I guess this is just a riff of marcus aurelius flavour stoicism
but ask yourself with regard to every present difficulty: 'What is there in this that is unbearable and beyond endurance?' You would be ashamed to confess it! And then remind yourself that it is not the future or what has passed that afflicts you, but always the present, and the power of this is much diminished if you take it in isolation and call your mind to task if it thinks that it cannot stand up to it when taken on its own.
Great concept. Culturally, I think we are better at understanding this than ever before.
In the last 15–20 years, many people have been forced into an uncomfortable moment due to job loss (Great Recession, COVID, AI etc). They have learned to recover. Could this be why we see more entrepreneurs than ever before now?
A big driver in increasing entrepreneurs in the US has been DEI and H1-B driven racism against white men. For example in 2021 only 6% of all the people hired by major US companies were white. An entire generation was locked out of traditional corporate career paths, and turned to startups and crypto.
Nearly all decisions are recoverable. Most things are rather low risk, and when there is significant risk there's typically a way to hedge that risk, like through insurance or contingencies. You'll make countless decisions in life and at most 1 might kill you.
In nearly all circumstances where you're actually fretting over the decision, you're choosing between two reasonable options. It's unlikely one option will be substantially more recoverable than the other, and if you're still considering it anyways you likely have a good reason.
I think the better way of evaluating tough decisions is to think about which choice leaves you in a better position to make the next choice. The real dilemma in almost every decision is the uncertainty, and typically you'll learn a lot more from trying one thing than the other. Oftentimes also choosing a particular order to try different options leaves more options open later on.
Further, I notice that a lot of people see dilemmas where they don't exist. Practically every week I'm in a meeting where there is a heated discussion of whether to do A or B when we have to do A regardless of whether or not we do B and almost invariably the question of whether or not to do B will be answered by doing A.
I've found that what is more important than making a good/bad decision, is sticking with the decision I make, with the possibility of mitigation measures, if it turns out to have been a bad decision. Sometimes, I can pre-plan mitigation measures, or I research them quickly, when it becomes clear that I made a mistake.
Jamming on the parking brake, when going 90, down the highway, is a bad idea.
I sometimes miss a turn, or don't plan well enough to be in the correct lane, when I arrive at the intersection.
What I do, is go "D'oh!", continue to the next intersection, then either make a U-turn (if legal), or turn onto a side street, with the intention of recovering my intended direction.
What I often see people in the same situation do, is jam on the accelerator, swerve across six lanes of traffic, and screech into their turn.
That may get them where they are going, but it also has a very real chance of earning them a ticket or a stay in hospital.
My way takes a bit longer, but no ticket, no accident.
This is a slightly lower stakes version of aircraft "V1": the speed at which it is no longer possible to abort a takeoff. Engine on fire? Doesn't matter, you've got to get in the air because stopping is no longer an option.
what? this article is making a different point if you read past the title.
> Conventional leadership advice suggests looking at decisions as reversible or non-reversible. Many important, non-reversible, decisions are recoverable, though.
I don’t think it’s different. Recoverable == Reversible to an extend. Unless you take reversible in the strictest sense of “undo” it’s different. But you can’t “undo” a leadership decision, all you can do is later correct it and recover.
So imo it’s splitting hairs over the same outcome.
An example - say you introduce 5 day return to office. Half you staff leaves and you now go back to a flexible work from home model. You don’t “undo” the damage done, but you can recover. It was a costly 2-way door.
A decision can be irreversible, yet it's negative impact recoverable.
Those words mean entirely different things.
One is about reversing a decision. One is about reversing an outcome.
Irreversible decisions mean decisions without backsies. Recoverable decisions mean decisions that leave the potential for survival and a comeback.
--
You cannot (typically) reverse a poorly-reasoned midlife-crisis divorce. But you can recover by getting one's life in order.
You cannot (typically) reverse a disastrous corporate merger. But you can recover, by identifying a better path forward.
You cannot (typically) reverse a money transfer after buying into a scam. But you can recover, by continuing to earn and save.
