Remember that feedback is aimed to shape us to the system we are in…so take it with a grain of salt

Shaping us to the system

One thought I’ve been having recently is regarding feedback. We often receive a lot of it, from many different sources and directions. However, it is also often inconsistent, and the key is to find the consistent patterns within it, while taking some and leaving some (ideally, taking that which anchors on the consistent patterns).

Moreover, I think that there is an important recognition to be made that feedback is meant to shape us to the system that we are currently in, without necessarily helping us to become the way that we want to actually become (i.e., that depends on the answer to how we actually want to be shaped, and whether that is aligned with the current system that we are in — is the direction that the system is shaping us actually how we want to be shaped? )

For example, we may be working at a particular company that has certain values, culture, and vision – the feedback that we will receive will be geared toward making us more aligned and fit in more with that company’s values, culture, and vision. If we were to switch companies, the feedback that we would now receive would be far more tailored to now getting us to become more like the culture, values, and vision of the company that we have joined. In a sense, although the feedback we would now receive would have some similarities, there would be many differences – and simply because we would have switched companies, not because we would have become a fundamentally different person.

I’ve also noticed the same pattern when I work with different people — with one person, I’ll receive one point of feedback, and sometimes with another person, I may receive the exact opposite. Again, not because I’m different (because I haven’t changed that much in the span of a few weeks or a month), but because different people have different perspectives, and in working with us, the feedback is coming from their perspective, and people inevitably give feedback from their own perspective (which is aligned with who they have become), and in this way, subtly try to shape us to become more like them, so they give feedback aligned with that. However, this often leads to inconsistencies.

All this comes to say that although we should listen to the feedback that we are receiving (especially the patterns, because that is what is actually consistent over time and may be worth considering), we should nonetheless take it with a grain of salt. In the end, when we work for a company or person,  we are part of their system, we are part of their system, and the feedback that we receive will be aimed to try to shape us to operate smoothly within the context of this system. The managers of every system want it to run smoothly, so they will try to shape the elements of the system accordingly — and employees are part of this system. As Ray Dalio recently said in a post about his philosophy of providing constant feedback: “Remember that you are responsible for achieving your goals, and you want your machine to function as intended. For it to do so, the employees you supervise must meet expectations, and only you can help them understand whether they are stacking up.” So, indeed — feedback is meant to shape us to a system.

What this means for me

What does this mean for me? I listen to and recognize the feedback that others give to me, but I always try to remember that it is coming from their point of view, and although I do try to implement the actionable and relevant feedback that I agree with, I also do not always fully trust certain points until I’ve heard a particular point come up more than once. If it has only come up 1-2 times, then it may be due to idiosyncrasies of a person’s perspective, rather than a true pattern.

However, beyond this, I also ask myself if the system that I am currently in is actually what I want to be shaped to – and I have consistently come to the answer that I want to create my own system, rather than remain in the system that someone else has created. I would rather be the creator of something, than a “system element” for someone else.

And when we run our own system, or company, to say it more clearly, we certainly cannot do without feedback. Rather, we will consistently have many points of feedback, and we may even seek out more feedback because it is critical to growing the business successfully. However, if this is our system, our company, then we know that the feedback is fully aligned with what we are trying to accomplish – build a product or service that others want. All the market and customer feedback on our product/service, as well as the feedback on our own management and work style, is highly valuable, and will help build our own company into the best it can be, while also shaping ourselves and our management style around that as well.

So, it is worth remembering that although consistent feedback is valuable, we need to remain cognizant of the fact that most feedback is aimed to shape us to a system, and we have to constantly ask ourselves, “is this actually how I want to be shaped?” And if not, maybe it is worth stepping out of that system…maybe to find another with which we are more aligned, or to create our own. 

My 10-year vision: Systematizing decision-making

High-level summary: My 10-year vision centers around creating a company or series of companies aimed at improving decision-making on 1) an individual level, and 2) an organizational task/process level.

