I have an Evernote folder with over 400 ideas for blog posts and tweet threads I’ve not found time to write (and probably never will”. As an experiment I thought I’d feed the poorly written notes into ChatGPT to see what came out. The results are actually rather good.
1/8: In the early days of UberEats, the team had a strong bias towards speed. They believed that fast delivery was key to success, just like their ride share model.
2/8: To test this theory, they loaded cars with only 3 popular items and drove them around town. People could only order those three items, but delivery would be super fast.
3/8: The service was well received, but it reached its maximum scale in the trial cities pretty quickly. The team kept asking customers what it would take to get them using the app more, but discounted any answers that didn’t align with their beliefs around speed.
4/8: Eventually, they decided to listen to their customers demands for more choice of meals and restaurants (even if it meant sacrificing speed). Only then did the product explode.
5/8: The head of the business unit running UberEats explained how the team's bias towards speed affected their judgement and limited the potential of the product.
6/8: This serves as a reminder for founders that what got you to where you are now may not be what takes you to the next level. It's important to be open to feedback and adjust your strategy accordingly.
7/8: Don't let bias cloud your judgement and limit your potential. Always be open to feedback and willing to adapt your strategy.
8/8: Remember, what got you here won't necessarily get you there. Stay open-minded and always be willing to listen to your customers. #startup#UberEats#lessonlearned
I also used ChatGPT to create a blog post version which I think is pretty good.
However most people also hate the idea that they aren’t being included in important conversations and decisions.
Inclusive work environments sounds great on paper. However in practice they result in managers feeling like they have to include many more people in each meeting than is strictly necessary to get a decision.
Even then, you can’t invite everybody to everything. As a result cliques tend to form, making inclusive, low hierarchy work environments feel weirdly exclusive, as smaller groups struggle to get stuff done.
In 1911 Scott & Amundsen were in a race to the South Pole. Scott's team was larger, better funded and had a ton more technology, yet Amundsen's smaller team won. Why is that? I think there are two reasons and they tell us a lot about modern startups.
The first reason is that Scott's team was over funded. This allowed them to have a much larger team, which required a lot more support. They had to lug too much equipment and too much food with them, almost sinking their boat.
This additional money caused them to fixate on technology. So they relied on new motorised sleds, rather than dogs. These sleds were large, cumbersome, required lots of fuel and were prone to breaking down.
A lot of my coaching clients come to me because they feel stuck and don’t know what to do next. This is often because they got to where they are by pursuing the opportunities that came their way, rather than by having a goal or vision they were following.
As a result they find themselves somewhere comfortable but unexpected, and struggle to judge between the range of opportunities presented to them. The best way round this is to have some sort of vision for where you’re heading.
The second best way is to at least have a set of principles or things you are optimising for. If you don’t have a goal or a set of guiding principles it’s almost impossible ti make decisions beyond an in iframe gut feel.
A lot of managers believe that their primary job is to fix the gripes of their team members. Often because they got into management in order to fix what they thought was broken.
This often leads to managers loading themselves up with a bunch of problems they sadly don’t have the political influence or power to solve. This ends up pitting them against their org in a confrontational way that damages their standing further.
When it proves impossible to solve this slew of problems, they will often lose the faith of their team, who now believe them to be an “ineffective manager” for not being able to address their gripes in a short enough time span.
"Hard" martial arts tend to focus on directing your force at an opponent, while "soft" martial arts focus on directing the opponents force back on them.
I think a lot of the time designers use "hard" techniques to get their way, while a "soft" approach might be more effective.
This is because designers rarely have the most power or force in a particular relationship, so are unlikely to win using this approach, and the risk of failure is pretty high.
The "hard" approach here is the yearly strategy deck you use to convince your business partners to take you seriously. It's full of design leader quotes (the audience have never heard of), graphs of the value of design led companies, maturity charts and Apple / AirbBnB anecdotes.