There are 3 levels to product work
(1) The Execution level
(2) The Impact level
(3) The Optics level
When an individual & their team are fixated on different levels, often there is conflict.
E.g.
PM is fixated on (2), Team on (1)
PM on (3), Team on (2)
PM on (2), Team on (3)
(1) The Execution level
(2) The Impact level
(3) The Optics level
When an individual & their team are fixated on different levels, often there is conflict.
E.g.
PM is fixated on (2), Team on (1)
PM on (3), Team on (2)
PM on (2), Team on (3)
An example I see often:
PM fixated on Execution
Has to make compromises
(justified, execution is hard)
Is proud of upcoming launch
("I executed against major odds")
VP/CEO reviews it
(& is fixated on Impact)
Tells PM product not good enough
Launch is a no-go
(PM frustrated)
PM fixated on Execution
Has to make compromises
(justified, execution is hard)
Is proud of upcoming launch
("I executed against major odds")
VP/CEO reviews it
(& is fixated on Impact)
Tells PM product not good enough
Launch is a no-go
(PM frustrated)
Okay, so what to do here?
The main bug here isn't that people are paying attention to different levels.
On a healthy team, you do need to balance attention at each level: a lot on Execution, quite a lot on Impact, and adequate attention on Optics too.
The main bug here isn't that people are paying attention to different levels.
On a healthy team, you do need to balance attention at each level: a lot on Execution, quite a lot on Impact, and adequate attention on Optics too.
There are 2 bugs here
i) When we are *fixated* on a certain level, that implies an obsession with it or bias towards it. We lack balance
ii) Our fixation is *implicit*. In conflict, we litigate the minutiae. We need to instead be explicit about the real issue: a levels mismatch
i) When we are *fixated* on a certain level, that implies an obsession with it or bias towards it. We lack balance
ii) Our fixation is *implicit*. In conflict, we litigate the minutiae. We need to instead be explicit about the real issue: a levels mismatch
Who bears responsibility to fix?
The leaders on the team
Everyone on the team should be made aware of the 3 distinct levels—yet we can't expect everyone to effortlessly operate at every level
People will have their defaults
Defaults can change over time, but they do take time
The leaders on the team
Everyone on the team should be made aware of the 3 distinct levels—yet we can't expect everyone to effortlessly operate at every level
People will have their defaults
Defaults can change over time, but they do take time
So leaders should:
a) Understand the 3 levels
b) Be self-aware about their default
c) Learn to focus on non-default levels
d) Spot situations of level mismatch
e) Call out this root cause of conflict
f) Provide a framework for proceeding
g) Coach others on the above
~END~
a) Understand the 3 levels
b) Be self-aware about their default
c) Learn to focus on non-default levels
d) Spot situations of level mismatch
e) Call out this root cause of conflict
f) Provide a framework for proceeding
g) Coach others on the above
~END~
If you found this thread useful, you might like this short thread:
https://twitter.com/shreyas/status/1329330848919810049
The CEO Test is quite relevant here.
It is a tool to help us and our teams shift focus from the Execution level to the Impact level.
It is a tool to help us and our teams shift focus from the Execution level to the Impact level.
https://twitter.com/shreyas/status/1327518749310676994
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
