to them. For example, you might also find it useful to do quarterly team-level strategy reviews where the team presents their accomplishments from the previous quarter and discusses their team-level roadmap for the next quarter.
At the same time, senior leadership needs to get used to being "out-of-touch" to some extent. Most people who are new to senior leadership make the opposite mistake, and are far too involved in details of execution that they should have fully delegated. Too much direct involvement can deprive your managers of opportunities to take initiative and grow in their careers.
There are two types of organization-wide leadership communications: 1) New projects/deliverables 2)Organization updates.
Both communications should happen frequently and consistently, but not spam-level and delivery-expediency should correlate with the importance of the content. (IE: don't wait 3 months to say you're upset the company has lost 40% of its users) Saying "No significant changes. Thanks for the hard work." should also happen.
"No significant change" updates are also an opportunity for leadership to be transparent about metrics and say "we gained X users, or lost X% revenue" and follow it up with a simple statement such as "Happy to see growth." or "We'll bounce back next month." It keeps everyone in the loop and emotions level.
Lex Fridman: Microsoft has 50-60 thousand engineers. What does it take to lead such a large group of brilliant people?
Kevin Scott: ...(snipped)... One central idea in Yuval Harari’s book Sapiens is that “storytelling” is the quintessential thing for coordinating the activities of large groups of people once you get past Dunbar’s number. I’ve really seen that, just managing engineering teams. You can brute-force things with small teams, but past that things start to fail catastrophically if you don’t have some set of shared goals. Even though this is sort of touchy feely, and technical people balk at the idea that you need to have a clear mission, it’s very important.
Lex Fridman: Stories are sort of the fabric that connects all of us, and that works for companies too.
Kevin Scott: It works for everything. If you sort of think about it, our currency is a story. Our constitution is a story. Our laws are a story. We believe very strongly in them, and thank God we do, but they’re just abstract things, they’re just words. If we don’t believe in them, they’re nothing.
Lex Fridman: In some sense, those stories are platforms.