Some of the examples you gave of what you think of as easy is difficult for others. It looks a bit like Typical Mind Fallacy. I don’t think the number of levels you are dealing with is the main problem.
You write:
My intuition is that highly competent executives are able to weather these depths by calmly assessing the number of levels of planning between themselves and a solution, and then working through each level without worrying about the later ones.
Managers don’t work thru levels from high to low. Neither do soldiers in battle work from high to low. But “without worrying about the later ones” is right. You do what immediately needs to be done.
I think one can get better at that. Five Minute Timers has some on that.
I don’t mean to imply that levels of planning are objective. I think that solving math problems usually has relatively few levels of planning involved, but requires domain specific competency and a pretty high level of fluid intelligence. Also, the levels of planning required depends on the person—at a low level of mathematical maturity, each recursive level of chasing definitions might feel like a level of planning, though for me “chasing definitions” is itself effectively one step. I do think that in mathematics it can be easier to compartmentalize the levels of planning, which perhaps is one of a combination of factors that makes me good at it. This note is probably worth adding to the post, thank you.
I did not that executives who don’t panic at many levels of planning can still fail because they lack domain specific competency. Difficulty and levels of planning are not identical.
I think you are still thinking about your own actions when solving math problems etc. in near mode—because you know them intimately, but about management in far more, i.e. abstractly in terms of planning levels etc. In practice, managers don’t plan as much as you seem to think. Too much planning is not working in practice. Much of it is responses to situations that are learned and become automatic in the same way as dealing with your math problems.
Some of the examples you gave of what you think of as easy is difficult for others. It looks a bit like Typical Mind Fallacy. I don’t think the number of levels you are dealing with is the main problem.
You write:
Managers don’t work thru levels from high to low. Neither do soldiers in battle work from high to low. But “without worrying about the later ones” is right. You do what immediately needs to be done.
I think one can get better at that. Five Minute Timers has some on that.
I don’t mean to imply that levels of planning are objective. I think that solving math problems usually has relatively few levels of planning involved, but requires domain specific competency and a pretty high level of fluid intelligence. Also, the levels of planning required depends on the person—at a low level of mathematical maturity, each recursive level of chasing definitions might feel like a level of planning, though for me “chasing definitions” is itself effectively one step. I do think that in mathematics it can be easier to compartmentalize the levels of planning, which perhaps is one of a combination of factors that makes me good at it. This note is probably worth adding to the post, thank you.
I did not that executives who don’t panic at many levels of planning can still fail because they lack domain specific competency. Difficulty and levels of planning are not identical.
I think you are still thinking about your own actions when solving math problems etc. in near mode—because you know them intimately, but about management in far more, i.e. abstractly in terms of planning levels etc. In practice, managers don’t plan as much as you seem to think. Too much planning is not working in practice. Much of it is responses to situations that are learned and become automatic in the same way as dealing with your math problems.