Chasing Output<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nOutput-focus is a key contributing factor here. In a company where goals and incentives are centered on execution and production, doing<\/em> becomes more important than achieving<\/em>. In this sense the big project serves an important purpose: it gives everyone something big and important to work on (and later to boast about in perf reviews.) Left unattended this culture can breed a particular type of manager that uses big projects as springboards for promotion. Here’s what Eric Ries had to say on the subject:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cIf you’re charismatic, you can get resources for anything \u2026 then you can engage in a ton of what I call “Success Theater”, to try to make it seem like you’re a big success. And so, those people tend to get the celebrations, whether they actually add any value or not. They’re like a cancer in most organizations\u201d<\/p>The Lean Startup | Eric Ries | Talks at Google<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nOutput matters a lot in factories and in construction sites, where we know what we produce is of value. In most modern businesses we can never make such an assertion\u2014there\u2019s just too much uncertainty, complexity and constant change. There can be many ideas, and most will create little value, if at all. So setting goals for launching one big, unproven, idea is a recipe for tremendous waste. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The alternative is to set goals for outcomes<\/em>\u2014the benefits we wish deliver to the customers and to the business. Outcomes-based goals can be as bold as we need (US president John F. Kennedy famously asked NASA to land an astronaut on the moon). Thereafter it doesn\u2019t matter if it takes one big idea or ten small ones as long as we achieve the outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\nA case in point\u2014In 2011 Google launched Google+, a social network that aimed to compete with Facebook. I worked at Google at the time\u2014it was a massive project that engulfed the entire company. However, despite our hard work, and a product that (in my opinion) was very solid, Google+ failed to gain real traction. People simply didn\u2019t need another social network. Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat did much better in the social space (and threatened Facebook much more). They achieved the outcomes that Google+ could not, and they did it with a fraction of the output. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Top-Down Ideas <\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nHierarchical, top-down companies assume that the leaders are able to forecast the future and pick the right ideas. The people in the middle and the bottom are there to figure out the details. This model doesn\u2019t work anymore (and I doubt it ever did). In modern organizations a lot of the knowledge and expertise live at the edges. Top-down ideas often miss the mark because they lack the contribution and buy-in of the people doing the work. In the aftermath of every big failure we learn that people knew the idea was weak, but where not invited to speak up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There’s even a bigger problem. Smart and creative people tire of constantly chasing someone else\u2019s big ideas. There are only so many “must-have” projects one can get excited about (especially as eventually they turn out not to be a must-have at all). People become distrustful of the leadership and lose passion or leave. The lack of trust goes both ways, as the leaders see the failure in execution rather than in the plans. From there it’s a short and very slippery slope towards a company ruled by command-and-control processes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Companies such as Toyota and Netflix take a different approach. The key role of the leader is to define the goals (intent, success), and to provide as much context as possible\u2014what people need to know to succeed. Then he\/she helps the reports discover<\/em> the right solutions. It\u2019s a different form of collaboration. No longer a waterfall of planning and execution with distinct \u201cplanner\u201d and \u201cimplementer\u201d roles. Instead, an iterative and collaborative process of goal setting, idea generation and evaluation, experimentation, and execution. (plug: my GIST framework<\/a> attempts to do just this.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWant to learn more? Interested to bring these concepts into your company? Check out my workshops<\/a> and keynotes<\/a>. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nBig Opportunities, not Big Ideas<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nTop-down, big-bet projects happen partly because we think that’s how strategy works. To achieve big things we must chase big, top-down initiatives with high urgency. I\u2019m sorry to say, that\u2019s not strategy, that’s just a roadmap on steroids (or more accurately a crapshoot.) What needs to come from the top are big, ambitious (yet achievable) goals, and major opportunities or threats.<\/a> Detecting opportunities and threats and setting goals to validate and address them, is really where leadership plays a critical role. Sadly in most organizations that’s also where it comes short, moving people to feel there\u2019s no vision or real strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\nLet\u2019s look at an example to see the difference between strategic opportunities and strategic ideas. Amazon, from early on, saw a big opportunity in bringing 3rd-party sellers onto its stores. Doing so will help turn the famous Amazon\u2019s flywheel (the core of its business strategy) faster and faster. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/itamargilad.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Amazon-Loop.png\")
