Agree with the attention to details. Details are crucial.

But in my experience there is a kind of so-called "perfectionists" that won't work well in complex enviroments where:

1. they actually have to weight in the importance of details (and the cost of dealing with them)

2. Details aren't always obvious, and are easy to miss

So these kind of perfectionists might end up very focused on obvious details that don't matter that much and aren't useful to be taken care of in terms of cost-benefit relation, while ignoring not-so-obvious details that might actually matter more.

But I think picking the detail to be conscientious of is the trick.

Important details are just as annoying to check as less important details.

IMO, it's the ability to discern and apply elbow grease to boring things that matter, and walk away from unimportant things that really predicts good outcomes.

The phrase I use is "balance of cares". You can care a whole lot about a single part of the job. But to do a good job overall you have to care about a broad swath of concerns, else one of those unaddressed concerns will turn into a critical error.

Employees who are well-specialized can avoid betraying their lack of care about some aspects because they aren't even asked to think about that part of the work - they can go in for massive depth instead. But someone who wants to operate the whole business is in the position of "caring about things I don't want to care about". A lot of businesses are weakest where the owners are unable to muster sufficient sympathy.

Yep - totally.

I have literally no patience for the idea that attention to detail/conscientiousness is anything less than absolutely necessary at any level of an organisation.

Lack of attention to detail leads to screw-ups. Lack of attention to detail at a higher level just leads to bigger screw-ups. Lack of attention to detail at the top leads to colossal screw-ups.

Just think, for example, of RBS. No attention was being paid, certainly not at the top, to the details of all those supposedly investment grade CDOs. And then one day... BOOM! Turns out they were stuffed with junk and the whole shebang comes crashing down.

I also have literally no patience with people who describe themselves as "big picture thinkers" (thankfully this seems less prevalent these days; maybe I just move in different circles). You may as well skip the BS and say, "I am totally useless and ineffectual," because to me they're synonymous.

If you do anything without paying attention to the details you will do it badly.

(As an aside: I'm not here talking about micromanagement - you can't pay attention to all the details, obviously, at a higher level, but you can pay attention to the details that are appropriate at that level. This obviously only works if the people working for you are also trustworthy. If not, you clearly weren't paying attention when you hired them.)

I think you're leaning way too hard in the other direction. There's a balance that needs to be struck. A detail-oriented person may have an excellent understanding of where they stand today but have little thought for their trajectory, while a big picture person is the opposite.

It's rare for any individual to embody both aspects, so you usually pair these people up. For example: the strategic CEO + managerial COO. I've seen CTO/CIO combos with the same dynamic.

Just because someone resembles one more than the other does not mean the other is not just as important.

I don't disagree with the correct general claim but the specific example is much more of a control fraud problem... you can't expect someone to understand something if their paycheck next week depends on their careful avoidance of understanding...

I don't know. I may be interpreting this wrong, but having read "Making it happen" (which obviously has a bias) I came away with the distinct impression it was more of a lack of interest; very little of what I read would suggest that Goodwin was in any way careful about RBS's investments, even if that carefulness was manifest in avoiding understanding. It is just one perspective though.

Agree with the sentiment. Though I've often seen the by-the-book anal retentive types that work by rote and don't have a creative thought all day. You can't say they aren't detail-oriented but they are certainly of limited value.

> attention to detail was the single most predictive trait for good performance.

I think you just naively reprised the premise:

how exactly are you measuring "good performance"? The easily observable details they were good at attending to?

Of course, everybody wants an admin who doesn't make simple mistakes that cause outages, inconvenience, etc. But what about the one that provides an accurate asessment of the companies near-future needs vis-a-vis their trajectory, and recommends appropriate infrastructure upgrades?

> It's a fallacy to assume you can "skip the details" IMO.

Tell that to node developers who just want to stick a thousand libraries together and see what comes out.

"Conscientious" is one of the 'big five' character traits, somewhat different than attention to detail.

Though I think I understand exactly what you are trying to say an wholeheartedly agree.

"Conscientious" people are probably naturally more inclined to detail to make sure that their work is good.

But I would point out a small delineation point: some things are just a matter of focus.

Typists, some kinds of accountants - it's a matter of 'process focus' - that they are focused and attentive to their work, and make few procedural errors. This I think is a behaviour and can hardly be learned - and is often not very well correlated with 'creativity' or 'big picture thinking' at all.

But I really do agree - the 'overall more conscientious' types - no matter the trade - are the best people, unless you need star talent, but even then ... They care about outcomes, not just 'handing off' some thing, or 'fulfilling their narrow duties' etc..

You know what's paradox: older people tend to be far more conscientious: they pay their bills on time, more likely to do the things they say, less averse to going off topic with hyperbole, get along with others, punctual, they vote, they volunteer, etc. etc. - and yet there is a strong bias against them in some workplaces. Though it could be related to the idea they may not want to learn new things, or 'keep pace' etc..

I know otherwise highly conscientious people who miss emails, are are a little absent minded at times. You can't have that for someone who is managing your schedule. :)

In defense of OP I would say it isn't about "attention to details" or "no attention to details". Instead it's about which details you choose, because the potential "detail space" is infinite.