I always think I'm doing a shit job and not getting anywhere near enough done. However, I always seem to get rated as a top contributor (which surprises me). In this example, my manager told me that he had obtained information that a team of sixteen people had accomplished the same work as I had in twice the time. I believed him, even though it seemed insane, particularly given that I felt like I was doing a crap job. I don't see why he would lie to me about that.
Another example like this (from later) was when I designed a context-switchable HD MPEG-2 core with two other people. We had the CEO/CTO of a start-up come in to pitch their supposedly equivalent core to us. They had a company of dozens of people who had all been working on the project for a couple of years. We had been working on our project for six months and we were much further ahead in development than them.
It seems to me that the performance and quality bar is just really low in general. Execution is way lower than it could be. I can only imagine that it's a motivation problem.
I didn’t think he was lying, just wondering what your own assessment would be.
I think you’re right that motivation has a lot to do with it, but there are other factors too. Being 32x seems like too large a gap to be explained by motivation alone, unless the situation over there was extremely dire. We have to entertain the possibility that you’re also much better than they are. Attribution to motivation alone makes it sound like your mental model is based on the idea that intelligence and aptitude is equivalent in everbody.
I’ve always said to younger folks new to the workforce that the way to get above average performance reviews is to simply give a shit. That alone seems to put any minimally competent person ahead of half the competition.
And to what extent is the ability to maintain focus and motivation a talent on its own?
Edit: I just want to say, I found the article extremely enjoyable. I am a little bit surprised by some of the feedback in HN comments. I’ll be blunt, you sound like you are bragging and have an elevated sense of your own worth. I do not think that is actually the case, but your writing (or maybe just your accomplishments) seem to trigger that heuristic. In my estimation, you seem to just be presenting facts and laying it all out, and I’m not sure how to do that when those facts happen to be flattering. As a clinical psychologist, maybe you have insight into why someone perceived as bragging gets downvoted. Since you expressed an interest in writing and motivating people, you might want to think about how to present that information without it distracting the reader by triggering their insecurities (if in fact that is happening). I generally struggle with that as well - although not on this particular issue, because I do not really have any great accomplishments to brag about ;)
Although I like the article, my biggest issue with it is that I would like for it to be true, but I am unconvinced that it’s a recipe for success with most people. I’m not sure how many people you have managed, but have you really not seen anyone’s performance drop without deadlines?
You’re getting shit for going off topic, but I’m glad you did, because I would not have clicked on an article about narcissism.
Wow. Thank you. In hindsight, I think I did do an impressive amount of high-quality work. After getting a lot more experience, I realized that what I did was impressive, even though at the time, and for a while afterward, I felt that I was underperforming (even when I was repeatedly assessed as a top performer). This is a recurring pattern for me. For example, I often don't realize the true value of my articles until I read them much later, with a perspective as if I myself did not write them.
I have written a lot about the topics that you're covering, actually tons on it. I have written about motivation, success, and imposter syndrome, and I will continue to do so.
Yeah, some people seem to think I'm arrogant or bragging or "narcissistic," without apparently understanding what that really means. I have spent 16 years in therapy learning to give less of a shit about that stuff, to not take responsibility for other people's emotional reactions. I'm also trying to be as honest and truthful as possible in my articles. I do also enjoy being visible, and I like inspiring others to achieve their full potential.
And I agree: the skills that lead to amazing quality and volume of work are things like focus, conscientiousness, persistence, and self-awareness. I have written extensively about this. All of these attributes are learnable. I believe that anyone can achieve at very high levels compared with the current bar. I'm not special at all.
Another example like this (from later) was when I designed a context-switchable HD MPEG-2 core with two other people. We had the CEO/CTO of a start-up come in to pitch their supposedly equivalent core to us. They had a company of dozens of people who had all been working on the project for a couple of years. We had been working on our project for six months and we were much further ahead in development than them.
It seems to me that the performance and quality bar is just really low in general. Execution is way lower than it could be. I can only imagine that it's a motivation problem.