You can change your streaming service name from "HBO" to "Kansas" to "Pumpernickle" to "Cheese Please", and then revert to "HBO". And leverage the PR waves from a mea culpa. And, snowball the PR into a reputation as a lovable rake, by doing the same thing every year around April 1st.
But, you cannot reverse adding caffeine to 7-up after adding caffeine to 7-up, and resume your famous marketing campaign of "No caffeine. Never had it. Never will."
A decision is always an irrevocable commitment of resources: time, effort, cost, reputation, relationship capital, opportunity cost, etc. The trick is understanding the size of the commitment and having a plan for what you will do if things don't go as planned.
But also be aware of 'analysis paralysis', where you spend so much time trying to plan for every contingency that you never get around to making the actual decision.
Absolutely, the size of a decision is the amount of resources you are committing irrevocably. Based on the size and the lack of a proven path, you need to invest effort in planning, adjusted for any deadlines the situation imposes on you. For example, when do you lose certain options, or, through inaction, commit to a course of action?
Sizing the decision also allows you to avoid the other side of the coin of "analysis paralysis," which is "extinction by instinct," where you proceed purely on pattern matching. Obviously, you need to rely on reflexes in situations where you don't have time to calculate, like maintaining your balance or pulling your hand away from something very hot. And there is value in letting the smell of smoke, a fire alarm, a cry for help, or other critical interrupts immediately redirect your attention to a new action.
My frustration with the “reversible decision” or “recoverable decision” framing is that it ignores the need to acknowledge the irrevocable commitment of resources and the opportunity cost of a course of action, and use those to guide the level of planning needed.
Planning is expensive, and overplanning is a waste. Still, a prudent survey of likely risks and outcomes should encourage you to plan in advance for certain likely situations and undertake mitigation efforts.
I've often thought along similar lines. I've found that indecision is almost always worse than a bad one. Very few choices are so decisive that you can't course-correct later.
That mindset has served me well both personally and professionally.
It becomes more difficult if you lean into and build upon the specific things that your stack choices give you. If you use everything very generically yes it's easier to swap to something else.
Day to day Decisions are overrated. Like the pivoting betwern product decisions. The only decisions worth scrutiny are investments into capabilities. A product may fizzle out, a capability stays with you and makes you permanently valuable. I may manifest as a product, as a service leased to other companies.
The main difference being the time it takes to recover/reverse the decision.
Second point is: You don't need to reverse the decision you took, instead you may find a way to fix the impact but not the root-cause.
It's like when one fucks up the MySQL replication and the data consistency is corrupted. One can manually (and slowly) fix the inconsistency with downtime. Or, spin up a whole new cluster from an existing well-known node/state. Some entities may be missing, but you could gradually add them back later.
Not a reversible, but recoverable decision.
Amazon goes by with one-way vs two-way door decisions internally. Sometimes adding much bureaucracy to the equation. Just-do-it/Bias-for-action aspect usually don't go as far as the recovery period prolongs.
Yes - when reading what large entities do and don't, one should always reality check when applying for your situation: do I have a billion dollars earmarked for recovery?
I'm reminded of the Lloyds/TSB IT failure, where they specifically didn't have a rollback plan and ended up getting fined £50m by the regulator: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64036529
I guess this is just a riff of marcus aurelius flavour stoicism
but ask yourself with regard to every present difficulty: 'What is there in this that is unbearable and beyond endurance?' You would be ashamed to confess it! And then remind yourself that it is not the future or what has passed that afflicts you, but always the present, and the power of this is much diminished if you take it in isolation and call your mind to task if it thinks that it cannot stand up to it when taken on its own.
Great concept. Culturally, I think we are better at understanding this than ever before.
In the last 15–20 years, many people have been forced into an uncomfortable moment due to job loss (Great Recession, COVID, AI etc). They have learned to recover. Could this be why we see more entrepreneurs than ever before now?
A big driver in increasing entrepreneurs in the US has been DEI and H1-B driven racism against white men. For example in 2021 only 6% of all the people hired by major US companies were white. An entire generation was locked out of traditional corporate career paths, and turned to startups and crypto.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/major-us-companies-g...
