(1/11) So you want to fix something in your company?
You're not happy, and want something to change? Here is a quick thread describing advice I was given once, and ignored. And paid the price. And now I give it to others.
(2/11) Keep in mind the sad, sad fact that folks stuck in a system -- even when they know how to fix it, and have been preaching change for a long time -- are often too bitter and disillusioned to influence change. You have to avoid that. Don't let things fester that long.
(3/11) It is helpful to not get associated with a particular idea or method or solution. You'll be immediately put in a box. If you're going to advocate for something, advocate for building the continuous improvement muscle. Who doesn't want to make things a bit better each day?
(4/11) Find something you can reasonably influence -- something within your (and your team's) control. It doesn't need to be a "sure thing", but don't try to shift something with a low chance of working out.
(5/11) Frame your efforts to "fix" (improve, figure out) that thing as an experiment: a safe-to-fail, time-bound, concrete experiment. Anyone who will be impacted should be "invited" into the experiment, except...
(6/11) You don't necessarily need to ask for permission, provided that if things go "wrong", you'll preserve your relationships and positive karma with the person (or people) who you chose not to ask for permission.
(7/11) When communicating outwards, assume a level of naive, almost aloof pragmatism. Angst and tension invite attention. Running detailed "plans" by people invites attention. The best I can describe: Observe how a well-meaning intern tackles new problems...shoot for that.
(8/11) Limit your "experiments in progress", otherwise your team may struggle with change fatigue, and you'll have a tough time figuring out what is impacting what. You might want to agree an a max-length for experiments, just to keep them flowing.
(9/11) Personally, don't bet the farm on one experiment. Don't let a single outcome determine your well-being. Save up enough positivity to last a couple good experiments. The key is: give each experiment the best possible shot.
(10/11) Daw a line in the sand and commit to start trying to find another job if you give a good # of experiments a reasonable try, and things don't meaningfully improve. It helps to have an accountability partner. I know many people don't have this option, but if you do...
(11/11) If you do leave, leave with your head high. You gave it a reasonable shot, and didn't drown in bitterness. If you stay, just keep going, one thing at a time. Build a crew of like minded change agents. Just keep going.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The “messy middle” problems is one of the biggest impediments to product success. Here’s what it looks like:
The strategy and vision is somewhat clear.
Teams have specific features they’re working on.
But there’s nothing in between.
Why does it matter? 1/n
High level visions and strategies are helpful, but they lack the specificity to guide teams.
Specific project-based roadmaps feel “actionable” but they are very fragile—they don’t inspire aligned autonomy.
You need a linking mechanism 2/n
Some teams use goal cascades
The problem is the classic MBO problem: goals get more specific & prescriptive as you move down the stack. And by definition they should be “time bound”.
They too are fragile and foster “figure out what you want to build AND THEN tack on goals” 3/n
I was reading the transcript of a work presentation. Then I watched the presentation.
The transcript was filled with issues / logical fallacies / open questions.
While watching I noticed very few.
I think this is the root issue with presentation culture.
I noticed different parts of my brain firing in each context. When slides had lots of “stuff” it felt like a sense of “oh they’ve figured this out” even when the words did not match.
If you pay attention you can feel this happening.
The confident voice of the presenter made the “three focus areas” feel certain, clear, and logical.
In writing it felt incoherent.
I guess this is a point for “a compelling visual” but still it’s interesting.
Your team is burnt out. They are not getting anything done. Work is "low quality". You can see and feel those things.
But what you are seeing is an output of something—the downstream effects of other things happening.
In some companies this is a black box
1/n
…they don’t have visibility into what’s happening.
But it is not that simple (of course).
The outputs are inputs into the black box. And the outputs input into the inputs.
2/n
Say the team reactively addresses quality issues.
This creates more “work” (the output inputs into the input), but it also leaves the team more burnt out and they make less-good decisions on whatever is going on in the box.
3/n