Most people prefer that you have a recommendation that they don’t agree with instead of having no recommendation at all.
This is so true. I consider it offloading the decisions and the lack of accountability for the work they did. If someone just spent 1 week or 4 hours on something, as a manager, I expect them to formulate an opinion and derive a recommendation. This drives success!
If someone is best at, and most comfortable with, the execution position, they should be allowed that—and treasured for it. The problem to me is that the only way to earn more is to go “up”, that is, to management, which is a different skill set. A longevity or contribution pay increase perhaps; not only moving to leadership.
Most so called "Leaders" come from the Sales background. Sales people tend to perfect one skill only: get X done. Nothing else matters; they chase that number in an extremely focused way - tunnel vision.
Heaving "Leaders" suffering from chronic tunnel vision syndrome means most never learned enough on the way to be able to understand, yet alone use, the details and technicalities.
I'm not saying here they are intellectually incapable, it's not their fault, they specialized too much.
So I would flip the entire argument on its head:
"Leaders" need everything dumbed down, and that's a problem for any organization who want to out-innovate or out-perform. They will never do long term, they will never understand wider context or have time to be aware of "unnecessary details" that may be the next big breakthrough in their field.
i work with ex-academics and they believe the more complicated they make it sound the better their analysis, and dont care that no one ever asks for their help again
Some good stuff here. Easy to provide too much information for those steeped in the data. I still have that problem sometimes, and I present to executives.
The “offering recommendations” thing is probably true, but if you don’t yet have recommendations don’t offer them just to offer them imo. But you should be looking for ways to improve the enterprise, sure. Push to run or look for natural randomized experiments where it makes sense.
Providing too much details/over-explaining is so underrated it’s almost a career crime.
The more senior your audience, the fewer words you should use.
It’s as if the air gets thinner the higher you climb the corporate ladder: words are oxygen, so we should not waste them.
That’s a great analogy! Going to steal it next time :)
Glad for inspiring you 🙂
One of the biggest misconceptions:
Most people prefer that you have a recommendation that they don’t agree with instead of having no recommendation at all.
This is so true. I consider it offloading the decisions and the lack of accountability for the work they did. If someone just spent 1 week or 4 hours on something, as a manager, I expect them to formulate an opinion and derive a recommendation. This drives success!
This is very helpful. Definitely saving this as a reference guide
💯💯💯 amazing read - applies to any junior employee who works with data!
If someone is best at, and most comfortable with, the execution position, they should be allowed that—and treasured for it. The problem to me is that the only way to earn more is to go “up”, that is, to management, which is a different skill set. A longevity or contribution pay increase perhaps; not only moving to leadership.
I dare to disagree. Big Time.
Most so called "Leaders" come from the Sales background. Sales people tend to perfect one skill only: get X done. Nothing else matters; they chase that number in an extremely focused way - tunnel vision.
Heaving "Leaders" suffering from chronic tunnel vision syndrome means most never learned enough on the way to be able to understand, yet alone use, the details and technicalities.
I'm not saying here they are intellectually incapable, it's not their fault, they specialized too much.
So I would flip the entire argument on its head:
"Leaders" need everything dumbed down, and that's a problem for any organization who want to out-innovate or out-perform. They will never do long term, they will never understand wider context or have time to be aware of "unnecessary details" that may be the next big breakthrough in their field.
This is gold for any junior people or even senior
Well written good advice
One of the best uses of AI I've found so far is to have it summarize your work. If it doesn't pick up the points you wanted, neither will anyone else.
Such a great post, love the actionable recommendations.
Applicable to so much more than data science ! Anything else you'd recommend to build upon this ?
i work with ex-academics and they believe the more complicated they make it sound the better their analysis, and dont care that no one ever asks for their help again
Some good stuff here. Easy to provide too much information for those steeped in the data. I still have that problem sometimes, and I present to executives.
The “offering recommendations” thing is probably true, but if you don’t yet have recommendations don’t offer them just to offer them imo. But you should be looking for ways to improve the enterprise, sure. Push to run or look for natural randomized experiments where it makes sense.
I totally agree. You should never "offer recommendation" just to offer them when you don't have one.
You should think about what can you do/improve on your analysis or use experimentation to form an opinion about recommendations.
Excellent post!
People take you seriously when they see you differently—not just when you speak louder.
The real shift is helping them reframe your role. From “supportive teammate” to “strategic thinker.” From “helpful” to “essential.”
You don’t need to crank the volume. You need to change the channel they’re hearing you on. Background music doesn’t get center stage.
being carefully opinionated is very strategic.