Some of the best parts of my time at Mozilla were the moments of brilliant humility. We had assholes, to be sure, but there would be these moments…

20 people sitting around a conference table during an all hands. Each of them brilliant. Brilliant like I’ve rarely met before or since. The people in that room could reinvent the internet from sand and germanium on up if humanity ever misplaced the one we had. And every one of them in that room convinced that they were the dumbest one there.

It felt like we could out-think any problem. I loved those moments.

And, like so many nice-feeling stories I write about here, they were quicksand and I didn’t see it.


I was in one of those moments the first time I read the lead bullets essay. It’s a story borne out of Netscape, Mozilla’s origin myth, and still I almost skipped it. I don’t love war metaphors in business; they often feel callous and gross. But somehow this essay got through.

It kicked me in the gut. It lit something up that I had been feeling but hadn’t labelled. If you haven’t read it yet, go. It’s not long. I’ll wait.

What hurts about that essay is that I, and most of Mozilla, had gotten addicted to silver bullets. I don’t blame anyone in tech for falling into the same trap. Our industry is built around disrupting. We think different. It infuses our language and our value systems because it’s an incredibly powerful tool set.

People rag on “disruption” as an overused word, and I get that. But holy shit our industry really does blow up some stuff. It’s so rewarding to fix an entire class of problems. It reaffirms our belief that there are silver bullets out there if we’re smart enough to look for them.

Never mind that we push out other important stuff to get those wins. Never mind that it’s impossible to appropriately size or plan around those insights. Never mind that they aren’t as frequent as they seem, and our examples are drenched in survivorship bias. They happen, and they feel great.

The Easy Way Isn’t

Is your organization lured by the same temptation? Have you fallen into the same quicksand? It’s easy enough to figure out:

Imagine a problem comes up that would be labour-intensive to fix manually. You discover that thousands of new accounts haven’t been tagged with the right attributes. Or you have an API change that’s going to break a whole ecosystem of third party apps. How do you respond? How does your team approach the problem?

Everyone will, of course, look for the obvious smart fix first. Can we auto-deduce the missing tag? Can we shim the old API? Let’s say there isn’t one. Now what? This is where it gets really interesting. This is where the ground sinks beneath you.

Many companies, smart companies full of smart people, will keep looking for a way to think themselves out of it. They’ll look for a very, very long time. At small scales, this is the running joke of engineering. Every programmer has a story about the time they spent longer automating a task than it would take to just do it.

But some organizations spend years on this stuff. They spin up teams for it. They find a glimmer of hope, announce that a fix is on the way, and then delay over and over as they discover that the problem goes deeper. They are addicted to out-thinking. The sunk costs are devastating.

You don’t have years to spend on this stuff.

The Only Way to Win is Not to Play

The organizations that dodge this trap share a crucial adaptive trait. After that initial sniff test to see if there’s a quick way out, these groups stop chasing after an elegant solution and just do the grunt work. That’s it. They see the ground shifting under them as they start to contemplate a brilliant way across. And they stop it dead. They sense that it’s not safe. And they’re right.

Need to re-tag those accounts? Grind it out through a mix of partial, unsatisfying fixes and good old fashioned repetitive labour. Need a way to port those third party apps? Send some emails. See which ones you can convince to rewrite on their own, and volunteer your own developers to help fix the rest.

Do the hard work. Put the problem to bed, and move on. This isn’t news. I’m not the first to suggest that grinding works. It’s what Paul was on about, and he wasn’t first either. Neither was the lead bullets essay. But I still meet plenty of folks stuck in quicksand, so it seems the message bears repeating.

3% Wins.

Not all problems get the grunt work treatment. Sometimes incomplete solutions are more damaging and you do need to fix things the right way. A sign of a healthy team is that it should be easy to cite examples of each. But many teams, particularly those with engineer founders, strongly prefer “elegant” solutions to grunt work. And it’s where you can win.

While your competitors look for silver bullets, push through. You pay an upfront cost in ugly labour that your competitors won’t. But with your team no longer distracted, every day that goes by is a little incremental win. Not huge, 2 or 3%. For a big, really distracting problem, more.

Those wins add up. They compound. There is no greater miracle than compound interest in your favour. And there is no greater foe than compound interest pitched against you.

Your team will get better at finding these wins. It’s a different mindset to see grunt work and think “how can I grind this out efficiently,” instead of only ever asking “how can I obviate this problem altogether?” The 3% wins build up faster. And more of them are 5% wins.

The silver bullets do happen. Occasionally you find a 100% win. Once in a very long while you will find a 10x lift, a 1000% win. They’re worth looking for, at least some of the time. But the team doing the hard work and putting up those little wins every day is a lot more reliable. You can predict those marginal wins. You can plan for them. You get to the point where you can rack up a few 2%, and 3%, and 5% wins every week. Do the math over months and years. I’ll give you a hint: it’s far better than 1000%.

About the Author

This article was written by John Nightingale, editor of and partner of @rawsignalgroup

Recently Published

Key Takeaway: Conspiracy theories are prevalent and can involve various factors. People believe false conspiracy theories for various reasons, such as the existence of real conspiracies. However, unfounded conspiracy theories often lack evidence and substitute elements that should be red flags for skeptics. To vet a claim, one should seek out evidence, test the allegation, […]
Key Takeaway: Recent research has focused on replicating the chemical reactions that constitute life as we know it in conditions plausible for early Earth around 4 billion years ago. However, the rise of experimental work has led to many contradictory theories. Some scientists believe that life emerged in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where the conditions provided […]

Top Picks

Key Takeaway: NASA’s Curiosity and Perseverance rover missions are investigating the planet’s evidence for life, known as its “biosignatures,” in unprecedented detail. The rovers are acting as extraterrestrial detectives, hunting for clues that life may have existed eons ago, including evidence of long-gone liquid surface water, life-sustaining minerals, and organic molecules. The Mars of today […]
Key Takeaway: Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation, calls for action to limit teenagers’ smartphone access and address the mental health crisis caused by the widespread use of smartphones. Haidt cites the “great rewiring” period from 2010 to 2015 as a time when adolescents’ neural systems were primed for anxiety and depression by daily smartphone […]
Key Takeaway: Concerns about AI’s potential roguehood and potential harm to privacy and dignity are a significant concern. AI’s algorithms, programmed by humans, are also biased and discriminatory. However, a psychologist’s research suggests that AI is a threat to making people less disciplined and skilled in making thoughtful decisions. Making thoughtful decisions involves understanding the […]
Key Takeaway: A study published in the Journal of Personality suggests that long-term single people can be secure and thriving, possibly due to their attachment style. The research found that 78% of singles were insecure, with 22% being secure. Secure singles are comfortable with intimacy and closeness in relationships, while anxious singles worry about rejection […]


I highly recommend reading the McKinsey Global Institute’s new report, “Reskilling China: Transforming The World’s Largest Workforce Into Lifelong Learners”, which focuses on the country’s biggest employment challenge, re-training its workforce and the adoption of practices such as lifelong learning to address the growing digital transformation of its productive fabric. How to transform the country […]

Join our Newsletter

Get our monthly recap with the latest news, articles and resources.


Welcome to Empirics

We are glad you have decided to join our mission of gathering the collective knowledge of Asia!
Join Empirics