Elise Liu

Elise Liu

/eliseliu

Elise Liu

poet, storyteller, pragmatist, technologist, internet safety nerd. she/her. formerly product @Clubhouse, @Facebook, @HumanInterest. fellow at @integrity_inst. hopeful

Website
User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

Why your CEO is out of touch (and how you can help and/or survive)
Elise Liu

This week, Elon Musk changed the name of Twitter to "X". "Soon the birds will be gone," he tweeted - no, X'ed- afterwards. What a great reminder of how often it is that CEOs seem desperately out of touch.

It's old water-cooler talk in corporate America - why would they do that?

I can't explain Musk, but more generally, leaders end up on the wrong side of "reasonable" for one of one of three reasons:

  1. It's not their job to be right.

  2. People are lying to them.

  3. They are lying to you (the employees).


It's not the CEO's job to be right.

Let's start with the most reasonable: CEOs have the least front-line context and so are likely to make obvious errors because of that gap.

When thinking about delegation, leaders should be setting an initial vision and letting their teams make 80-90%+ of the decisions in the executing line, before weighing in to confirm they agree. Executives are as likely as not to do the first bit wrong.

Good leadership is designed to allow for correction.

Product roadmaps may seem strategic, but in reality they are all detail. What do users want? What are they using now? How long does it take to build things? Having accurate intuitions on this stuff is a talent, sure, but being right all the time is impossible. A health organization allows for those mistakes by tolerating dissent.

But what if yours doesn't?

People are sycophants and hierarchies amplify this.

We all tend to say what we think other people want to hear. It's a natural human instinct, because we are social creatures who like to be liked.

This effect is magnified in large hierarchies.

In large organizations, information memetically flattens and loses nuance with repetition. So do individuals' reputations. In hierarchies, incentives to echo the leader specifically are especially strong. So when it's not safe to be wrong, it's easier to defer.

Enter the well-mocked phenomenon of the HIPPO: HIghest Paid Person's Opinion (HIPPO). Deferring to the HIPPO tends to be safe. It's unmemorable, a way to escape not having done your homework. So leaders' opinions get amplified and flattened; their vassals don't challenge them; and everyone is incentivized on a personal level to believe what is easiest for them to believe -- whatever their boss already thinks.

Still, that doesn't explain the kind of "wrong" that feels most frustrating - when feedback isn't heard and everyone but a leadership team does strongly believe one thing.

Corporations are designed to withhold truth from employees

Strong hierarchies are designed to be bad at sharing information for a reason: control.

The first modern corporations were the Dutch East Indies and British East Indies Companies - financial arrangements for colonial military campaigns. Anyone who's watched A Few Good Men knows that militaries are not known for transparency: lies might be strategic, sacrifices might be made, and people might die.

Is your company operating like a military, ready for employees to die?

Probably not. But it's designed to value individuals as atomic, fungible, and ultimately expendable -- ironically, including CEOs. The corporation is designed to survive despite the interests of any constituent members.

So it makes sense that certain kinds of information are withheld.

For example, a product bet be pursued because of a legal/IP campaign. An expansion effort may be meant to dominate a competitor. Layoffs will be flatly denied until they happen.

If you're not ready for this, even a normal corporate environment can feel unsafe, gaslighting, and even traumatic.

You can survive and thrive

The key to surviving an environment that feels wrong is acceptance and clear boundaries. It is natural for executives to often seem wrong. Try to see if they are open to feedback (good ones will be). Don't let it weigh on you as a bug of your organization in particular, or, worse, as something wrong with you.

And let me know (here or privately) -- have you worked in an organization that felt wrong? What were people wrong about? How did you cope and thrive?

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

Poem: 10 ways to define a desire path
Elise Liu
  1. A slice in space that marks our time is a desire path.

