All else being equal, it’s often more prudent to prefer teams that tend to Over-Promise & Under-Deliver (OPUD) rather than teams that consistently Under-Promise & Over-Deliver (UPOD)
👇🏾
👇🏾
What I’ve observed in practice, within talented organizations:
OPUD teams tend to be ambitious for the user & the company. They aim high & might miss at times as a result.
UPOD teams tend to be ambitious for self first. They care more about survival & perception management.
OPUD teams tend to be ambitious for the user & the company. They aim high & might miss at times as a result.
UPOD teams tend to be ambitious for self first. They care more about survival & perception management.
"Over-Promise & Under-Deliver" teams might miss some of their promises, but they still usually end up with greater net productivity & impact than "Under-Promise & Over-Deliver" teams.
There are exceptions to this
e.g. with (internal or external) customer commitments or where it’s essential to precisely hit financial forecasts.
But for many modern product teams, these exceptions aren’t all that relevant. And yet UPOD is almost universally held up as the ideal.
e.g. with (internal or external) customer commitments or where it’s essential to precisely hit financial forecasts.
But for many modern product teams, these exceptions aren’t all that relevant. And yet UPOD is almost universally held up as the ideal.
How to fix this?
It’s extremely hard for an individual team or manager to “go rogue” in an environment that idolizes UPOD.
So the solution lies with the company’s senior leadership to encourage greater ambition & to recognize that teams might miss at times when aiming high.
It’s extremely hard for an individual team or manager to “go rogue” in an environment that idolizes UPOD.
So the solution lies with the company’s senior leadership to encourage greater ambition & to recognize that teams might miss at times when aiming high.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