I believe that when we actually set an intention and write things down, that significantly increases the chance that they will become reality. I’d like to write out my 10-year vision for the future, as it stands right now. I recognize that this is still quite broad, but I wanted to write it down nonetheless.

I. What I would like to focus on

One of the biggest challenges that I have in my own life is making decisions – deciding what decision to make, criteria by which to make the decision, and when to actually stop deciding and to consider the decision made and locked. As such, my 10-year vision focuses on improving decision-making, both in an organizational and in a personal context.

I envision doing this in two main ways:

1. Systematizing personal decision-making at an individual level

2. Systematizing decision-making and automating complex tasks at an organizational level

II. Improving personal decision-making at an individual level

I envision simplifying decision-making at a personal, individual level. Human beings are inundated with information and decisions everyday, and it can get tiring and overwhelming at times. I believe that if we didn’t feel like every single decision was so uncertain and unclear and novel, it would minimize a lot of the stress we face, because we would realize that we have done this many times before and have an approach for dealing with this sort of problem.

Thus, I would like to create tools that enable people to sort through the chaos of this information and recognize the similarities in the situations that they face, and therefore, the similarities in the decisions that they must make. I would like to provide and facilitate the self-creation of frameworks to help individuals analyze the pattern of their past decisions and approach new decisions in an informed and clear way – by understanding what they did before, why they made certain decisions, why it did or did not work, and what they can do now that they are faced with a slightly different, but still archetypically the same, sort of decision. That is, I would like to provide individuals with the tools and frameworks to make new decisions in a confident manner.

Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with increased personal awareness and understanding of our emotions. After all, how can we know what the “right” decision may be, if we don’t know what tends to drive our personal happiness or unhappiness? (if we are solving for happiness, that is)

In order to make good decisions, we need to be very aware of our own personal strengths, weaknesses, sensitivities, biases, and more. We can only understand our emotions through careful reflection of our reaction to certain situations and decisions. We need to be aware of who we actually are. Therefore, part of the process of facilitating personal decision-making also involves a heavy element of facilitating increased personal awareness.

III. Improving decision-making and automating complex tasks at an organizational level

As I have written previously in some of my posts, I believe that there is significant opportunity to systematize certain complex tasks and decisions, many of which are currently done by humans, but which could be simplified and automated by embedding sets of logic into the workflow.

I would like to start a company, or maybe series of companies, to drive innovation in decision-making and knowledge work systematization. I could see this taking place in several ways.

1. Systematizing/automating complex knowledge tasks: As I wrote in one of my previous posts (linked here), I believe that when we think of the bigger picture of complex tasks (e.g., writing memos, making certain types of presentations, making financial models, eventually other even more complex tasks), there is opportunity to take a bigger-picture lens and identify the “archetypes” of certain types of the task (e.g., type of memo, type of presentation, type of model, etc, all further codified based on context and situation), identify the common elements across them, and create a system or process that creates an ~80% version, based on the archetype, customized as needed. I envision creating something in this space, likely for complex knowledge work-based organizations, such as consulting, investment banking, private equity, and other such firms. The starting step for this would be to pick a specific task and create a very robust logic-based system creation for this particular task. If this worked, others would follow.

2. Systematizing work-related decisions through prediction and recommendation engines: As part of this, I also envision systematizing decision-making and prediction in some of these areas. I believe that this includes

1. Stipulating what sort of data will be necessary to consider when making a certain type of decision (e.g., if making an investment decision, identifying what will be most important to consider in making the decision)

2. Gathering data on these elements in previous such situations (e.g., previous similar investment decisions of this “archetype”)

3. Gathering a record of the relative success/failure of these past decisions.

This would help to build a predictive engine for this type of decision, based on analyzing the factors and variables that led to success or failure in past such situations, with the output being a recommended decision and prediction of outcome/level of success (as per defined “success” criteria) based on the decision taken. From there, it would be a matter of, every time this type of decision came up again, gathering these data variables, incorporating them into the model, and reviewing the recommendation that would be provided (while, of course, applying human decision-making and judgement in parallel). As more and more decisions are run through this decision-making engine and the feedback is looped back in (positive, negative, etc, and why), the engine itself would be continuously refined and improved. Of course, there would sometimes be situations of mismatch between human/system recommended decision or prediction of success, and we may realize that there are further variables that would need to be built into the system for better decision-making. As we continuously built in new logic, variables, and information, the questions to be asked and refined include:

-How important is this information?