  2. The aimless feet driving grass back to ground: desire path.

  3. You can tell college dorms with the most inter-residential romances by their desire path.

  4. The second to the right bathroom stall beckons loudest; don’t use it: desire path.

  5. Feng shui calls divine the wind and water. Let it cut through and follow in your desire path.

  6. A flotilla of kayaks sets straight out just to hug the lake's safe shore. Call it a weaving, call it a drunken wander--home to adventure, adventure to home—their desire path.

  7. Willow trees trawl deep to the veins in riparian loam. Whatever we lack, we desire path.

  8. When you are sure, no signpost can stop you. You’ll make your own mistakes on your desire path.

  9. How winter smudges out what roads we paved with plans so we have just the ruts of memory to guide us. Snowdrift to snowdrift, our feet break the desire path.

  10. How we find our own gorgeousness in the faces of our children. How no one human alone is alive: desire path.


I'm writing this poem on the bank of Lake Tahoe. Weekends are perhaps better for poems than for essays. But the advice is practical: next time you're in a public bathroom, don't pick the most appealing random stall in the lineup, because other people are more likely to have picked it, too.

This is my 7th day of writing for #ship30for30. If you found it useful, retweet or DM me what so I know what to write more about.

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

How to win friends, influence people, and become what you're becoming
Elise Liu

We must imagine Sisyphus happy.

One of the most important lessons I've gotten from psychology, and one that I am still re-learning, is how minds are inconstant and malleable things-- including thoughts, including this thought, and any other that occurs to you while reading it (h/t: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

Cynical thoughts create cynicism. Grateful thoughts create more opportunities for gratitude. Humans are prone to cognitive errors and distortions; for every story you have about why something is the way it is, there is another possibility.

Yesterday, I wrote cynically about Catch-22s and useful fictions, one of my favorite examples of logic colliding with the edge of what logic can do. But here are some more hopeful others:

Quantifying pain, joy, and life itself.

I was once a consequentialist, but I've been forced to embrace the utter unpredictability of "utility" and "meaning" among meaning-making machines. We all like different things, and how much we will like things is highly controllable by our attitude toward those things.

In this sense, it is poets, priests, influencers, and advertisers that create value, not engineers or scientists or financiers or project managers; the market follows money, but money follows ideas.

It seems similarly impossible to reason about human life and how much a minute of human life is worth. Compare the calculus of insurance, policy, or public health interventions

  • vs the lived experience of humans buying medical treatments for themselves, willing to pay a lot of money for life

  • vs the lived experience of humans working in jobs they hate--willing to pay a lot of life for money

  • vs the lived experience of humans choosing to fight in war or go into dangerous situations--willing to pay a lot of life for life.

(Planet Money's episode on this was phenomenal, by the way.)

The phenomenon of platitudes

Twitter and nursing homes alike are lousy with platitudes-- the sort of advice that seems wrong/useless until it seems obvious; satisfying to receive and retweet if you believe it, but rarely able to actually change minds: Go outside. Meditate. Practice kindness. Tell someone you love them, and get a hug every day. Be grateful. Drink more water and less alcohol, and probably spend less time on Twitter, too.

In a sense these sorts of platitudes are the answer to every question:

  • How can I be more popular?

  • How can I win friends and influence people?

  • How can I be happier... richer... less depressed... more alive?

One of my favorite contemporary poets, Andrea Gibson, describes this with the example of butterflies. Watching them struggle, we want to help them out of their cocoons, but that struggle is what makes them strong: "to become what we are meant to become, the becoming must be ours."

Today, I'm writing from a sun-dappled clean-aired corner of Lake Tahoe. I could write this essay in well-researched and cited form that tells you everyone you should read to know more about, but it's hard to say anything other than: well, you should come and see for yourself.

An answer in pataphysics

We all know what meta is: X about X. A movie about making a movie. An essay about writing essays. Thinking about thinking. (Cue groan.)

