05: It's all in the name
As a kid, naming things as mine—“Sylvia’s”—was a way to establish agency, identity, and individualism distinct from the rest of my family. Extrapolating a bit from specific memory, I will guess that this may have also included keeping secrets, stowing stories in order to retain the sense of ownership over not just things but also experiences.
While this all makes sense when I think of childhood, when it comes to the company context, naming a work product after a person who created it—“Alice’s model” or “Bob’s experiment”—points to a habit that can be an indicator of some ineffective practices. I’ve seen this most clearly in younger startups that have recently moved past the point where everyone knows each other.
In academia, even undergrads cannot help but learn that status is denoted by having one’s name attached to things. In physics, units, fundamental particles, and important principles are often named after people! More prosaically, research papers in many fields are often referenced by an author’s name (like “the Smullin paper”) as shorthand in a community where everyone is assumed to know the work and the author. A well-known name lends credence to a paper and a well-received paper in turn confers status to the author.
In a company, when people refer to work output by name, it is a shortcut that leaves me wondering what other shortcuts are being taken and where there are opportunities to mature to a mindset more appropriate for industry. Here are some examples.
Does everyone in the room understand what the work product is or what makes it distinct or useful? What does “Alice’s model” do and why would we want to (or not) use it? Without a descriptive name, it can be easy to lose track (what if Alice builds multiple models?) and harder for people more removed from the work to enter the conversation. Indeed, using a person’s name for a work product can discourage the kind of curiosity and engagement that is needed to do effective R&D at a company. It can exclude people in a way that shuts down collaboration and opportunities for insight and progress. In contrast, a simple descriptive name (“physics-based model”, “system model”, “techno-economic model”) can make for more productive conversations, providing a hook for others to ask questions and build on the work.
Has the work output been evaluated separately from whatever opinion people have of the person that is named? Has anyone checked the math or the code in the model that Alice built? Or is the assessment of the model based on the assessment of Alice? Here’s a personal example: In grad school, two of my classmates were graders in one of our classes. When studying for the final, I referenced the available homework solutions. While my grades all quarter had led me to believe I was acing the class, when I referenced the solutions I saw that in fact I had serious gaps in my understanding. My classmates hadn’t read any of my homeworks; they took the shortcut of giving me perfect scores based on what they thought of me. In that shortcut, I missed opportunities every week to learn. When trust in a work product is granted based solely on the opinion of the person who did it, the company can similarly miss big opportunities for learning. I’ve seen this go both ways—decisions made based on output from high-status folks that is sloppy and under-scrutinized (like my homework!) and creative ideas and questions from junior folks that do not get the attention they deserve. When both Bob’s experimental plan and Alice’s model get a second pair of eyes on them, the company is building connective tissue that feeds collaboration and the company’s work—no longer just Bob’s or Alice’s alone—is more robust.
Does the company have a shared process for performance reviews, goal-setting, professional development, or even celebrating success? Those are great places for taking ownership of work! When I am managing folks, I encourage them to keep a “Done” list for themselves with links to their output and documentation of work products such that when the time comes, it is easy for them to remind others of what they have accomplished. When Bob (or his manager) attaches Bob’s name to an experimental set-up, is that because there is no other formal way for Bob to get recognition or because the process is not trusted? If the company has a shared, trusted process for giving recognition and promoting folks, perhaps it is easier for Bob or Alice to give descriptive names to their output, to invite collaboration, knowing that their manager will help make sure that they are given credit when it matters.
On the flip side, is ownership taken not just for status but also for responsibility and accountability? Are there names attached to decisions that must be made, budgets that must be followed, people that must be managed? Does everyone know who is responsible? In the companies where I’ve seen this shortcut of naming, I have seen (perhaps unrelated!) that names are not so clearly attached to responsibility or accountability higher in the org chart, which can leave the company in a low-trust or unfocused state. Who is accountable for the decisions that are based on “Alice’s model” or the results of “Bob’s experiment”? Who is responsible for the budget for the work? Who decides what models or experiments get done and how is work assigned? When I ask these questions of different folks at a company, sometimes I get the same, consistent answers from everyone; when I get different answers from different folks at a company, that indicates to me that the company has opportunities to improve its culture, processes, and/or communication to operate more effectively.
Is the team collaborating well? Was Alice the only one who contributed to the model? Did Bob design, build, and execute the experiment on his own? When the experiment is named after Bob, I am left wondering who else contributed and if there is an opportunity to improve collaboration, such that the company gets to leverage all the brains in the company and everyone who contributes gets credit when the time comes. Using descriptive names makes it easier, for example in an All-Hands presentation, to also celebrate the teamwork that has gone into any company success.
Is the company too dependent on certain individuals? What if Bob takes another job, leaves for grad school, or goes on medical leave—what happens to the experiment? Are there practices in place (like documentation) such that the learnings and work product can be used and leveraged even if Alice, for whatever reason, is away? If the model truly is just Alice’s, i.e. she is the only one who understands it, uses it, and can contribute to it, that is a fragile situation for the company. In these scenarios, Alice’s knowledge remains her own and not the company’s. Ditto, of course, for Bob and the experiment. If the shortcut of the naming is a true indication of all ownership and responsibility, the company is too dependent on knowledge that lives in the heads of individuals. While this can be hard to acknowledge, especially for folks who are new to working in industry, at companies, people do come and go for all kinds of reasons on different time scales. For the company to thrive, each individual’s work must become company knowledge.
Closing the loop
This kind of maturation, from doing R&D in an academic environment to doing R&D in a product-focused industry environment, is a learning process that I’ve seen at many startups. It can require changes in habits, with naming being just one example. As always, I’d love to hear your feedback: how have you seen this go? If there is a way I can support your company in this process, please reach out to me at figured8@substack.com.