"How do I get the developers on my team to take more of an interest in outcomes and our customers?" PdM
This is an interesting one. When developers seem disinterested, it is often for a couple reasons.
1/n: They are overwhelmed with an output-based incentive structure...
...so even if they do care, there is a lot of pressure from their department to "just write code" and "finish projects".
2/n: When there is a ton of debt, getting *anything* done can be a challenge, and this occupies 95% of their emotional/mental energy
Sometimes...
3/n: They used to care -- maybe at a prior job -- but got told to stay in their lane. They asked a question, got shot down. Their product manager didn't share context and/or engage them in the problem. So they mentally shut down on getting involved. Too many hassles.
So...
As a PdM, your approach needs to:
1. try to influence the incentive structure of the eng org 2. help the team reduce debt and reactivity, so they have bandwidth to care 3. rebuild trust, share impact 4. don't treat their involvement as something "extra" to BAU
Finally...
Some people do just like to be left alone to do their thing. That's OK. And some people have a happy place, but will participate if they see that it helps.
So the best approach is to show that it matters and makes a difference. That their involvement helps.
• • •
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