Sometime in the late 1890s a bunch of French philosophers assigned--t he headscratchers above metaphysics the term pataphysics. Most of their definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Pataphysics) are a bit of a head-scratcher, or a head-inverter, but I'm hopeful that pataphysical approaches have a solution for some of the problems that clean logic and meta-logic can't answer.

  • "How can I become rich?" Volunteer to help those less fortunate than you is a pataphysical answer: one whose doing changes the question.

  • "How can I get a bunch of girls to have sex with me?" Make more friends--maybe in a hobby you like--and focus on your own emotional growth--advisers hope, maybe, that the young man asking will be safe for young women by the time he gets what he wants.

Robert Greene --famous for The Art of Seduction and The 48 Laws of Power -- is a brilliant writer of this style. "How do I get people to do exactly what I want, when I want it?" I won't spoil the answer.

Emily Dickinson: Tell the truth, but tell it slant.

A sort of zen koan, maybe.

"What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?" Meditate more. The smell of pinecones in the morning. Your child's laughter. The first time you fell in love. Sisyphus, walking down the hill, glancing over his shoulder.

42.

--

This is my sixth day of writing for #ship30for30. If you found it useful, retweet or DM me what so I know what to write more about.

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

Catch-22s, zen koans, and powerful people with bad advice
Elise Liu

I've been thinking a bit lately about logical syllogisms and as logical puzzles as a way to access them. One of my favorites is the classic Catch-22, whose original version in Joseph Heller's novel prevented the cynical Capt. John Yossarian from escaping his WWII U.S. air force duties on grounds of insanity:

File:Catch-22 flowchart.svg

The general form of this infuriating entrapment reveals that it isn't a paradox at all:

  • X implies Y, so if you believe X, then you should believe Y. You must do Y.

  • ~X (not-X) is true. If you see the truth, you must do Y. If you believe ~X, congrats, you are right! You must do Y.

Zen koans to the rescue!

On the other side you have the logical disaster that is the zen koan, a form of riddle that is used to explain the oneness and nonduality of things.

Daowu's Condolences: Riffing on a Zen Koan on Life and Death | James Ford

Bringing nonduality to a logic puzzle is like bringing a plasma gun to a knife fight, by whose mechanics "P = ~P" intrinsically allows literally means everything in the world can be proven to exist. Nonduality, therefore flying unicorn zombies. P=~P, therefore Jesus did not just exist, he's alive right now.

In other words: X, and also ~X. You are both crazy, and sane; get back on that plane.

Today a "catch-22" is colloquially understood as a bureaucratic trap -- an abuse of power in bad paperwork. But the original Catch-22 in its namesake book was just telling a different truth: that war is beyond the realm of reasonableness, that words are just things we say to command treacheries upon the flesh. The fundamental truth is fearfully constant; that Yossarian sees it does not make it go away.

Logic traps in public ethics

The world today is full of "If you see the truth of ~X -- congrats, you are right! You must do Y."

  • If you believe global capital markets are setting the world on an unsustainable path to climate change, you must fight them - certainly you should not cash in on oil money or bet on Canadian real estate.

  • If you believe systemic racism / classism / sexism exists, you must do all you can to be anti-racist / anti-classist / anti-sexist -- certainly you should not try to imitate or align yourself with your wealthy white male oppressors.

  • If you believe that you're in a consumer rat race of oppressive status symbols, you must boycott Hermes -- certainly you should not buy a fake Birkin for $300 from China.

I think that's a bind that many of us face. We are all Yossarian, seeing that we are in an imperfect system that people pretend not to see, because to see would also bind them to choices that sacrifice themselves. You don't learn about this until Heller's sequel, but Yossarian ends the war becoming part of the military PR machine he despises. He takes a deal in which he pretends to be a hero to save his own hide and go home.

There is an evolutionary advantage to cognitive dissonance.

There is a certain flavor of advice from the wealthy and successful to Slow down, love people, savor each minute: all this is true, and it is also not, perhaps, why we ask Bill Gates or Ray Dalio their advice.

