Marc Brooker

And I'm going to just go ahead and change that because I have better data now.

I've watched the system run.

I can go and change those.

And these other ones are like, well, let me really engage with the reason that we made this decision.

Maybe it was non-obvious.

Maybe there was some more advanced thinking.

And so being able to kind of understand the amount of thought that went into a decision is almost as important as understanding what that thought was.

Yeah, that's something that I reflect on a lot.

And I do explicitly think that sort of being 100% on either of those ends is a failure mode.

And I think I will say that

I have a lot more

personal enjoyment working with the people that are 100% on the doing side and 0% on the talking side.

I appreciate and deeply love their expertise.

But I do think that they could have more impact and leverage if they swung a little bit away from that.

I tend to not enjoy as much interacting with the people who are 100% on the speaking side.

uh but i i and i think they would you know have a lot more relevant things to say you know if if if they you know swung a little bit back towards the center the other challenge of being on 100 on the doing side it sort of gets back to that how do you find the really important problems and you know if your head's down in your ide all day

you could very likely be working on the wrong thing.

Something that isn't as important, isn't as impactful, doesn't have these properties that people want.

So how do you find the optimal balance?

I don't have a recipe for what really is optimal.