Thread
I see two equally bad patterns play out at companies all the time
Playing Company
&
Playing Product
Playing Company
&
Playing Product
A. Playing Product usually shows itself at BigCos that can't make product & their revenues are dominated by a one or a few nearly monopolistic offerings ie Google, Microsoft or no-longer-startups that are established but no longer "producting" ie DoorDash Dropbox Twitter etc
"Playing Product" is the ultimate paper pushing product organization, likely heavily staffed, very hierarchical, line PMs who own very small surface area of the product(s) and there is never any real progress
Users feel it everyday, but somehow user pain doesn't impact product
Users feel it everyday, but somehow user pain doesn't impact product
Most of these orgs never *have* to be successful as their product either is so sticky nothing matters (cockroach products, no matter what they do they can't kill it) or another part of the company makes so much money it covers these groups (trust fund products)
Telltale signs a group is playing product
1 no one at the top uses the product everyday
2 no one talks to users & feedback is hard to find
3 plans don't include user feedback, no paper-cut initiatives
4 everyone talks about "strategic initiatives" only
5 politics == promotions
1 no one at the top uses the product everyday
2 no one talks to users & feedback is hard to find
3 plans don't include user feedback, no paper-cut initiatives
4 everyone talks about "strategic initiatives" only
5 politics == promotions
What to do if you happen to find yourself in charge of such a group?
Unfortunately there is no quick fix here but there are some simple things to do today and then tomorrow
Today
1 find just one person who cares about the product deeply
2 set them loose on paper-cuts
Unfortunately there is no quick fix here but there are some simple things to do today and then tomorrow
Today
1 find just one person who cares about the product deeply
2 set them loose on paper-cuts
Tomorrow
1 balance "strategic" with tangible. 20% strategic/80% tangible product progress for next X (quarter, half, year)
2 customer feedback has to be front and center. the more embarrassing the better to highlight
3 require demos from PMs, not written tomes
1 balance "strategic" with tangible. 20% strategic/80% tangible product progress for next X (quarter, half, year)
2 customer feedback has to be front and center. the more embarrassing the better to highlight
3 require demos from PMs, not written tomes
Last one, but likely most important IMO
Promotions only come from *completed* projects that led to some successful outcome
Too often I have seen someone write up a paper/slide deck and *get promoted* on that activity instead of the outcome of it. This is backwards.
Promotions only come from *completed* projects that led to some successful outcome
Too often I have seen someone write up a paper/slide deck and *get promoted* on that activity instead of the outcome of it. This is backwards.
B. Playing Company is when startups or smaller orgs thing they "need to grow up" and start trying to do what BigCos have said do and what attributed to their success
See: OKR, career ladders, various engineering processes, cloud infra etc
See: OKR, career ladders, various engineering processes, cloud infra etc
90% of all "playing company" comes from one of the following
1 board member who says "at my other portfolio company we did X"
2 person who joined from BigCo and says "at google we did X"
3 CEO/C-level who feels it's time to "mature"
1 board member who says "at my other portfolio company we did X"
2 person who joined from BigCo and says "at google we did X"
3 CEO/C-level who feels it's time to "mature"
Side note: avoid any and all processes that have a name, someone on linkedin promoting the process, or a trove of consultants that pitch this process. This isn't 100% true (mostly around sales fwiw) but this is so directionally correct it needs to be stated
IMO no startup should build these monolithically bespoke processes cargo culted from other SF/SV companies....if one doesn't understand them first, they'll always end up in disaster
Let's try it this way for a sec
Let's try it this way for a sec
Famous sports systems: the Triangle (Phil Jackson, Bulls), west coast offense (Bill Walsh, 49ers), Moneyball (Billy Beane, A's)
These are like company/engineering systems/processes to a degree but it's easier to rationalize in sports
These are like company/engineering systems/processes to a degree but it's easier to rationalize in sports
All of these came out of a situation or opportunity. Phil Jackson had Michael Jordon and needed to build an entire system around him. Bill Walsh wanted to build basically a new way to play football that was nearly exactly opposite the trend at the time, and Billy Beane ...
had immense constraints and needed to think differently within the same parameters as other teams and go a diff path
All of these systems when cargo culted by others *without understanding them* mostly resulted in failed attempts to recreate the success without understanding
All of these systems when cargo culted by others *without understanding them* mostly resulted in failed attempts to recreate the success without understanding
Teams eventually did adopt more west coast approaches to offense in the NFL and it was when 49er assistant coaches started becoming head coaches that other teams had success with it. Why? Because they understood the philosophy of it, not just the chapter headings
Back to "playing company"
The most dangerous person at a startup is someone with an opinion but no understanding or instincts
This goes for product building, yes, but 10x for company building
The most dangerous person at a startup is someone with an opinion but no understanding or instincts
This goes for product building, yes, but 10x for company building
Telltale signs your company is "playing company"
1 your have processes for processes sake
2 your org is very hierarchical. flat is mostly bad (and very bad past a certain point), but so is too hierarchical
3 people are rewarded for following process, not producing results
1 your have processes for processes sake
2 your org is very hierarchical. flat is mostly bad (and very bad past a certain point), but so is too hierarchical
3 people are rewarded for following process, not producing results
(more)
4 everything must be perfect internally
5 when something breaks the desire is to 'fix everything' all at once
6 you have process review meetings
4 everything must be perfect internally
5 when something breaks the desire is to 'fix everything' all at once
6 you have process review meetings
Here is the real truth about building a company....it's iterative just like software development. You must solve your problems for your customers with your employees on your timescale. You can learn lessons from others but....
they are best used as inspiration and not prescription
Don't use OKR like google does, understand the problem OKR solved and how it might apply to you, at your stage, with your team
Ex: Salesforce has V2MOM (Values Vision Methods Obstacles and Measures)
Don't use OKR like google does, understand the problem OKR solved and how it might apply to you, at your stage, with your team
Ex: Salesforce has V2MOM (Values Vision Methods Obstacles and Measures)
I quite liked the version of V2MOM that we used at Heroku which was very diff than Salesforce. Salesforce also (at the time) required every single level of the org including ICs to have a V2MOM and it be put into their central tracking system
This is beyond dumb for a startup
This is beyond dumb for a startup
But! A nice one page slimmed down V2MOM from the CEO and each dept head would actually be a good alignment mechanism for some period of time
Just because some BigCo does something doesn't mean you should at all and def not exactly how they do it
Just because some BigCo does something doesn't mean you should at all and def not exactly how they do it
Same thing goes for architecture, infra, and other internal sub-processes (SRE, incident remediation etc)
What is *very* useful is to know what other orgs have as functions/processes and try to deconstruct and understand why they have them. The 'why' answers are useful
What is *very* useful is to know what other orgs have as functions/processes and try to deconstruct and understand why they have them. The 'why' answers are useful
so tl;dr on 'playing company'
don't cargo cult from others, but seek to understand others
build for your company at your stage with your people for your future, not someone else's past
be curious about all and critical at what you accept for you
iterate
don't cargo cult from others, but seek to understand others
build for your company at your stage with your people for your future, not someone else's past
be curious about all and critical at what you accept for you
iterate
PS. today's thread inspired by an attempt to use YouTube Music