-What specific factor would it impact?

-With what magnitude would it change the decision?

-In what direction would it impact the decision?

-Would it change the decision or not?

Of course, I know that variants of this are already being done across a variety of different fields. Nonetheless, it is still not systematically applied in a majority of work situations, and I could envision that tools such as this begin to be embedded in a much wider array of situations, down to more daily tasks (e.g., writing certain sales emails, determining strategic priorities based on market sizing/growth rates, etc). This definitely needs to be made more specific in order to be successful (i.e., down to the very specific decision level). I would begin by focusing on something more concrete, and once again with this, I would start with something that I am more familiar with (e.g., consulting/banking/private equity contexts), and expand from there.

IV. Post-10 year vision: Creativity using data

Later on (not necessarily within the next 10 years, but still part of a longer-term vision), I also envision expanding my decision-making facilitation to more creative endeavors. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I would like to enable the development of novel creations based on something like comprehensively tagged databases of “building blocks,” (e.g., such as in dance, figure skating, art, cinema, music, etc) which could then be used to develop something new through unique combinations of these building blocks, aimed at optimizing for what the creator chooses to optimize (e.g., most likely to succeed with certain type of audience, or optimize around a certain style, etc) and along certain parameters (e.g., certain length, budget, etc), with the predictions of success being based on the success of past combinations (contingent upon a large enough database having been created).

This would be a decision-making framework applied in a unique way to more creative fields. Even though on the surface it seems very different than solving for things such as highest-success investment decisions with predicted success based on financial metrics, this would, in some ways, be the parallel to that for creative endeavors (except that it would be decision-making for creation, rather than just for the purchase/sale of existing assets). For example, these proposed creations could optimize for things such as highest expected ticket sales, highest expected audience attendance, etc, which would be similar to the “highest ROI” sort of decision-making done in financial settings.

V. My own path and role in all of this

I’m at the very beginning stages of doing all of this, but the above is a high-level version of what I would like to work toward in the coming 10-15 years. Of course, I recognize that I will need to get much more specific with my vision each of these areas in order to pursue it, and I would do this by picking very specific, discrete problems to solve and beginning there.

I also wanted to think through how I could go about doing this in the next 10-15 years. I would start by creating a company in one of these areas, focused on solving something relatively specific (i.e., a thin slice of a much larger problem). I imagine that this may start more on the individual decision-making side, as that is the more easily accessible challenge to solve, given that I don’t have technical skills in the area. I imagine that my first company would be a challenge, but I’m also sure that it will provide a variety of lessons.

Over time, I would also like to start several other companies, all related to certain areas of decision-making. Through multiple iterations, I would like to learn the skill of creating something from nothing and building it up to success. I imagine that I’ll fail many times in the process of this, and I accept that as part of the learning journey. The failures will be inevitable, but the important point will be to simply get up and continue toward the longer-term goal and vision.

Ultimately, I envision creating some sort of growth ventures fund, in which my team and I start, incubate, and grow  companies in these spaces (task-based decision making/automation and personal decision-making). I could envision it being organized a bit like the below:

Decision Fund [growth ventures fund]

Branch 1: Personal/life decision making

Branch 2: Task/process/automation decision-making

Some of what I would like to build into the culture of my company/companies includes (as a first hypothesis, as I’m sure this may adapt as I get actual experience):

  1. Being ruthlessly results-oriented
  2. Building a learning organization (always learning and iterating)
  3. Building a meritocratic organization in which the best people can thrive, grow, and continue gaining opportunities

In the meantime, a couple of skills that I also want to learn include: data science (at a high level) and investing (in-depth – I think this will come partly through the experience of starting/running companies, and partly through the trial and error of actual investing, both before and during my envisioned growth ventures fund).

