A few years ago I realized that if I’m too busy to take something on, I shouldn’t say “I don’t have the time”. In fact, I often do have the time. It’s not that hard to squeeze in some extra time for someone. What I don’t have – and what I can’t squeeze in – is more attention. Attention is a far more limited resource than time. So what I should say is “I don’t have the attention”. I may have 8 hours a day for work, but I probably have 4 hours a day for attention.

One summer, a guy wrote me out of the blue asking if he could intern for me. His email was great – clear, thoughtful, kind, inviting, confident but not pushy, and not too long (but long enough to say what he had to say without leaving anything out). He was studying at Harvard Business School and was going to be back in Chicago that summer. He asked if he could swing by and say hi. His email made it easy for me to say yes. So he did, and we had a great session. We spent maybe an hour or so together. I learned about his background, what kind of stuff he was interested in, what he wanted to learn, what he could teach us, etc. Then we riffed on a few ideas. It was natural, flowing, effortless. Really promising.

I realized I had the time. Every day is the same 24 hour cycle. Every workday around 8 hours. Surely I could have found even 20 minutes a day to work with him. But it wasn’t that. It wasn’t that I couldn’t find the time. I couldn’t find the attention — especially sustained attention. My mind fills up with a few key projects and that’s it. I’m absorbed by those. That’s where my attention is. Had I made 20 minutes here and there for him, I’d be physically present in that moment, but mentally I’d be elsewhere. And that’s not fair to either of us.

Your comment actually suggests that your instincts tell you those things are not as valuable, but you might just be following habit and dopamine loops at the current moment. Which I guess is to say that GP's "follow your instincts" can also be as difficult as "set goals and hit them", just in different ways.

The thing I most worry about using anti-perfectionism arguments is that it begs a vision in the first place—perfectionism requires an idea of what's perfect. Projects suffer from a lack of real hypotheses. Fine, just build. But if you're cutting something important to others by calling it too perfect, can you define the goal (not just the ingredients)? We tend to justify these things by saying, we'll iterate. Much like perfectionism can always be criticized, iteration can theoretically always make a thing better. Iteration is not vision and strategy, it's nearly the reverse, it hedges vision and strategy. This is a slightly different point, but when we say we don't need this extra security or that UX performance, you're setting a ceiling on the people who are passionate about them. Those things really do have limits (no illusions!), but you're not just cutting corners, you're cutting specific corners. That's a company's culture. Being accused of perfectionism justifiably leads to upset that the company doesn't care about security or users. Yeah, maybe it's limited to this one project, but often not.

Perfection can be the enemy of the good. It's that it's not a particularly a helpful critique. To use the article’s concept, it’s the wrong scale. It might be helpful to an individual in a performance review, but it doesn’t say why X is unnecessary in this project or at this company. Little is added to the discussion until I describe X relative to the goal. Perfectionism is indeed good to avoid—it's basically defined as a bad thing by being "too". But the better conversation says how X falls short on certain measuring sticks. At the very least it actually engages X in the X discussion. Perfectionism is more of a critique of the person.

It takes effort to understand the person's idea enough to engage it, but more importantly it takes work that was supposed to (but might not) have gone into developing good projects or goals in the first place. Projects well-formed enough to create constraints for themselves.

I agree with the thesis of this article but I actually think the point would be better made if we switch from talking about optimizing to talking about satisficing[1]. Simply put, satisficing is searching for a solution that meets a particular threshold for acceptability, and then stopping. My personal high-level strategy for success is one of continual iterative satisficing. The iterative part means that once I have met an acceptability criterion, I am free to either move on to something else, or raise my bar for acceptability and search again. I never worry about whether a solution is optimal, though, only if it is good enough. I think that this is what many people are really doing when they say they are "optimizing", but using the term "optimzing" leads to confusion, because satisficing solutions are by definition non-optimal (except by luck), and some people (especially the young, in my experience) seem to feel compelled to actually optimize, leading to unnecessary perfectionism.

Perfectionism is sort of polarizing, and a lot of product manager / CEO types see it as the enemy. In certain contexts it might be, but in others “perfectionism” translates to “building the foundation flawlessly with the downstream dependencies in mind to minimize future tech debt.” Of course, a lot of managers prefer to pretend that tech debt doesn’t exist but that’s just because they don’t think they can pay it off in time before their team gets cut for not producing any value because they were so busy paying off tech debt.

kthejoker2 3 months ago | prev | next [–] Not sure you can talk about perfectionism without clarifying between "healthy" perfectionism and "unhealthy" perfectionism. Both exist, but often people are thinking of one or the other when discussing perfectionism, and it creates cognitive dissonance when two people thinking of the two different modes are singing perfectionism's praises or denouncing its practice.

looking at these comments, it seems perfectionism is ill-defined. it seems to be positive - perfectionism is not giving up, it is excellence, it is beyond mediocre. it also seems to be negative - it is going too far, it is avoiding/procrastinating, it is self-defeating. I wonder what the perfect definition would be?

depending on your long term objectives taking a sabbatical might have been the worst thing to recover from burnout. You want to reassociate effort with reward, and the best way to do that is to work on small things related to what caused your burnout that will "guarantee wins with low expectations".

1. I am not my thoughts or feelings. It’s surprising how far this one will take you2. If work is your support system, your life exists on shaky ground3. Personal struggles become work struggles and vice versa. You can’t draw a clean box around grief and loss, or pretend that work stress can stay at work4. There were major gaps in my life in terms of social connections, time spent in nature, finding artistic outlets, etc.5. Focusing on real self-care/improvement as one’s primary purpose in life open doors internally and externally

projects start in this vague state of some words on a page, and eventually grow, there is discussion, and it gets refined to something more specific. You start defining issues, and you can create them just highlighting text in the doc. Eventually the work starts and there will be milestones and project updates. Now this whole lifecycle this can happen in Linear.

Internally we moved all of our project specs, and product related documentation to Linear. The key thing we noticed is that this way the documentation is more accessible, accurate and authoritative for everyone. You don’t have random or multiple docs of the project, or you don’t have to hunt to find where the doc is. The doc is the project and Linear is where the project work actually happens.