Welcome to The Overlap! A newsletter somewhere between product and org design.
The Overlap comes out every week now! This is the free edition that comes out every other Thursday. I’m also experimenting with publishing subscriber-only editions until October 27. This was our first one.
You can still use OVERLAP to get a 15% discount on the Doing Better Work Together gathering.
Metrics! KPIs! OKRs!
Most organizations set goals. Few get clear on what they need to give up to achieve those goals.
I recently read Vaughn Tan’s essay on the problem with goal-setting. I liked this quote, emphasis mine:
Conventional goal-setting tells us to focus on what we want to achieve. This approach seems obviously correct, since these are called “goal-setting” exercises. Unfortunately, unless specifically pushed to do so, we pay no attention to what we are willing to give up to achieve the goals we set. And conventional goal-setting doesn’t push for attention to tradeoffs.
Conventional goal-setting doesn’t push for attention to tradeoffs. So true!
I made a similar point about company values in company values aren’t actionable:
Values often conflict with each other. For example, Twitter has two values that conflict with each other: “Innovate through experimentation” and “Be rigorous. Get it right.” When your team is 40% certain that a certain feature can lead to a major growth opportunity, will they experiment to get more data on whether it’s a big opportunity? Or will they get it right and decide not to pursue that feature?
Organizations need to get clear on what they’re willing to give up to achieve their goals. To achieve our goals, what must we say no to?
We know this on a personal level:
You want to run the New York Marathon. You say yes to running every other morning. You say no to going out to drinks 5 times/week.
You want to better manage your anxiety. You say yes to meditating every morning for 5 mins. You say no to checking your phone in the morning.
So why is it harder for organizations to get clear on their tradeoffs?
Why is it hard for orgs to get clear on tradeoffs?
It depends on the organization! You’ll have to grasp the root yourself.
Here are three things it can depend on, though:
How functions with conflicting interests talk about their conflicting interests and align. Say a B2B org wants to focus on customer retention more than they do acquisition for the next six months. The product team is stoked about this — they have tons of ideas on how they can improve the existing product. The sales team isn’t stoked about this. Sales usually drive customer acquisition, and now they have to change their way of operating to support retention.
How easy/difficult it is to deprioritize current work. Imagine telling contributors that the project they’ve worked so hard on for six months is no longer a priority. That’s hard!
How safe it is to talk about failure. Maybe your org experienced a big failure in the past. Leaders desperately don’t want to see that same failure again. It’s scarring! Totally fair. But now, it feels difficult talking about the possibility of a plan or goal not working out. Perhaps there isn’t a practice of having a premortem, pivot triggers, or survival metrics conversation — structured conversations like these make it safe to talk about the possibility of failing.
“Learn to say no!! That’s the most important skill as a PM.” It’s no wonder that product managers are often told this. Engineers, too. Their org doesn’t say no!
Yes, let’s continue to teach product managers and engineers to say no. And, let’s make it easier for them to say no by getting clear on the organization’s tradeoffs. Here are two tools that can help: The Boris Workshop & Even Over Statements.
The Boris Workshop
Back to Vaughn’s essay! He talks about how his Boris workshop helps teams align on tradeoffs:
Each Boris workshop consists of four stages:
Stage 1: Elicit individual tradeoff patterns. Each participant articulates their individual tradeoff pattern (this is pre-work, using this 2-page tool).
Stage 2: Establish initial overlap. Convene participants to see where and how much overlap there is between individual tradeoff patterns.
Stage 3: Negotiate to convergence. Facilitate deep dives into justifications for divergent tradeoff patterns across participants.
Stage 4: Strategize around collective tradeoffs. Identify concrete actions to obtain resources and/or change constraints so individual tradeoffs align with collective tradeoffs.
It works because it forces leaders to confront the fact that they have limited resources. We can do anything, but not everything.
Even Over Statements
I’ve asked teams to use even over statements to align on tradeoffs. From The Overlap 6:
Even over statements are written like this:
A good thing even over another good thing
For example, take Twitter’s two conflicting values:
Innovate through experimentation. (Let’s shorten this to “experiment”)
Be rigorous. Get it right. (Let’s shorten this to “get it right”)
Let’s put the two into an even over statement:
Experiment even over get it right
Now, we have a statement that can guide our decisions. If you’re a product manager at Twitter and you’re 55% sure that a certain feature that will take 6 months to build could lead to $10M in revenue, you have the confidence to run an experiment and get data on whether this feature is worth pursuing.
I’ve facilitated even over workshops in a similar way Vaughn approaches the Boris workshop:
generate even overs individually
look at similarities
discuss the differences
converge
Specifically:
Invite leaders from different departments who’d be supporting a new strategy.
Have them write down even over statements for the next quarter.
Group like statements with like.
Have the group discuss the differences. You’ll feel uncomfortable because teams have different interests. But talking about differences is healthy!
Converge/resolve those differences. (This is the hardest part. Commit to convergence here!)
Here’s a Figjam template you can use with your team.
The tool doesn’t matter
What does matter is creating safety for leaders of different functions/departments to discuss their different tradeoffs. This part will feel uncomfortable. That’s when you know you’re doing the right work. So be brave! Embrace discomfort, surface differences, and commit. Then check back in next time and do it all over again.
What I’m Reading
Behzod’s slides on user research, from a keynote in London
Fitz Roy Winter Solo (not product related, but still about goals)
What I’m Sending
My goal this fall season is to send a V7 outdoors. I’ve been working on Tour De France, a beautiful V7 in Black Mountain, but have felt stuck on it for weeks. I’m Tour’d out.
Last weekend, I decided to work a V6 called Center Visor.
The tradeoff was that I would give up a weekend of working Tour De France if I worked Center Visor. Skin and energy are a finite resource, so it’s hard to work both.
I’ve already sent V6s before. Why send another one?
But working Center Visor worth it. Even though I didn’t directly work Tour, I feel much more stoked to go back to Tour after putting this one down.
See you in two weeks.
Or next week, if you’ve subscribed.
–tim
I get so many awkward silences when I dig into what compromises and trade-offs have to be taken into account while prioritizing a portfolio of activities, features or projects. There's is a lot of magic thinking happening out there — "Let's commit to 100 projects even if we have the capacity for 50".
I don't remember where I read the term "goal attracting" as an alternative of "goal setting" but everything you shared here (the Boris workshop, Even Over statements) seems to be going towards creating "goal attractors" — So the best way to have good goals seems be to...not to set them!
Speaking of tools for creating goals attractors and evaluating tradeoffs, I found the Bento method quite interesting (https://bentoism.org/2-the-bento-method#36) which also offers a handy way to spot patterns (https://bentoism.org/2-the-bento-method#7).