Now that I have put it out into the world, I hope that it’ll help me get there by keeping this clear vision in my mind. 

Modularization of knowledge work

[I know my posts are long, so I’m going to start adding a high-level summary if you want to get the main point without having to read the full piece]

High level summary: Even within the complex domain of knowledge work, there are certain processes that can be increasingly standardized when we take an archetypical, big picture view. This is already being done in ways both big and small, ranging from tagging/labeling, to bigger-picture process automation in recruiting, investing, and other decision-making. In the future, there are multitudes of opportunities for increasing knowledge work automation.


In some of my other posts, I’ve talked about finding patterns and archetypes in tasks, decisions, and processes. I believe that when we have enough experience or knowledge about a certain area or topic (either through direct experience or through thorough studying examples and history), we can begin to find and form patterns, and then to begin to apply them to new instances of the same situation.


In particular, I’m interested in exploring and understanding how certain tasks (increasingly complex tasks), can be defined into a coherent, standard process, and ultimately automated (or at least, 80% automated, with a human reviewing, adjusting, and adding to this to get it to 100% completion). In a previous post, I gave the example of due diligence research for private equity firms, and the potential to modularize some aspects of it (e.g., interview planning, survey planning, modeling). In this set of research, I’d like to look into the future of work modularization for knowledge work, explore examples of how this has already been done, and then explore how this could be taken further.


I. Future of knowledge work

First of all, what is knowledge work?


Some scholars have defined it as work focused on “non-routine problem solving that requires a combination of convergent and divergent thinking.” (1) According to Wikipedia, it is: anyone “whose line of work requires one to think for a living.” (2) Essentially, we can think of knowledge workers as people whose jobs focus on significant amounts of unique, case-by-case thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and non-routine tasks with non-linear processes. In terms of careers, some examples include bankers, consultants, lawyers, accountants, scientists, engineers, professors and academics, and more.

However, I’d like to test the common assumption here and ask if this is really the case – is knowledge work truly non-linear and non-routine?

Although it seems that way on the surface, I would actually take the stance that maybe that’s not fully the case. Rather, maybe it’s just that we have to zoom out a bit and take a much bigger-picture view to to be able to see the patterns in what is being done across the work of knowledge workers. There is definitely a lot of independent thinking that does need to be done a case-by-case basis, but for many roles, there is still a level of process that is followed in the big-picture. For example, in private equity, there is a somewhat standard big-picture deal process that takes place, in consulting, there is a big-picture process for running projects, and in academia, there is a big-picture process for doing research and publishing papers. At the detailed level, this work changes because there are nuances to every single thing that takes place (i.e., types of consulting projects vary vastly, private equity deals have a large amount of variance, and academic research and publishing is never fully the same). However, if we accept the fact that there is similarity at a big-picture level, then we can begin to explore how we can take this further, by finding similarities across cases in levels of detail of a second-order, third-order, and below.

To do this, we can consider archetypes. For example, what are the different types of consulting projects that there may be? For example, we could break them down by industry – those would have more similarities among each other. Then, we could apply a functional filter on them (i.e., strategy, diligence, transformation, etc) – those would have even more similarities with each other. Then we could think about what type of company it is for (i.e., corporate BU in a large multi-national, or a small/medium enterprise, etc). The further we segment and apply filters, there more the subset that we reach actually has increasing levels of similarity, and therefore, the more that there may be opportunity to apply some level of standardization across (e.g., maybe there are certain types of analyses that are more or less standard if we do a go-to-market study for a medium-sized B2B software company focused in the retail space). When we segment and break down, we find similarities in how we can approach each of the cases.

