Here's a trap I always fall into (and I see others fall into).
Are you an:
A: Advocate for a certain meta-approach/process
vs.
B: Advocate/detractor for a specific idea
Without being careful, you can seem like B even if your focus/passion is A. This happens to #design...(1/3)
...a ton. Most #designers I know are passionate about the overall approach to design (A). Yet they juggle that with sometimes having a horse in the race (B) or people not believing in A.
The problem? It is easy to be pigeonholed as B. Or for B to be confused with A. This..(2/3)
So what is the answer?
You have to be extremely, extremely deliberate. Being B is not bad! You actually cloud that with juggling A and B. Being A is not bad either. But easily confused.
So communicate very deliberately and double-check understanding. (3/3)
• • •
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