The challenge of incentive structures in this model is one of the big challenges of product overall. Quick little thread (1/n)
If the layer of managers does not collaborate and interact regularly, there is absolutely no way they can take stock of performance more holistically. You'll end up with competing incentives. (2/n)
If the developer manager treats her team as three one-person teams ... to be loaded up and managed individually, that will have unintended 2/3rd order effects for the product manager and designer (and their relationship to their team)
Incentive: crank out *my* projects
(3/n)
If the developer manager is ON the team, while the design manager and product manager manager are NOT ON the team, you have an asymmetry. Difficult to align incentives given the extra scrutiny on developers ... (4/n)
If the product manager is the only "external" face of the team to marketing ... that will incentivize the PdM to do certain things they wouldn't do if the whole team collaborated withthe marketer (5/n)
Treating a team as a team, instead of 5 teams of 1 and have that translate into the performance/incentive structure of the org, is a HUGE deal. Without it, teams suffer.
When "cross functional collab" is a line-item ... well, cf collab will be treated as a line-item. (6/end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A quick thread on how @Amplitude_HQ is using @MiroHQ to help customers instrument product analytics.
We use unique sticky colors to describe Events, Actors, Event Properties, and Actor Properties.
A player from the Oakland As swings a bat and gets a strike (1/n)
When helpful, we think in terms of timelines.
This can help visualize how properties change. In this example a music fan on the free plan plays a bunch of songs, and then upgrades their plan type. (2/n)
With workflows, we use a slightly different pattern.
Here, an Admin starts and finishes the configuration workflow, and we indicate all of the intermediary steps ... which often can happen out of order (humans are weird)
Here’s a basic (but overlooked) aspect of how product teams work ... and that is how they scope missions.
Say you scope your work in missions of 1-3 months ... (1/n)
That gives you enough time, as a team, to truly “start together” ... do research together, everyone get involved, etc ... and still have plenty of time to “do work”.
But ... (2/n)
Say teams typically scope/shape work in the 1-3w range.
Well of course that is going to require upfront research, handoffs, and “landing” the work on a team. 1-3d is simply too short for a meaningful “start together” type approach.
Way back I worked in a PPT factory at an investment bank. Our job was to assemble “decks” for investment bankers. The operation ran 24hrs a day with dozens of “operators”.
Young bankers would work CRAZY hours.
Reflecting (1/n)
...though it involved tons of specialized work, (the bankers) work was primarily research, models, content, etc. Their job was to deliver the M&A doc, the roadshow, etc. Our/my job was to assemble.
Some slides too up to an hour (2pt font, 200 logos, 20 footnotes, charts) ..(2/n)
...other slides took 5 minutes. And with some experience you could — as an operator or a manager, which I did both of — estimate how long a deck would take. 120 slides? 60hrs.
Why? How? Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. And low complexity.
You have to build a sense for when you are juggling too many dependencies, too much coupling, too many drivers, not enough floats. A self-inflicted wicked problem.
The trouble is that this is hard to teach/learn....
(2/n)
...when you haven’t seen enough things go wrong.
It is natural to be over confident that you can somehow thread the needle, and brute force the optimization problem. If you adjust the levers just right, things will work!
Do this enough times, and fail, and you...
(3/n)
...build the ability to sense the warning signs. The instinct.
But you need to be in the thick of it. Observing — from a distance — a team in the throes, and you are liable to believe that the levers could have been moved just so.
...and I realized what was making me uncomfortable.
Most teams -- even with the best intentions -- don't create an environment where...
1/6: people with diverse perspectives are actually in the room
2/6: people have time to actually process the decision, the data, the context, the implications, etc.
3/6: safety exists to challenge the fundamental underpinnings of the decision and/or "problem" and or question
4/6: multiple promising options are explored. The "decision" is basically "should we do X", which is a decision, yes, but it isn't a choice between options.
5/n: the actual commitment is understood! Which ties in to some of the items above.