Operator’s writing cry
Operators should write publicly to share their expertise and contribute to discourse, as it benefits both the writer and readers.
Gap
Whenever I meet an operator who is experienced, nuanced and thoughtful about their domain. I conclude our conversation with encouraging them to write publicly. They shrug it off immediately. Yet, I persevere each time, until I succeed.
This is coming from a person who hasn’t written much in the last 2 months. But, we each are hypocrites in our own newsletter. So, hear me out.
More operators should write about things they are navigating.
Recently, I joined a community where operators band together to discuss topics like effective capital allocation, heuristics of decision making and being more data driven. Cedric Cin’s writing on Commoncog is the genesis of the community. His focus is to have a space for discussions where people articulate their expertise, share their discoveries and use his posts as an anchor to contribute to discourse.
The idea of encouraging operators to write more stems from reading his blog for couple of years. In terms of usability to my own operations and working, his blog was intrumental. I found his blog posts more interesting than other popular writings that I have been reading in the past. I could understand these writing but they were not usable for me during operations.
The stark difference between most of business writing out in the inter-webs and his writing can be lack of frameworks being spouted.
Idle thought: the decision training espoused by Superforecasting is better suited for investors; the decision training used by the Marines is better suited for operators.
— Cedric Chin (@ejames_c) October 27, 2022
I keep sending one of his posts for encouraging more operators to write, believability. The concept comes from Ray Dalio of Bridgewater fame. He wrote it in his book, Principles.
My hot take, there are only few good operators and even fewer great ones. Operators have to deal with multiple long-term and short-term decisions in their daily execution. Getting good at these decisions increases their chances of succeeding.
Since, reading the series of posts on believability. I have tried to put that into practice.
First, write what you are navigating to the broader public and seek feedback from folks. My public blog is a microcosm of things I have deliberately practiced.
So, how to check a person’s believability while reading their writing. This is quote from Cedric’s post, emphasis and addition are mine.
You may evaluate a person's believability on the subject matter at hand by applying this heuristic. When interacting(writing) with them: 1. If you’re talking to a more believable person, suppress your instinct to debate and instead ask questions to understand their approach. This is far more effective in getting to the truth than wasting time debating. 2. You’re only allowed to debate someone who has roughly equal believability compared to you. 3. If you’re dealing with someone with lower believability, spend the minimum amount of time to see if they have objections that you’d not considered before. Otherwise, don’t spend that much time on them.
When operators write in the open. They allow others to take their advice and put it to use. And, decide if it was useful or not. Worst outcome, one will get feedback where it is breaking and what didn’t work.
Personally, I have put many of the cheat-sheets that John cutler shares with his newsletter while building a product ops function in my previous workplace. While implementing it, I realised that the post is not prescriptive but guidance instructions to adopt. The believability of his writing and advice increased a notch as I found it useful.
Writing in public is an open invitation for fellow operators to punch holes in your thinking or provide feedback that is beneficial. The best outcome is that your writing could be of help to fellow operators.
Round up
We focus on operators writing that have benefited me.
When Scale Matters by Jonah McIntire
This post is about building marketplaces in logistics domain. This is part 1 of 4 part series.
A new carrier on a loadboard adds value cross-side (i.e. to brokerages who may match with the new carrier). But it also is a swapping effect (a term I’m making up because I cannot find a clear definition elsewhere) because the new carrier creates its value by replacing the match with a less attractive existing carrier member.
Network effects are not as simple as defined in the popular example of telephone network effects that most of the articles on this topic. It’s dependant on the domain.
Biriyani to rescue by Anvesh Dyava
This LinkedIn post is navigating a situation through interpersonal means to achieve excellence in operations. Like, I mentioned earlier, this post by Anvesh is usable for every front line executive operating in commodities market.
The reason for posting both these contrasting posts is to talk about level of abstraction. One is on designing a system while the other is about executing a tactic that could help you get out of a pickle. Yet, both are usable for operators working in the same domains.
Links that resonated
Sticking to the theme of logistics posts being referred in the previous section. I thought this new newsletter from Vishnu Rajamanickam, The Logistics Report
The not so suprising prevalence of abandoned truck trailer in a disjointed freight market
The surprising problem of trailers being abandoned due to changing freight dynamics in US.
Did Flexport found a convenient scapegoat in Dave Clark
Flexport hired couple of ex-Amazonians and within a year fired them unceremoniously. This is about the Dave clark, who was the CEO of the company.
Lastly
I joined the Commoncog membership back in August with the wrong email id. Just last week, I got that rectified.
I am finding discussions in the community so heartwarmingly relevant and insightful. It has renewed by motivation for conducting a space like that for agripreneurs.
Signing off till next time,
Vivek, trying to stop being a hypocrite when it comes to writing