Great video. I might add that you use the term "work" in a creative organisation and go on to describe Price's Law. It would be more realistic to talk about "value creation" rather than simple work (which could be just cleaning up after your actual work). I certainly experience in my creative day that most of the value I create occurs in moments of inspiration and is not spread evenly over the hours of the day. Any form of problem solving is going to follow this rule. A period of understanding the problem, a period of plying with alternative approaches, and finally the moment of eureka when a viable solution is identified.
That’s a great question. I speculate that physical jobs have a similar scenario with some workers pulling much more weight than others , however I would assume due physical constraints that the effect would be much more subdued than what a knowledge worker is capable of.
@@ProgressLeavesClues I think there is also a diminishing return principle at play. I remember I worked for a manufacturing company that made custom products. So one part creative and about three parts assembly line. A coworker was complaining about the pay not being enough (as if it ever is). And I realized that even with the high-profit margins on the products. There was only so much that the owner could give to us as a bonus. The ROI that one really good employee gives eventually levels off in comparison to what an avg or even a bellow avg employees gives. Depending on the job of course. In a creative type of job. An employee can produce an outcome 10, 20, 30 even 100x of their salary. Whereas a non/less creative job. Like the mundane manufacturing one, I mentioned before. The output of a really good employee, is at the most going to be, let’s say is 100% more than the average employee. But if the boss was to increase their pay (ignoring all the other expenses like payroll taxes) by 100%. He’s zeroing out his own benefit from that employee. And is no better off if he just used that money to hire an additional average employee. The output is going to be the same. And to some degree he’s diversified his risk. Now, this isn’t an exact principle. There are other positive & negative factors to consider. Such as the cost of replacing an employee vs a long-serving one. And vice versa, the cost of an aging employee over a younger one. But the reality is that when it comes to less creative jobs. The best of the best employees are more than likely only going to produce a .25, .50, 1, 2, maybe a 3 x higher output than just your average employee. When it comes to those less than creative jobs. Usually have had all their creative opportunities (the 10, 20, 30, and even 100x return) poached out of them by those with creative jobs. Those hired before hand to create those systems. A system engineer who streamlined the whole assembly line and produced a 100x output. Has created more margin where pay raises and bonuses are more justifiable and feasible. In summary, the ceiling for non-creative jobs is a lot lower, like 3 inches above their head. Where the ceiling for creative jobs is a skyscraper. And is also why the sky is the limit for entrepreneurs.
those most successful in business spot the quickest and easiest way of doing what they are doing instantly , I find some people will still not perform tasks as you ask and even when you think all idiotic possibilities have been removed they employ what little brain power they have to find some more , so answer this , at what point are you suffering fools ? straight away ? or do you give them time to catch up ?
Don't forget to subscribe :)
ruclips.net/channel/UCqwv2pNwm2toS7IzZrvLGPA
100% of the time I wear 1% of the cloths in my wardrobe
Woah 1% is already too much
Great video.
I might add that you use the term "work" in a creative organisation and go on to describe Price's Law.
It would be more realistic to talk about "value creation" rather than simple work (which could be just cleaning up after your actual work).
I certainly experience in my creative day that most of the value I create occurs in moments of inspiration and is not spread evenly over the hours of the day.
Any form of problem solving is going to follow this rule.
A period of understanding the problem, a period of plying with alternative approaches, and finally the moment of eureka when a viable solution is identified.
Great video as always. Can you do Parkinson's law next? Decision matrix + 80/20+ parkinsons law = super focus and superior results.
Thats a good one, i’ll try and work it in at some point in a future video!
It took a little longer than expected, but here is the video based on your suggestion :) ruclips.net/video/pyBF7-5nNGQ/видео.html
Really like your channel. Great stuff
George and Ringo wrote half of the Beatles' songs.
Really excellent content 👏
Great video. How do these numbers change with non creative jobs? Jobs working on an assembly line, bust driver etc?
That’s a great question. I speculate that physical jobs have a similar scenario with some workers pulling much more weight than others , however I would assume due physical constraints that the effect would be much more subdued than what a knowledge worker is capable of.
@@ProgressLeavesClues I think there is also a diminishing return principle at play. I remember I worked for a manufacturing company that made custom products. So one part creative and about three parts assembly line. A coworker was complaining about the pay not being enough (as if it ever is). And I realized that even with the high-profit margins on the products. There was only so much that the owner could give to us as a bonus. The ROI that one really good employee gives eventually levels off in comparison to what an avg or even a bellow avg employees gives. Depending on the job of course. In a creative type of job. An employee can produce an outcome 10, 20, 30 even 100x of their salary. Whereas a non/less creative job. Like the mundane manufacturing one, I mentioned before. The output of a really good employee, is at the most going to be, let’s say is 100% more than the average employee. But if the boss was to increase their pay (ignoring all the other expenses like payroll taxes) by 100%. He’s zeroing out his own benefit from that employee. And is no better off if he just used that money to hire an additional average employee. The output is going to be the same. And to some degree he’s diversified his risk. Now, this isn’t an exact principle. There are other positive & negative factors to consider. Such as the cost of replacing an employee vs a long-serving one. And vice versa, the cost of an aging employee over a younger one. But the reality is that when it comes to less creative jobs. The best of the best employees are more than likely only going to produce a .25, .50, 1, 2, maybe a 3 x higher output than just your average employee. When it comes to those less than creative jobs. Usually have had all their creative opportunities (the 10, 20, 30, and even 100x return) poached out of them by those with creative jobs. Those hired before hand to create those systems. A system engineer who streamlined the whole assembly line and produced a 100x output. Has created more margin where pay raises and bonuses are more justifiable and feasible. In summary, the ceiling for non-creative jobs is a lot lower, like 3 inches above their head. Where the ceiling for creative jobs is a skyscraper. And is also why the sky is the limit for entrepreneurs.
Very well said.
This sounds like it was narrated by Gordon Ryan🤣🤣🤣 great video.👍
those most successful in business spot the quickest and easiest way of doing what they are doing instantly , I find some people will still not perform tasks as you ask and even when you think all idiotic possibilities have been removed they employ what little brain power they have to find some more , so answer this , at what point are you suffering fools ? straight away ? or do you give them time to catch up ?
Vilfredo Pareto (Vil-FRAY-DOH Pa-RAY-DOH). So, we're just gonna ignore that, then?
DEI will probably ignore all this. Expertise isn't needed...right?