Link: Lessons from Elad Gil and High Growth Handbook

It’d be useful at some point to compare the “how to be a startup” advice to “how to modernize and suite of enterprise applications.” For example, an enterprise often knows its product/market fit (e.g., selling kidnapping insurance to executives). However, it may not know the best product/technology approach (it needs a mobile app that tracks when the executive leaves the country), or product/design fit (the executive’s assistant does most of the interaction with the software, so you need to add a secondary user).

For enterprises, there’s much to be learned from startup think, but there’s also much that’s different.
Original source: Lessons from Elad Gil and High Growth Handbook

Link: Stop Playing Devil’s Advocate, and Other Advice for Better Decision Making

I think the idea is, they know the devil’s advocate is a game, so they don’t take it seriously enough to be useful:

“When someone truly believes something different than you do, it has a stimulating quality for your own thinking. When you’re roleplaying, you can’t argue with the person who’s pretending, if you will. People are under the illusion that since the information is the same, the two conversations should be equivalent. They put a devil’s advocate in because they think you’re going to get somebody who gets you to think about the alternative, and you’re not going to get mad at each other. What they underestimate is that devil’s advocates don’t make you think about the alternative decision. Playing devil’s advocate does not have the stimulating quality [one] hopes for. I don’t think it has to do with the information that devil’s advocates state. I think it has to do with the fact that they believe something very differently than you do, and that challenge is sort of like a smack on the head, if you will, that gets you to start to rethink the issue. And so there’s power in that.”
Original source: Stop Playing Devil’s Advocate, and Other Advice for Better Decision Making

Link: Stop Playing Devil’s Advocate, and Other Advice for Better Decision Making

I think the idea is, they know the devil’s advocate is a game, so they don’t take it seriously enough to be useful:

“When someone truly believes something different than you do, it has a stimulating quality for your own thinking. When you’re roleplaying, you can’t argue with the person who’s pretending, if you will. People are under the illusion that since the information is the same, the two conversations should be equivalent. They put a devil’s advocate in because they think you’re going to get somebody who gets you to think about the alternative, and you’re not going to get mad at each other. What they underestimate is that devil’s advocates don’t make you think about the alternative decision. Playing devil’s advocate does not have the stimulating quality [one] hopes for. I don’t think it has to do with the information that devil’s advocates state. I think it has to do with the fact that they believe something very differently than you do, and that challenge is sort of like a smack on the head, if you will, that gets you to start to rethink the issue. And so there’s power in that.”
Original source: Stop Playing Devil’s Advocate, and Other Advice for Better Decision Making