"Do as I say." Play fair. Never cheat. Read about China. We want to know how they won a game that has so many losers. And of course they cannot say.

Another koan, then: We must imagine Sisyphus happy.


This is my fifth day of writing for #ship30for30. If you liked it, drop me a tweet so I know what to do more of.

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

On eudaemonia and burnout
Elise Liu

On Monday night, after writing about burnout for #ship30for30, I went on a walk with another woman in tech and found out she was going through some of her own.

"People tell me I'm crushing it, that I'm doing the best work in my cohort and role. I got promoted twice in a year. But I have the suspicion that I'm getting taken advantage of... that I'm doing other people's jobs."

You probably are, I said.

"I already pay my therapist to tell me that," she said. We laughed.

She offered a framework of eudaemonic pleasure-- taking joy in the purpose and ends of the work you are doing, rather than in the tasks themselves. Unlike hedonic pleasure--joy in work for its own sake--eudaemonia speaks to the sense that what one is doing in life corresponds in some level with one's highest virtues.

Caring for the sick. Teaching children. Fighting for justice.

Ah, yes--nursing, teaching, and activism--some of the professions with the lowest pay and the most burnout. Indeed, I have never been so miserable at work as when I was doing work I deeply believed in. Every personal failure was a point of shame; every failure of someone else was a dangerous blocker of the arc of history toward justice.

I think of an insight from Heidi Priebe, one of the absolute best mental health YouTubers: self-abandonment happen when the inner children in us can't count on the inner parents in us to take care of our own needs; typically, all kinds of tantrums result, burnout among them. Maybe our inner children put off their needs so much when doing The Right Thing, their life's work, that it can be hard to sustain when the work (sometimes, inevitably) fails. I think of the Buddhist principle of nonattachment, and wonder: How can we trust eudaemonic pleasure when results are not in our control?

But I also think of everything neuroscience has taught us about hedonic adaptation and numbing behaviors and addiction loops and the body's dopamine-pathway determination toward the new and shiny and surprising over what is steady, predictable, true. Adults do hard things. How can we trust hedonic pleasure to lead us toward growth and not decay?

And I think of my own reluctance to write short essays with perfectly crisp takeaways, the tantrum my somatic system threw this weekend at the idea of having to share yet another 3-point actionable piece on LinkedIn, and how I calmed it: by deciding that perhaps I don't have an answer on this, only a pile of questions.

Instead, I welcome you to tell me. Why should we work? If blessed with the gift of an easy survival, how should we live?

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

Don't grind
Elise Liu

(This post is targeted toward people in business and product functions, but may be useful outside, too.)

I began my career in management consulting - a field famous for long days (70+ hour weeks were typical), high-pressure and arbitrary deadlines, relentless pressure, and constant burnout, especially in how it used up its bright-eyed and bushy-tailed 22-year-old new recruits. (My friends in investment banking had it far worse.)

We were grateful for our luck, so we did what we were told. But “grinding” in my 20s as I was then taught to do led to burnout for me -- and for them. Later, another cycle of burnout happened in my product career.

So when I see viral Twitter and Tiktok conversations about #hustle and #grind culture, I worry about the people caught up in them.

1/ Egoic attachment to hard work = unnecessary suffering.

A successful startup CEO/founder friend recently told me: “Smart, ambitious people who work hard make great entry level employees. It’s the smart, ambitious, lazy ones who make great CEOs."

If you've ever noticed that cleaning the house is more pleasant when also listening to a podcast, or that you'd rather work on a complex new problem than answer the same old question in the 10th email the same day, you know that easeful is not the same as “easy.”

Early in my career, in my commitment to hard work or looking like I was working hard, I was failing to ask the critical questions: Was this work necessary? Was it really my work to do? And could I make it go away in the future?

