Euclid, Pareto, and the Art of Efficient Teamwork

“Euclid's "Elements" is not something that existed from the beginning. People started building their huts long before geometry was invented. Of course, it was irresponsible on their part, but they needed a place to live. Then Euclid was born and wrote his book. But that was a little over 2000 years ago.”

“Euclid formulated 5 axioms - the pillars of his geometry. These are statements that it makes no sense to dispute if you want to discuss Euclidean geometry. If you disagree with something, it means you're arguing about something else, and it would be good for your opponent to know that beforehand. Having such axioms later helped mathematicians communicate and formulate theorems - conclusions based on axioms.”

Looks like I'm losing him. I have to visualize this.

“Look, down here are hundreds of years of building evolution, trial and error. And here, in 300 B.C., Euclid publishes his book in which he formulates definitions, postulates, and axioms - the pillars of his discipline. From these pillars, by tracing logical chains, you can formulate theorems and then make practical decisions based on them.”

“Andrey, I don't think we have hundreds of years for the evolution of thought. We've been working together for 5 years and have gained enough experience to write our own "Elements". In the last few months, since I started working remotely, I spend most of the time I save on commuting to the office arguing with you in my head.”

“Yes, when we worked in the same office, those rough edges were smoothed over. And what wasn't smoothed was polished over beers at the bar. But now almost every management decision you make seems unjustified to me.”

Oops. Looks like I got myself trapped.

“Yes, that would solve the problem, but only partially. By working together, we could synchronize our opinions more often and give each other quick feedback on actions. But we've been together for 5 years and it's time to learn how to make the same decisions independently.”

“At first I didn't understand what was going on, so I just blamed you. I thought you were just being bad or stupid - a standard reaction to the behavior of someone you don't understand. But it is very easy to call the unknown "stupid". Such a thought is easy and pleasant in its own way, but it leads nowhere.

For example, you give many tasks and say that they're all urgent, that they had to be done "yesterday". When I ask you to choose which one is more important, you refuse, arguing that "everything is important". I limit the kanban board with WIP limits and you assign critical priority to tasks, forcing people to work on several things at once. In the end, we compromise, but I know it's all going to happen again - the conflict is not resolved.

Eventually, I realized that the problem isn't that we're acting chaotically and giving conflicting instructions to the team. The problem is that we don't even know what principles each of us uses to make decisions.”

“I'm not saying it will be easy. But without it, it will be impossible for us to organize parallel, independent work. I'll always do what you think is wrong. We won't be able to understand each other half a word.

Not just half a word - for example, if a programmer doesn't fully understand you, even with a detailed specification, half the tasks will result in something completely different from what you expected. The person may do everything "as written", but it won't always be what is "expected".

Intuition and unspoken principles work when you're an individual performer. But if you want to delegate or assign something to someone else, they need to know what drives your decisions.”

“Okay, here's an example. Can your subordinates express their opinions and criticize your decisions? In other words, do you have an "I'm the boss, you're the fool" principle?”

“Are you sure all our stakeholders understand? If you think everyone understands, why aren't they arguing with you in meetings? Why aren't they suggesting things that contradict your point of view? Have you considered that it might be because they're not really sure you won't say "I'm the boss, you're the fool" one day?”

“Wait, I'm not trying to solve everyone's problems here. I'm trying to resolve conflicts between you and me. Later we can open up these principles to others. I just don't want to discuss "I'm the boss - you're the fool," because I already know you don't think that way.”

Phew, things are heating up.

“Let's start with a principle that's easy to get started with. I've heard you mention it many times, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
I'm talking about the Pareto Principle.”

“Exactly. Do you know how this principle came about? Pareto was actually a scientist, but he didn't study "effort" or "efficiency. He discovered that 20% of Italy's population owned 80% of the country's wealth. He saw an asymmetry in the distribution. The "effort" interpretation is a modern version of Pareto's observation.”

“That's what I wanted to talk about.”

I hope I don't screw this up. I should have practiced my arguments more yesterday.

“If we both believe that only 20% of the effort (completed tasks) produces 80% of the results, then we can take this idea further. Within that "effective" group of tasks, there are 20% that are the most efficient, producing 80% of the results within that subset. Meanwhile, within that 80% of "waste" there are 80% that are even more wasteful.”

“We can't know in advance (for example, by looking at our backlog) which tasks will fall into which group. We won't know until the tasks are completed and we can evaluate the results. But if we know that only 20% of our ideas will produce results, we should at least TRY to predict what might become that 20%.”

“In fact, I'd say it's our moral obligation to our people. Their future depends on these decisions.”

“Of course. Keep looking. Knowing that each group can be split into two subgroups: group-20 and group-80, and then each of them into subgroup-20 and subgroup-80, means that any unsorted pile - CAN BE - can be prioritized, turning it into a flat list. It's difficult, and we might make mistakes, but as I said, it's our moral obligation to our people. ”

Phew, I hope he doesn't think I've got him in a logical trap.

“I'm not saying it's going to be easy. We're going to have to develop some kind of evaluation and prediction system.
This whole axiomatic model is a belief system. You can make mistakes, you can be wrong, you can slack off, you can act wrongly. In short, you can sin. But if you really believe in the 80/20 principle, you'll always come back to the conclusions I've made.”

Looks like I pushed too hard. I should give him a break; it's only 9 a.m.

“That's all for today.”

“But I have three more principles for you.”