The point is, when we actually try to apply logic-based categorization to each situation, we may find that there are more similarities than we see on the surface, and this is true across topics and industries. What it takes to find them is to think at a high enough level and then begin to break down the mass into specific areas that have similarities among each other – archetypes.

II. Examples of where this can be possible

Today, a lot of progress has been made in terms of modularization across a variety of areas. I’d like to go through a few examples of where I see it or could see it being done. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to be a starting point of examples of where this can be and is being used.

Atomization of work units: At the very base level, there is significant movement toward “atomization” of work. What I mean by that is the breaking down of work into very small components. I see this happening in terms of labeling and tagging. As AI and machine learning become increasingly important decision-making tools, there is also an increasing need for data to train these machine learning algorithms. As such, human minds are being used to label, tag, or identify objects and meaning in images, text, videos, and more. A wide number of companies has emerged to meet this need, the largest among them being Amazon Mechanical Turk, with others including Scale, Hive, Labelbox, Cloudfactory, and Samasource. In practice, what they do is outsource thousands of small tasks (e.g., identifying all of the stoplights in an image, saying whether the meaning of a sentence if positive or negative, etc) to human workers all over the world, the output of which is used to train machine learning models to do the same.


What does this mean and why does it matter? It matters because it shows that at a very core level, tasks which have been are traditionally human-led (i.e., thinking, identifying, recognizing, predicting), are now being systematized and given to machines to do. Thus, labeling is simply a smaller example of something much bigger – soon, whole thought and decision-making processes will be (and are being) systematized.


Recruiting: Recruiting is one area which has seen and will continue to see a great deal of automation. It can take place in many ways. For example, it could be determining what specific skills will be needed for a specific role, but also going beyond that into thinking about what personality types actually may perform well in this role (Bridgewater and many other companies have done this), and also into what other qualities will be important for success in the role (e.g., level of curiosity/desire to learn, propensity to work hard before giving up, need for autonomy, etc).
On the candidate side, it would then be important to determine where they actually stand across all of these data point dimensions – i.e., skills, personality types and dimensions, and additional categories. This data can be gathered via a variety of different methods, from self-reporting, to formal test-taking of certain personality tests, to even web-scraping based search methods.


Ultimately, the automation and systematization in this area is and could come from determining what the right fit is across a variety of data points (as well as where the levels of tolerance are – i.e., critical vs. nice to have), determining candidate positioning across the data points, and then identifying top matches based on this, with the system ultimately creating a more systematized process for recruiting.

Training: To continue on the human capital angle, I could also envision that training would also become more modular, in that there could be services with a variety of “base case” trainings available for a variety of roles (e.g., likely starting out with roles that have some level of task similarity across companies, such as customer service representative, delivery person, driver, etc). There could be a base case training that is available for certain roles, with additional elements added in as “customized modules” based on more specific elements of what is needed for a specific company or role.


Financial modeling: Already, many financial modeling processes are automated, with tools such as Capital IQ. However, many more complex models such as LBOs, market growth models, and others, are still being largely done by financial analysts (of course, with exceptions). I could envision that by integrating with data sources (such as Capital IQ, Bloomberg, etc – which is already possible), and building in more complex rules around how to model certain events, forecasts, or scenarios, much of this could also be made more automated and made more modular, such that we could build in certain parameters (i.e., type of model, data sources, some assumptions), and an 80% version of a model could be created, that could then be reviewed and edited by a human.

Writing legal memos/PR/marketing/business documents: Writing certain legal, PR, marketing, or other business documents could also be modularized to some extent. Of course, the specific documents to be written would depend on the field and area, but I could imagine that certain more standard memos, press releases, or overview documents could be standardized in format (across archetypes – i.e., memo used for x, y, or z topic/situation), each with a different format and typical information included, and then users could provide the information needed to “personalize” the document with the information that is required based on the archetype.


