Why does Facebook make stupid mistakes, over and over and over again?
What about the mistakes that Uber, Google, and so many others in our industry have made over the years?
Mind you, I’m not talking about “mistakes in hindsight”.
Rather they are the “what the heck were these people thinking?” flavor of mistakes.
When we read exposés in the press that lay out the timeline and events leading up to such mistakes (and there have been so many in just the past 5 years), the most common conclusion (incorrect) tends to be:
“The people in these companies are stupid”
The next most common conclusion tends to be:
“The people in these companies are evil”
(also incorrect)
So, what is actually going on when an otherwise smart, well-meaning organization makes obvious blunders?
And why do some organizations tend to do this over and over again?
While the exact details surely vary across these situations, one organizational cognitive bias most often at the root.
What is it?
People on Twitter, I present to you the preventable problem paradox:
Now, why do smart, even tremendously-successful organizations fall prey to this?
There’s no better way to understand that than watching this scene from Superman II.
It is, IMVHO, among the greatest 200 seconds in motion picture history.
Watch it. I’ll wait.
(For future readers: Use this link if the YT video gets taken down for some reason: google.com/search?q=super… )
No, really, watch that scene before moving to the next Tweet.
Welcome back. So, what did we just see?
Let’s break it down.
Clark Kent (who is actually Superman) at Niagara Falls with colleague (and love interest) Lois Lane.
Clark notices a little boy doing something dangerous / stupid at the observation deck.
Clark rushes towards the boy, asking him to stop. Boy’s mom also notices and manages to get the boy down. He's safe now.
Notice, Lois is oblivious of this event during this whole time.
Clark runs back to Lois asking her if she saw what just happened.
Lois ignores Clark and simply responds that she’s hungry.
Clark heads over to the nearby hot dog stand.
Boy is at it again, but this time, putting himself in even greater danger (he’s now on the other side of the railing).
And sure enough...
Boy is now falling. Yells.
Now, Lois springs into action. Somebody help!
Clark, at the hot dog stand by now, hears this.
Unidentified man yells “Somebody do something”
(as an aside: 1980s special effects at work here)
Clark Kent has now transmogrified into Superman, zips towards the falling boy.
So close.
Crowd cheering Superman along.
Superman manages to reach the boy just as the boy is inches away from certain death.
The appreciation begins.
The return journey.
Almost safely back on the ground.
Look at those faces, in awe, and appreciative of what Superman has just done.
Look at Lois Lane. Pretty much ignored Clark Kent earlier when he tried to save the boy, but is vying for Superman’s attention after this dramatic save.
Scene ends.
Now, I have a question for you.
If Superman is like most of us — if he cares about appreciation for a job well done — what will he do the next time he’s in this situation?
(A) Will he try to prevent the boy from falling?
Or, (B) will he let the boy fall, transform into Superman within a nanosecond, and heroically rescue the boy from certain death?
It should be obvious that, if he’s motivated by appreciation and accolades (as certainly most humans are), you should bet on (B), not (A), being the correct answer.
Mind you, this is not merely an academic question.
Because what you just saw happens in the organizations that we’re part of, every... single... day....
In fact, this is such a common phenomenon that once you understand it, you’ll see it everywhere. Companies, non-profits, government. Especially the government.
And while no organization (or leader) *wants to* incentivize problem creation over problem prevention, they unwittingly end up doing it anyway.
This paradox is so important for us to understand, as a community and as a society, that I’m going to share another story.
What you’re about to see is a remarkable couple of paragraphs from Rolf Dobelli’s excellent book “The Art of The Good Life”*
* As an aside, this is one of my top 5 all-time favorite books.
Paragraph 1:
Paragraph 2:
With this contrast between how humans innately perceive problem solving vs. problem prevention, is it any surprise that this paradox permeates almost every complex organization?
Let’s bring this back to product management (and leadership in general).
In the earlier stages of your career as a PM (or a leader), it makes sense for you to go in and solve whatever problem is facing the team.