Get off it mate. The ZIRP was the biggest factor. The white mans burden is a fantasy
Nearly all decisions are recoverable. Most things are rather low risk, and when there is significant risk there's typically a way to hedge that risk, like through insurance or contingencies. You'll make countless decisions in life and at most 1 might kill you.
In nearly all circumstances where you're actually fretting over the decision, you're choosing between two reasonable options. It's unlikely one option will be substantially more recoverable than the other, and if you're still considering it anyways you likely have a good reason.
I think the better way of evaluating tough decisions is to think about which choice leaves you in a better position to make the next choice. The real dilemma in almost every decision is the uncertainty, and typically you'll learn a lot more from trying one thing than the other. Oftentimes also choosing a particular order to try different options leaves more options open later on.
Further, I notice that a lot of people see dilemmas where they don't exist. Practically every week I'm in a meeting where there is a heated discussion of whether to do A or B when we have to do A regardless of whether or not we do B and almost invariably the question of whether or not to do B will be answered by doing A.
nice. like in a game of pool you have many shot options but you choose which will leave you in the best position for the next shot. and in chess...
I've found that what is more important than making a good/bad decision, is sticking with the decision I make, with the possibility of mitigation measures, if it turns out to have been a bad decision. Sometimes, I can pre-plan mitigation measures, or I research them quickly, when it becomes clear that I made a mistake.
Jamming on the parking brake, when going 90, down the highway, is a bad idea.
I sometimes miss a turn, or don't plan well enough to be in the correct lane, when I arrive at the intersection.
What I do, is go "D'oh!", continue to the next intersection, then either make a U-turn (if legal), or turn onto a side street, with the intention of recovering my intended direction.
What I often see people in the same situation do, is jam on the accelerator, swerve across six lanes of traffic, and screech into their turn.
That may get them where they are going, but it also has a very real chance of earning them a ticket or a stay in hospital.
My way takes a bit longer, but no ticket, no accident.
Good drivers sometimes miss their turn. Bad drivers never miss their turn.
> Bad drivers never miss their turn.
Except when they get in an accident trying to force it. Or when they were too distracted unnecessarily overtaking someone near their turn.
As long as the wreck doesn't go past the exit they, technically, haven't missed it yet.
This is a slightly lower stakes version of aircraft "V1": the speed at which it is no longer possible to abort a takeoff. Engine on fire? Doesn't matter, you've got to get in the air because stopping is no longer an option.
Often framed as “one vs two-way doo decisions” at Amazon.
Video of Bezos talking about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxsdOQa_QkM.
IMO it’s a useful decision making strategy at times, mostly to not overthink the easily reversible.
what? this article is making a different point if you read past the title.
> Conventional leadership advice suggests looking at decisions as reversible or non-reversible. Many important, non-reversible, decisions are recoverable, though.
I don’t think it’s different. Recoverable == Reversible to an extend. Unless you take reversible in the strictest sense of “undo” it’s different. But you can’t “undo” a leadership decision, all you can do is later correct it and recover.
So imo it’s splitting hairs over the same outcome.
An example - say you introduce 5 day return to office. Half you staff leaves and you now go back to a flexible work from home model. You don’t “undo” the damage done, but you can recover. It was a costly 2-way door.
A decision can be irreversible, yet it's negative impact recoverable.
Those words mean entirely different things.
One is about reversing a decision. One is about reversing an outcome.
Irreversible decisions mean decisions without backsies. Recoverable decisions mean decisions that leave the potential for survival and a comeback.
--
You cannot (typically) reverse a poorly-reasoned midlife-crisis divorce. But you can recover by getting one's life in order.
You cannot (typically) reverse a disastrous corporate merger. But you can recover, by identifying a better path forward.
You cannot (typically) reverse a money transfer after buying into a scam. But you can recover, by continuing to earn and save.
