I am often wrong
A manager shares his personal 6-step problem-solving framework, emphasizing the value of being wrong and iterating. However, this seemingly practical guide ignited a fiery debate on Hacker News. Many commenters criticized its perceived rigidity and the manager's prescriptive tone, viewing it as a narcissistic imposition rather than a collaborative tool.
The Lowdown
The author, bcherny, shares a six-step problem-solving framework initially distributed to their team, hoping it might prove useful to others in product development, particularly in the age of AI. The core of this iterative process involves continuous learning and adaptation.
- The framework begins with understanding and gathering information, followed by defining the problem, crafting a clear and simple approach, and setting a goal.
- The final step is to act with urgency to achieve that goal.
- A key aspect is the iterative nature, where new information frequently leads to revisiting and redefining steps 3-5 (problem, approach, goal).
- The author stresses that 'churn is healthy' and embraces 'being wrong' as essential for refining solutions and learning quickly.
- He notes that common failures among team members often involve poorly defining the problem or lacking a clear, simple approach, and he provides feedback when these steps are missed or executed poorly.
This framework is presented not as a rigid dogma but as a personal meta-process, with the author open to feedback if any part of it is 'meta-wrong'.
The Gossip
Managerial Misgivings
A significant portion of the comments expressed strong disapproval of the author's tone and perceived management style. Many saw the framework as overly prescriptive and self-important, interpreting the author's 'feedback' as a demand for conformity rather than genuine collaboration. Critics argued that forcing a personal framework on a team could stifle creativity and lead to resentment, with some outright calling the approach narcissistic and suggesting it makes the manager a 'replaceable cog'.
Urgency Under Scrutiny
The framework's sixth step, 'Act with urgency,' sparked specific debate. Commenters questioned whether constant urgency is sustainable or beneficial, suggesting it could lead to burnout, compromise the quality of work, and even hinder the very learning and iteration the author champions. They argued that while urgency has its place, it shouldn't be the default mode for every task, especially for complex problems or at senior levels where methodical thought is paramount.
Framework Fundamentals
While many were critical, some commenters defended the core principles of the framework, recognizing its alignment with established problem-solving methodologies like Amazon's decision-making process or the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop. They suggested that the steps, though perhaps basic, represent a sound approach to iterative problem-solving. There was also discussion on whether explicitly stating such a framework is helpful for clarity or if it merely formalizes what many experienced individuals already do implicitly, sometimes with a sarcastic twist noting the role of AI in these steps.