Decision-making and prediction processes: Ultimately, I also see automation and systematization being useful in a variety of decision-making process, including investing (PE, VC, hedge funds), acquisition planning, and more. The methodology would involve each decision-making party systematizing their decision-making process by determining the standard criteria to be considered in every decision and minimum requirement across all criteria, and then assessing options across these. I could envision that there could be various archetypes of decisions set up (i.e., different types of investments, for example, maybe depending on industry/geography/size/goal), which would each have a different methodology and criteria for reaching the decision. The user could then fill in the required information to reach the necessary archetype, be prompted to provide additional information needed for this specific decision (or this would be pulled in from other documents), and then receive a recommendation.


III. What this means going forward

Ultimately, this means that as we move increasingly in this direction, we will be more able to move beyond pure task automation, and into more complex work automation that typically requires thinking and complex decision-making. The key is to realize that everything is ultimately built off of logic, even human decision-making, but that this logic is simply very complex. However, if we can try to systematize this complex and multi-layered logic, we can begin to build modular processes across a variety of areas that have thus far been primarily in the domain of human thinking.

Once “thinking processes” are able to be systematized, the systems that we trust to do the initial thinking for us would ideally be able to create ~80% versions of whatever task we are doing, with humans then stepping in to review and adjust as needed. This could be like a “turbo tax” tool for businesses, in that work is increasingly made modular with clear steps or inputs, with a first version output that can then be adjusted.

What does this mean? Having such tools would enable us to focus our attention on the even more complex work that requires our full attention, and away from lower-level tasks that are more able to be systematized (with increasingly more seemingly complex tasks being added to this category over time).

IV. Sources
1.  Pyöriä, P. (2005). “The Concept of Knowledge Work Revisited”. Journal of Knowledge Management9 (3): 116–127. doi:10.1108/13673270510602818  .https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13673270510602818/full/html


2. Davenport, Thomas H. (2005). Thinking For A Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results From Knowledge Workers  . Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN1-59139-423-6.

3. Deloitte University Press, The Future of Knowledge Work, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/the-future-of-knowledge-work/DUP416_The-future-of-knowledge-work.pdf

4. https://www.nintex.com/blog/will-automation-knowledge-work-really-mean/

5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270771273_The_process_of_atomization_of_business_tasks_for_crowdsourcing

Creating order out of chaos: Archetypes and systematization

How can we create order out of the chaos that is our disorganized world? Recently, I’ve been thinking about two concepts that can help us to do this, related to organizing ideas, systems, and businesses: archetyping and systematizing.

I. Identifiying Archetypes

A couple of years ago, I read Ray Dalio’s book, Principles, which detailed his principles around life and work, and among many topics, one stood out to me in particular: his focus on finding patterns, or archetypes, in the world around him. He explained that he applies this principle across much of his work and life, including hiring, investing, and making predictions. For example, Dalio applies personality testing in his hiring process at Bridgewater in order to determine what potential hires’ natural strengths and weaknesses are, and what sorts of roles people are best-suited for. As another example, he studied the history of the rise and fall of empires to determine what the high-level patterns are that take place before, during, and after an empire’s rise and fall, thus being able to apply forward predictions for our world today.

In his belief, most things in life can be categorized into archetypes – people, problems, situations, and more. The concept is that even though problems/people/situations in our lives may seem unique to us, once we have enough experience or information over time, we can see that certain sorts of these problems are actually repeated multiple times, many people fall into certain archetypes of personality, and patterns of events and situations repeat over time (ex: debt crises, rises and falls of empires, etc).

Once we realize that these patterns exist, it opens the door to actually start looking for these patterns in our own personal work, interactions, and experiences. This concept was quite interesting to me, and since then, I’ve been looking at things from that perspective as well. Around me, I see various experiences, but I constantly ask myself – what is the big picture behind this? What is the bigger pattern underlying this? How can it be systematized?

We can take the chaos that is the constant influx of ideas, situations, conversations, work, events, and more, identify a pattern, and then create a narrative and understanding of it.

