I've meet execs who swear "we can't do X because we can't hire engineers like [big tech co]". Are they right?
and others who say ... "all you need is psychological safety and empowerment and ppl will figure it out"
hmm (1/n)
... I'm reminded of an environment that had an extremely strong foundation of quality (and safety, and empowerment). And exp. leaders.
In that env, a new grad would take 2-4y to really start figuring out the product thing. AND...would start contributing quickly.
and.. (2/n)
... another env with very talented/experienced folks all with 10+y experience, being mired in complete insanity. Things falling apart. Bureaucracy. Toxic company politics. It was terrible. Many people left. Some people stayed in a Sisyphean effort to fix the org.
and...(3/n)
... yet other env where extremely skilled leaders misjudged their experience and its applicability to the current situation. Stubborn. Egotistic. Hubris. They figured they were "the best in the world" bc they had worked at [famous tech co].
it bit them...bad .. (4/n)
... other interesting twist. When leaders keep talking about how their team lacks certain skills, but they themselves lack skills. They've never done it.
Or they did it 20 years ago in a completely different context. "Back with mainframes...".
Or ...(5/n)
...when leaders openly admit they don't have skills, but *also* don't trust others in the org to have the skills ... often because of outside influences (e.g. board, consultants, advisors, books).
They also underestimate the impact of their lack of confidence...
and...(6/n)
...still others who keep rattling on about "we just need the right leaders in the right roles" but there is no internal advancement, and "right" is always someone external, and "right role" is always a silver bullet org charge decision
So, it is...(7/n)
...*not* as simple as skills and experience. Fundamental attribution error is everywhere... (along with other biases).
We blame "the system" for our problems. But other people's problems are their fault.
It seems that...(8/n)
experience matters...
learning matters...
teaching matters...
being context aware matters...
challenging your biases matters...
humility and self-awareness matters...
"the system" matters...
flexibility and adaptability matters...
leadership (formal & otherwise) matters (end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How should product managers and designers share certain responsibilities?
wrong answers only.
Pm: I pick the right things. You build them right ...
Pm: oh hey for that work we’ve been talking about that is five months out ... do you mind just whipping up some mocks? Nothing serious. Promise. Will not hold you to them.
I frequently encounter leaders who believe their team(s) aren’t “ready” for taking a more outcome focused approach. They talk of “baby steps” and “learning how to crawl before...”.
Here’s what they are missing
... to learn something, it is important to practice the thing (1/n)
You don’t learn this by running a (or working in a) feature factory, cranking out the stuff sprint by sprint.
You learn by doing a version — albeit probably more controlled/structured — of the thing ... (2/n)
What might that involve?
- direct contact w/customers
- some ability to “sense” outcomes qualitatively/quantitatively
- a feedback loop
a question I ask startup founders that they seem to find helpful ...
"what do you need to be the best in the world at?"
(hyperbole intended)
here's what is fascinating about the replies...(1/n)
Some people will list 5-8 things.
"We need to be awesome at a,b,c,d,e,f,g!"
...w/o an ounce of self awareness that being awesome at one thing is HARD. Two things is REALLY HARD. Three? Nope.
Here's another thing...
Most people haven't "unpacked" the value chain (2/n)
Take something like targeted in-app #UX enhancements ...
you need to be amazing at 1) doing that w/o breaking someone's product, 2) doing it quickly, 3) the targeting, 4) all the requisite data plumbing, 5) clean data, 6) marketing it, 7) best in the world at in-app #ux (3/n)
a big learning the last year is the degree to which your most passionate team members will *expect* leaders/managers to coherently frame strategy
this is where "autonomy" often hits a snag. Leaders assume it means "bottom up" planning. But that isn't it ... (1/n)
Writing up 3 vague bullets on a "vision" slide is easy. Also easy is planning out each and every chunk of work for the year.
Much harder is detailing a strategy that leaves room for creativity and agency ... but is also coherent, backed by evidence, and is opinionated ... (2/n)
Opinionated? Isn't that bad?
I don't think so when it is opinionated at the right level. Passionate problem solvers want to know that their company has a perspective and doesn't want to be everything/anything.
"Um hey, so what are your OKRs" doesn't land. (3/n)