\u201cIf you’re charismatic, you can get resources for anything \u2026 then you can engage in a ton of what I call “Success Theater”, to try to make it seem like you’re a big success. And so, those people tend to get the celebrations, whether they actually add any value or not. They’re like a cancer in most organizations\u201d<\/p>The Lean Startup | Eric Ries | Talks at Google<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Output matters a lot in factories and in construction sites, where we know what we produce is of value. In most modern businesses we can never make such an assertion\u2014there\u2019s just too much uncertainty, complexity and constant change. There can be many ideas, and most will create little value, if at all. So setting goals for launching one big, unproven, idea is a recipe for tremendous waste. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The alternative is to set goals for outcomes<\/em>\u2014the benefits we wish deliver to the customers and to the business. Outcomes-based goals can be as bold as we need (US president John F. Kennedy famously asked NASA to land an astronaut on the moon). Thereafter it doesn\u2019t matter if it takes one big idea or ten small ones as long as we achieve the outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A case in point\u2014In 2011 Google launched Google+, a social network that aimed to compete with Facebook. I worked at Google at the time\u2014it was a massive project that engulfed the entire company. However, despite our hard work, and a product that (in my opinion) was very solid, Google+ failed to gain real traction. People simply didn\u2019t need another social network. Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat did much better in the social space (and threatened Facebook much more). They achieved the outcomes that Google+ could not, and they did it with a fraction of the output. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Top-Down Ideas <\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Hierarchical, top-down companies assume that the leaders are able to forecast the future and pick the right ideas. The people in the middle and the bottom are there to figure out the details. This model doesn\u2019t work anymore (and I doubt it ever did). In modern organizations a lot of the knowledge and expertise live at the edges. Top-down ideas often miss the mark because they lack the contribution and buy-in of the people doing the work. In the aftermath of every big failure we learn that people knew the idea was weak, but where not invited to speak up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There’s even a bigger problem. Smart and creative people tire of constantly chasing someone else\u2019s big ideas. There are only so many “must-have” projects one can get excited about (especially as eventually they turn out not to be a must-have at all). People become distrustful of the leadership and lose passion or leave. The lack of trust goes both ways, as the leaders see the failure in execution rather than in the plans. From there it’s a short and very slippery slope towards a company ruled by command-and-control processes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Companies such as Toyota and Netflix take a different approach. The key role of the leader is to define the goals (intent, success), and to provide as much context as possible\u2014what people need to know to succeed. Then he\/she helps the reports discover<\/em> the right solutions. It\u2019s a different form of collaboration. No longer a waterfall of planning and execution with distinct \u201cplanner\u201d and \u201cimplementer\u201d roles. Instead, an iterative and collaborative process of goal setting, idea generation and evaluation, experimentation, and execution. (plug: my GIST framework<\/a> attempts to do just this.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWant to learn more? Interested to bring these concepts into your company? Check out my workshops<\/a> and keynotes<\/a>. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nBig Opportunities, not Big Ideas<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Top-down, big-bet projects happen partly because we think that’s how strategy works. To achieve big things we must chase big, top-down initiatives with high urgency. I\u2019m sorry to say, that\u2019s not strategy, that’s just a roadmap on steroids (or more accurately a crapshoot.) What needs to come from the top are big, ambitious (yet achievable) goals, and major opportunities or threats.<\/a> Detecting opportunities and threats and setting goals to validate and address them, is really where leadership plays a critical role. Sadly in most organizations that’s also where it comes short, moving people to feel there\u2019s no vision or real strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s look at an example to see the difference between strategic opportunities and strategic ideas. Amazon, from early on, saw a big opportunity in bringing 3rd-party sellers onto its stores. Doing so will help turn the famous Amazon\u2019s flywheel (the core of its business strategy) faster and faster. <\/p>\n\n\n\n