For example, I’ve recently been looking at my own work and trying to identify areas that may seem different and varied, but actually have a variety of similarities. What came to mind was due diligence work. Private equity firms often do a large number of diligence efforts as they analyze a variety of acquisition targets, and they often hire consulting firms to run them. Although each target and diligence effort may have differences, when we zoom out and look at the bigger picture, there are actually a variety of similarities. For example, they often require building a market model, doing a customer survey, running ex-employee/ex-competitor interviews, identifying trends/growth areas, and more. When we think about these elements, there are many opportunities to standardize and maybe systematize. I’ll continue with this analogy in the next section.


II. Systematizing

Building upon a concept in Michael Gerber’s E-Myth Revisited, it is important to build in standardized sets of practices and systems for conducting certain processes. Once an order or pattern has been identified, I believe that this is where there is a lot of opportunity to address it by creating systematized solutions for the situation at hand. For example, let’s say that we have identified a set of archetypes for a particular problem, situation, or type of person that we may interact with. Once we have the archetypes laid out, we can determine how to go about appropriately addressing each archetype based on the bigger picture and unique circumstances/requirements of each, and can create a more standardized solution approach.

Let’s return to the due diligence example. As we said, there are often a variety of types of analyses that need to be run in due diligence settings, regardless of the type or topic. Let’s go deeper into one of them – conducting interviews. There are often a variety of types of interviews that need to be run, for a variety of topics. However, maybe if we think further into the types of interviews that we need to run (e.g., ex-employee, ex-competitor), the particular topic (e.g., understanding competitive landscape, understanding key buying factors, understanding trends, etc), we can think of the types of questions that may need be asked for each, and how they would differ (by leveraging past successful examples of each type). We could then construct a base set of questions that would be asked based on the particular type of interviewee, topic, and add further specificity as needed.

Now, we could argue that this wouldn’t be useful because we would need to adjust the questions that we are asking in real-time as per the interviewee’s response. However, maybe we could actually build that in. Let’s say that we anticipate that a particular question would have response type A, B, or C – we could then actually create a set of follow-up questions based on the response that the interviewee provides, dig deeper into that area with several questions as long as needed (maybe as long as we have specified as per the parameters), and then go back up several levels to the overall set of questions.

Ideally, we could create this base skeleton of questions to be asked as per several parameters set at the beginning (i.e., length of interview, type of interviewee, type of topic, level of detail desired which could govern the depth we enter for follow-up questions, and more), with certain data plugged in to customize to the situation (e.g., name of competitors trying to assess, key buying factors we are assessing between, etc).

In this way, we could actually create a customizable skeleton of questions for conducting interviews across a variety of situations. Of course, all this isn’t to say that we can create a perfect guide 100% of the time. However, what we can do is at least minimize level of effort expended to create new solutions every time, and rather, get the team ~70-80% there with little effort by creating a base case version customized to the situation, which can then be further adjusted.

This is a very particular example, but the concept is applicable in a very wide variety of ways. For the diligence example, we can create 70-80% skeleton versions for the other areas as well, including for building a market model, building a survey, and finding growth opportunities. Outside of the diligence example, we can think more broadly within consulting about the archetypes of projects that come up, and the standard elements that may be included within each.

Thinking more broadly, we can also find countless examples in other domains, from writing an essay, to putting together a brief, to designing a building as an architect, to doing a company valuation, and more. In every single situation and domain, there are currently many complex tasks that require a great deal of mental energy because people often start from scratch for the creation process, when in reality, there are countless past similar creations to leverage, and complex thought from scratch may not be necessary. If we could create 80% versions as a first step with very little effort and then only some minor adjustment required thereafter, we could take out the requirement for heavy thinking in these areas, and instead focus our and our employees’ mental energy on more complex tasks.

III. What this means

I think that as we progress as a society and continue in our desire to grow and enter into new areas, thinking about our work and experiences from the perspective of archetypes and systematization can be immensely powerful in simplifying much of our current mental load.

I’m going to continue thinking through this in my work, experiences, and daily life, and I encourage anybody reading this to do so as well, because there is an immense amount of potential within this.