Ironically, it was laziness that helped me grow from that rut, because it made me keenly interested in how automation, simplification, delegation, and prioritization could help me and everyone around me. It made me lean into flow states that delivered 10x or greater value to my goals than responding to yet another repeated email with the same question (a case that any good PM should tell you is a problem with documentation).

2/ Discomfort is a signal of redirection. If you don’t pay attention, you’ll miss it.

It’s worth asking why something is a grind—you’re making a lot of phone calls and getting rejections, why do the rejections feel bad? If you’re saying the same thing in meetings again and again but it’s not changing behavior, why not? Pain in our somatic systems is a first signal that something’s wrong:

  • We feel unsupported by our environments (physically or relationally);

  • We're abandoning our own needs and stretching too far;

  • Subconsciously, we don't have hope that more effort matters.

If you've felt the difference between your strength when going on a totally optional hike at 1 pm while overheated and dehydrated -- and how you felt after you decided to give up and begin the march back to the car for water -- you're dialing into this set of signals. Our bodies are very good at ignoring suffering when we're committed to what the suffering is for.

So pay attention: why don't you believe in what yours is for right now?

As a panel of successful founders at South Park Commons in SF recently tackled this topic with agreement I find pithy and wise: Success does not feel like a grind. When it's working, you may be working hard, but it feels easy.

3/ Grinding makes you less kind to yourself and others.

Grinding means a bit that you’re doing something you hate, because you think it will be better "one day." But the future just comes from the right now, again and again, and a view upon the future pulls you out of being fully aware of and present with what’s happening right now.

The more I was in a "grind" mode, the less I was present with myself, and the less I was present with others.

Check in with yourself - is grinding making you "difficult," "perfectionist," or "critical"?

Is it making you feel the need to "play hard" after a tough week, or have 2 drinks to unwind after a hard day?

Is it making you resentful of the colleagues who seem to balance work with a full and happy life outside of work, and somehow are doing well anyway, while you bash your head against every wall?

You think they must be cheating the system somehow. You think they must have cracked some code.

They are. They've learned that suffering is redirection -- and to walk around the wall.

This is post #2 in a daily writing challenge, #ship30for30. On Saturday, I wrote about embracing failure as unlock to success; yesterday, I failed to publish this one on time, so here it is late!

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

My top advice after 10+ years in product: prepare to fail
Elise Liu

“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”

You should prepare to fail.

I mean it. If I've learned anything from 10+ years consulting and leading teams (at Boston Consulting Group, Meta, and a slew of startups), the work of building is in fact a lot of shots on goal that don't hit goal. Most sales calls get a no. Most products don't meet targets. Most marketing copy bombs.

Specifically for product managers, though, I mean:

  • Your product should plan to fail.

  • Your strategy should plan to fail.

  • Your company and team should plan to fail, and for that failure to be unequally distributed due to dumb luck.

  • You--as an individual human being--should plan to fail

What do I mean by this? Let's dig in:

Your product should plan to fail.

Servers crash. Bugs happen. This is the whole point of resiliency: when something breaks, can we "fail intelligently" to keep the impact of what's happened manageable?

During development, planning to fail also means figuring out what really matters. If you ask: “If this feature made the difference between getting this product out by X deadline or not, would you accept it without the feature?” Come to think of it, if X deadline slips, can we survive?

In day to day product development, tradeoffs are choices we make between greater and lesser failures. Put another way: if the bike rides, everything else is a bell or whistle. But if the bike crashes, you should have a helmet on.

Your strategy should plan to fail.

In tech research and development, let's not forget the research side: product bets are opportunities to clarify what your customers want. Sometimes, they don't want it.

This patently obvious corollary to "build an MVP and test it" is still regularly forgotten by product organizations who culturally fail to fully integrate what it means. When my PM friends discuss “toxic work cultures,” this is what it usually comes down:

  • Gaslighting: "Oh well, that wasn’t our goal anyway."

  • Grinding: Is it safe to share when hypotheses are disproven, or important to keep trying (fix the data, do more, don't acknowledge what happened)?

