the distance between those adding complexity to the business and those having to deal with the increased complexity in day-to-day decision making
without healthy feedback loops, you can get a massive increase in complexity before the alarm bells go off
in addition to pure distance (hops between people), you also get some interesting effects.
experienced ppl tend to notice the early signals, bc they are able to juggle the ramifications.
e.g "for *that* persona we'd do this a bit differently..."
...less experienced team members may not notice as quickly. They will artificially reduce added complexity and/or just not do anything with the extra cognitive load.
Their work will suffer, but they may not notice
...unless you are there actually juggling the tensions, it can be very hard to empathize. This is the classic executive swooping in and saying "WHY ARE WE MAKING THIS SO COMPLICATED!"
(um, because you got us into this, and you aren't do the work)
...another complication is that like many things, it doesn't happen all at once. It creeps up. You get some new information, it doesn't seem so conflicting, and you jump in.
It is only until later that you realize what this new constraint (or lack of a constraint) actually means
...one of the big culprits is the human tendency to persuade ourselves that there's "overlap"
"Well, OK, these are different customer types BUT there is a lot of overlap, right? Most should still apply, right?"
Why do we do this? To avoid the dissonance? Not sure
...*everyone* does this ... in our personal lives as well.
but when we do it to ourselves, we typically get information very quickly that something is amiss.
not so when spread across an org.
If everyone's life gets 1% harder...do we sense that? 10%?
...of course some of this is just not being able to predict certain types of complexity in advance. We *think* something is straightforward ... accept some distance ... and then find out later that it is more involved.
...and some of it is only perceivable by those with 1) access to those dealing with the day-to-day decisions, 2) *across* different areas of the company.
this could explain why roles like UX, CS, support with reach sometimes sense it sooner
...pondering, this is why myopically focusing on "work in progress" (as most people view work, typing, pixel moving, or whatever) can lead us astray.
"the work" manifests only part of the complexity, and is frequently decomposed...rendering the signals faint.
visualize MORE
...another confounding dynamic is when a company is growing rapidly and a lot of other things are impacting the team (e.g. onboarding and ramping).
common diagnosis "well, we are just growing quickly, they'll get up to speed"
that might be right, but may not
...makes me think that there is "chronic complexity" and "acute complexity".
We experience acute stressors all the time and bounce back. OMG THE FLIGHT HAS BEEN CANCELED.
Chronic issues are much harder to sort out, even when (because?) they multiply exponentially
...I'm reminded of this telephone game image.
All good intent. Subtle degradation. Everyone is asking "what do you need", and then shaping the message a bit.
You could imagine this multiplied by many issues...
...curious also about how this impacts different people.
as someone who grew up with certain things going on, I have a tendency to try to advocate ... to stay in the mess ... to hope people will "see it"
...others are out the door
...others "seems fine to me, work is work"
...aha...it just hit me.
consider how many ways of working are designed to insulate "the teams" from those with a tendency to increase complexity.
to supply just enough back-pressure.
but what if those ways of working just apply back pressure?
what if they make things worse?
...so what can we do about this?
One thing that comes to mind is the artful (and safe) use of forcing functions. What I love about this definition is the idea of snapping us out of automatic thought.
Consider how often we're on automatic pilot...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While external forces definitely play a role here and may limit your options, this is an area where a lot of pain is self-inflicted.
managers: "why aren't they pushing back?"
team members: "I never have a second..."
How can you turn the tide? ➡️
1/
You can almost never agree to something w/o something else suffering. A good habit here is to identify the thing that will get less attention, and say it out loud.
To focus on _____, we’ll probably need to de-prioritize _______. Have that answer ready.
2/
It is important to visualize *all* of your work, not just the work in work tracking tools.
Whenever I see ppl brain-dump *all* of their promises, it is far more (like 3-4x) than they immediately acknowledge.
product principles are underutilized, and often phoned in.
key symptoms. they:
* aren't opinionated enough
* don't get the cognitive gears turning
* don't help guide decision making
* reveal nothing about the strategy
* are generic and yawn inducing
how do you fix them? (1/n)
Start with a simple prompt:
When faced with a decision between ____ and ____, we tend to favor ____ because ____
Ideally this is coherent with your actions and past decisions. If not...now would be a good time to start 🙂
The best principles...(2/n)
...cause a bit of friction/tension.
You pay attention. They are forcing functions.
e.g. at @Amplitude_HQ we aren't focused on analysts working in isolation, so we might say "we are biased to scaling data literacy over enabling lone hero analysts"
just occurred to me that part of the product managers job is to frame decisions in a way that actually INVITES disagreement, dissent, challenge.
let me explain
it is easy to frame things that ppl will agree with (1/n)
..lots of successful product managers are good at this. The problem is that they aren't inviting other perspectives. They frame it up -- nice consultant like -- in order to sell the direction.
Nods all around. YES. But months later...
(2/n)
That approach gets things in motion quickly, but it doesn't lead to the best decision quality.
Now other people are so vague that neither support or dissent are possible. There's nothing to go on. No rationale whatsoever.
the idea that remote is universally good for introverts (notwithstanding the many variations of introversion) is problematic...
1/n First, to create *any* environment that is safe and inclusive takes intention and care. It is not magic...introvert * remote=good.
2/n Case in point, there are many in-person work environments that are intentional with respect to the needs of introverts. And many remote environments that aren't...
3/n In many newly remote settings, you simply see decision making shift to smaller, select groups.
What feels comfortable and easier, is merely a reduction in collaboration, healthy tension, and transparency.
Possibly "easier" for the introvert. But not in the long term
Since writing about feature factories in 2016, I've since started to referring to some orgs as "functional feature factories". What do I mean?
they deliver reasonably usable work, things don't feel dysfunctional, the reflect/adapt on how they work, but...(1/n)
12 Signs Post 👇
...they still haven't really cracked the nut .... where product development becomes the key driver for sustainable, differentiated, ethical growth and impact.
And in many ways this is a tougher situation to grapple with because stuff isn't obviously "broken".
Arguably...(2/n)
...for many companies this is a step up from what was happening before.
So you have an issue with complacency. Why shake things up? The company is doing fine?
In many industries you can survive and even thrive...to a point. Until cant (3/end)