And some PMs (and leaders), after multiple years of doing this, convince themselves that problem *solving* is their job. They come in to the office, look for the “problem of the day”, and then get to work.
However, if you want to be a true and unselfish leader of people,
to do what’s right for your company,
you need to be the captain who just avoids the iceberg,
and not the one who hits it and then heroically attempts to rescue everyone.
Which brings us to this question:
Leaders looking to combat the preventable problem paradox within their organization should:
1. Create awareness of its existence
2. Change the mechanisms for rewards and recognition
3. Embrace pre-mortems
Want to learn more about these solutions?
Share the excitement via your replies, quote Tweets, retweets, and faves, and I’ll post a follow up thread within the next few days.
(warning: it’ll be equally long :) )
To be continued...
If you reached this far (❤️), check out my talk about PM leadership from 2018 (along with another long Tweetstorm):
Lack of time is a perpetual source of stress in the product manager’s journey.
No matter how well you’ve prioritized, no matter what milestone your product has just reached, there is a near-infinite list of really important things you could be doing that you just cannot do.
There are many well-known resources & principles for managing time: systems such as GTD, “managing your energy, not your time”, prioritization formulas, Eisenhower Matrix, etc.
These are no doubt useful, but for product managers, these systems leave a lot to be desired.
Why do companies with major resources & distribution make products that are mediocre & often fail to reach their potential?
There are a handful of reasons, many of which you already know. But there is one under-discussed reason: Operators Optimizing for Optics
Thread:
To understand this, let’s start with a story.
START OF STORY
Acme Inc has brilliant, visionary founders (Alice & Bob), amazing culture, has built a well-loved product, and thereby created a business much larger than the early people (including the founders) had ever imagined.
With this growth, they’ve had to hire a bunch of Operators: leaders who are skilled in scaling process, teams, operations, and overall execution. So far so good. As the business & the customer-base grows, it is a no-brainer for Acme to tackle adjacent areas of opportunity.
Some reflections since turning on Twitter’s Super Follows two weeks ago.
800+ superfans have joined 🙌🏾
Biggest benefit:
I am tweeting a lot more freely because I know I am speaking to superfans who understand what I am about. More advanced & nuanced content. Fewer unsent drafts
Biggest surprise:
The community aspect of Super Follows has been A+ thus far.
While not a primary goal, it was 1 of my hypotheses for doing Super Follows. And it has vast exceeded everyone’s expectations. I polled folks yesterday for feedback, and community was mentioned by most
Many super followers mentioned that they are now using Twitter more frequently & are replying/sharing a lot more freely with the community than they might in public, because of shared alignment.
One super follower said it best: people writing without fear of being misunderstood
As they grow in size, teams within megacorps and startups tend to implicitly bias more towards Project Thinking and not enough Product Thinking.
Product Thinking is a mindset and a process that, once you see, you cannot unsee it.
Product Thinking, Project Thinking, a thread:
From my experience working in individual contributor & leadership roles over the past couple of decades, and from my advising work with a number of fast-growth startups, I have often seen myself and founders / CEOs / execs worry about these things:
And, having been in the trenches of product work for a large part of my career, and having managed / mentored / coached hundreds of PMs & PM Managers, I have often seen myself, and other ICs & managers worry about these things:
1) Be proactive 2) Begin with the end in mind 3) Put first things first 4) Think win-win 5) First understand, then seek to be understood 6) Teamwork & creative cooperation 7) Continuous improvement
Basically, the habits in the classic book.
I know that many Product Managers will ignore this because they want something more advanced.
They have already read Covey's book at age 23, so there's nothing more & nothing new to learn from it.
They want an edge over others, so they seek & love esoteric advice & tactics.
And yet, 9 out of 10 times when I am working with extremely smart & ambitious PMs who are struggling (not getting promoted, not getting the performance reviews they think they deserve, not executing well, etc.) it is because they have forgotten one (or more) of these 7 habits.