Leverage Weekly #64 - Efficiency in action
tl;dr - With adequate preparation, many activities are quite simple.
What does it look like for an organization to move quickly? The organization is not the same as its parts: the parts of an organizing whirring around does not necessarily mean that the organization is getting anything done. In fact, if a group wants its people to think or wants to reorganize itself, it may be valuable to operate the group slowly. Slower functioning of the parts can mean faster functioning overall.
The fact that taking one’s time, either individually or an organizational level, can yield greater effectiveness, does not by itself show one how to make an effective or efficient organization. Rather, the best way to understand efficiency in action is through actual examples of efficient action, combined with an understanding of the mechanics of the relevant activities. Examples show that something is possible. An abstract understanding of the components of activities show how they might be possible.
Consider hiring. Hiring is often an excruciatingly lengthy process. Companies interview many candidates. Successful candidates go through many stages of interviews. Sometimes, more and more people must be brought in to make a judgment on a candidate’s fitness. In many cases there are weeks or even months between the stages of an interview process. The total calendar time and number of person hours spent can be staggering — and even then, a good result is not ensured.
Compare this to what should actually be necessary for hiring. People should know what the role requires. They should know who needs to weigh in. Ideally, they would be able to tell where to find promising candidates, how to attract them, how to tell whether they fit the roles, and what offers to make. In an ideal situation, hiring happens almost instantly, since one’s organization already has a network for sourcing promising candidates, already knows how to assess candidates for both skill and interest, and has already worked out an attractive compensation package that fits the organization’s constraints.
Of course, it can be hard to imagine that hiring could be so efficient, if one’s experience has always been of processes that drag on for months. That’s why it’s important to have direct experience with efficient processes, whether in hiring or in any other domain. As one accumulates experience and testimony, one can collect examples of processes that work surprisingly quickly and surprisingly well. One can then think about how those processes work and compare those processes to a theoretical ideal, slowly triangulating to a realistic assessment of how efficient processes can actually become.
If one thinks about an organization as a machine made of people, one can think of efficiency in terms of the machine being prepared to take the shortest, easiest, lowest effort route to success. This presents something of a paradox, since in reality, processes like hiring talented people, designing compelling pitches, developing effective research plans, and so forth, can be very difficult and involve a very large number of steps. It is then quite natural to imagine that doing these things must be difficult and require large amounts of time and effort.
The resolution to the paradox comes from the idea of preparation. Learning can be very difficult and take a long time. Setting up an organization, building a new network, and finding good research hypotheses can take a long time, but often that is because they require learning. Once you and the people you work with know how to set up an organization, actually setting one up is pretty fast. The same is true for building a network, designing a research plan, raising money, and so forth.
This paints a particular picture of organizational efficiency. Rather than moving quickly because its parts move quickly, an organization can do things efficiently because its parts are set up right, its parts move at the right speed, and everyone is adequately prepared. Then the question just becomes: how many steps is a given task really composed of? In many cases, not many. The things that take a long time, then, are frequently those involved in preparation, which often include activities like thinking and learning.
With adequate preparation, many activities are quite simple.
Last week, Leverage spent time hire contractors for key temporary roles. The Quantum Biology Institute is starting a non-profit fundraise again, with Geoff (as acting CEO) leading the charge. Last time, however, non-profit was a tough nut to crack. Geoff thus thought it would go better to bring in some bigger guns. Leverage also has developed, perhaps unsurprisingly, its own interest in quantum biology. With Geoff on physics and Oliver on biology, there is still a gap in the domain of biochemistry. Bringing in a killer expert there would be helpful as well.
Whether by luck or crushing efficiency, the tasks of sourcing, vetting, and hiring the contractors are essentially already complete. The first is Anna Stillwell, an executive with experience advising leaders in the UAE and fundraising for Wikimedia. On Tuesday, the broad strokes of the plan were determined. On Wednesday, the contract was ironed out. On Thursday, Anna met the QBI team. On Friday, the deal was sealed. Work began the next business day, which was the Monday of this week.
The second contractor is Cliff Sandlin, an experimental biochemist with a grasp of theory and a broad range of related fields. Geoff and Oliver met Cliff during their visit to the QBI lab in March for the in-person hiring interviews. Now, Cliff will be helping Leverage understand the biochemistry behind alternative causal pathways underlying sensitivity to weak magnetic fields in biology. The major steps were also taken last week, with Cliff beginning work on Monday this week as well.
Apart from a temporary expansion of the team (by 50%), Geoff and Oliver are grappling with the extent of scientific dysfunction, while Melinda is making progress editing introspection videos. The team also worked out how to interact with contractors, improved Leverage’s standard contractor agreement, and published a Leverage Monthly describing the institute’s progress in March.