Your company and team should plan to fail, and for that failure to be unequally distributed due to dumb luck.

In fact, every company will fail -- in small workaday ways -- many, many times to reach goals (OKRs! KPIs!) it has set. In a brittle mentality toward failure, that leads to blame-games on a human level.

Planning for failure on a team and company level means, for example:

  • Planning for failure to be unequally distributed in how you design your performance systems and incentives.

  • Praising people who fail openly for the lessons they can teach others, instead of punishing them for "being wrong"

  • Hiring and spending conservatively, because lean times in the industry always come (Meta, Google, and many startups are facing the music on this right now)-- and having a plan to take care of your people if they do

On a personal level: Do you feel safe in your company drawing the short straw on a bug, a reorg, or being assigned a bet that doesn't pan out? If not, leave--this is your life you're talking about.

You--as an individual human being--should plan to fail

You’ll get rejected from most of the jobs you apply for. Most of the people you meet won’t change your life. If you try to write a lot, most of what you write won't be read.

Most of life is spent outside a happy path -- it is constant redirection. This has always been true of the human condition. To really recognize this, and be okay anyway, means doing stuff that you’d be happy to do even if they didn't "succeed"--work you love, with fellow humans you trust and respect.

When I was starting my career 10+ years ago, I was single-mindedly focused on success: what could I do to be right? How could I pick winners? It took an embarrassingly long time to realize that a fairly successful career looks like a lot of little failures much of the way through.

I want to spare you that same mistake. Defang failure, and nothing holds you back from trying. Prepare for failure, both logistically (buy insurance! live below your means!) and emotionally, knowing that you've embraced the worst of what your journey could give you, and every day is upside. We all end up in the same place--that ultimate failure: dead.

Why not enjoy the present moment, and the game of life you're playing, every moment you show up to play?

User Avatar

Elise Liu

3y ago

Ship30for30, yet another unsuccessful attempt to beat my cycle of perfectionism & procrastination
Elise Liu

A few weeks ago, I paid $500 for a cohort-based commitment mechanism (and some classes) on how to write 300 words a day, every day, for a month, from a rather gimmicky program I found on the internet. How did this highly-skeptical, occasionally-published, prizewinning Harvard graduate come to that decision?

In a word: because while I can write, I don't write.

The large language model included in my Pro account on Typeshare says that my atomic essay on procrastination should suggest that I should:

1. Set realistic standards and understand that perfection is not attainable

2. Break tasks into smaller steps to make them more manageable

3. Prioritize progress over perfection

4. Practice self-compassion and embrace imperfections

So my home is full of affirmations, my Tumblr of half-complete poems, and I bless my imperfect work daily. Still, I have never managed to beat my own monsters here, falling off my #100endings commitment well before it was done, and never starting them in the first place.

I feel a bit about this problem what some people must feel about the weight loss guidance "Just eat less." In case: here are some more strategies I've tried:

  1. Eliminate distractions through boredom

  2. Set up an ideal distraction-free (snack-free) work space

  3. Shared and visible accountability with friends

  4. Bullet journals and apps with colorful rewards for success

  5. Performance-enhancing nootropics

So why not take another page from the weight loss industry?

  1. Pay for commitment mechanisms

Note: I have never won a DietBet.

Anyway, in the next 30 days I'll be writing micro-essays on some things that I'm noodling about right now. In the spirit of authenticity and transparency and embracing imperfections, I don't quite know what they are, but I do know some of the outlines I've been avoiding completing for months (or years) now are on such topics as:

  • When ambition is good

  • Why your CEO is wrong

  • The opposite of meta and the nature of irreducible problems

  • What HS debate taught me about corporations

  • How to stay epistemically humble

  • Queerness as culture

  • All pain is psychosomatic

  • Don't drink oat milk

    Other than the last one, they are incomplete and their headline titles are probably bad. Follow me for more hot takes on some cold bevs!

#ship30for30