You can change your streaming service name from "HBO" to "Kansas" to "Pumpernickle" to "Cheese Please", and then revert to "HBO". And leverage the PR waves from a mea culpa. And, snowball the PR into a reputation as a lovable rake, by doing the same thing every year around April 1st.
But, you cannot reverse adding caffeine to 7-up after adding caffeine to 7-up, and resume your famous marketing campaign of "No caffeine. Never had it. Never will."
(delayed)
Only difference is time. Much like an eventually consistent transactions, recoverable decisions have propagation latency.
The breaking part here is that will you able to survive until the recovery is complete?
I always liked: is it like shaving, getting a haircut, or getting a tatoo?
A decision is always an irrevocable commitment of resources: time, effort, cost, reputation, relationship capital, opportunity cost, etc. The trick is understanding the size of the commitment and having a plan for what you will do if things don't go as planned.
But also be aware of 'analysis paralysis', where you spend so much time trying to plan for every contingency that you never get around to making the actual decision.
Absolutely, the size of a decision is the amount of resources you are committing irrevocably. Based on the size and the lack of a proven path, you need to invest effort in planning, adjusted for any deadlines the situation imposes on you. For example, when do you lose certain options, or, through inaction, commit to a course of action?
Sizing the decision also allows you to avoid the other side of the coin of "analysis paralysis," which is "extinction by instinct," where you proceed purely on pattern matching. Obviously, you need to rely on reflexes in situations where you don't have time to calculate, like maintaining your balance or pulling your hand away from something very hot. And there is value in letting the smell of smoke, a fire alarm, a cry for help, or other critical interrupts immediately redirect your attention to a new action.
My frustration with the “reversible decision” or “recoverable decision” framing is that it ignores the need to acknowledge the irrevocable commitment of resources and the opportunity cost of a course of action, and use those to guide the level of planning needed.
Planning is expensive, and overplanning is a waste. Still, a prudent survey of likely risks and outcomes should encourage you to plan in advance for certain likely situations and undertake mitigation efforts.
I've often thought along similar lines. I've found that indecision is almost always worse than a bad one. Very few choices are so decisive that you can't course-correct later.
That mindset has served me well both personally and professionally.
[dead]
Am I missing something? Why was the parent comment flagged? Why are all this user's comments dead.
the account was taken over by a bot. see the discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46998432
It becomes more difficult if you lean into and build upon the specific things that your stack choices give you. If you use everything very generically yes it's easier to swap to something else.
Timing is everything. A bad haircut decision right before the most important job interview of your life might not be recoverable.
Great Clips or Weldon Barber, are you feeling lucky?
Day to day Decisions are overrated. Like the pivoting betwern product decisions. The only decisions worth scrutiny are investments into capabilities. A product may fizzle out, a capability stays with you and makes you permanently valuable. I may manifest as a product, as a service leased to other companies.
Aren’t large decisions made up of small, day to day micro decisions?
I actually like hats, haircuts, and tattoos. Seldom we have irrecoverable decisions--except death. https://jamesclear.com/quotes/i-think-about-decisions-in-thr...
(Also works well with LLMs, for risk assessments)
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/402425.Steve_Blank#:...
The main difference being the time it takes to recover/reverse the decision.
Second point is: You don't need to reverse the decision you took, instead you may find a way to fix the impact but not the root-cause.
It's like when one fucks up the MySQL replication and the data consistency is corrupted. One can manually (and slowly) fix the inconsistency with downtime. Or, spin up a whole new cluster from an existing well-known node/state. Some entities may be missing, but you could gradually add them back later.
Not a reversible, but recoverable decision.
Amazon goes by with one-way vs two-way door decisions internally. Sometimes adding much bureaucracy to the equation. Just-do-it/Bias-for-action aspect usually don't go as far as the recovery period prolongs.
Yes - when reading what large entities do and don't, one should always reality check when applying for your situation: do I have a billion dollars earmarked for recovery?
I'm reminded of the Lloyds/TSB IT failure, where they specifically didn't have a rollback plan and ended up getting fined £50m by the regulator: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64036529
For some reason before reading I thought this was going to be an AI thought leadership piece but it's even better than I expected.