Feels like the usual combo: survivorship bias + the consultancy need for a clean story.
Odds ratio thinking would show the “successful companies did X” pattern doesn’t hold up so neatly. Plenty of teams did the same things and still failed.
But “it depends” doesn’t sell workshops. So we get overfit models packaged as universal truths.
Thank you for this article, to be honest with you, it's probably a very first time when i see ideas, highlighting that not everyone from us needed to be ambitious in "western" way of thinking about business and by the way, my personal opinion that the concept of “endless achievement” is, on the whole, quite harmful to long-term and effective work; it is not the fuel that will take you far. It is curious that Marty himself, with his idea of inspired managers, achieved great success. It always seemed to me that there was a certain omission here: if you want to make your product truly successful, you probably have to work on it for at least a few years, maybe three or four, to be able to say with confidence that you have made some kind of tangible breakthrough. If you behave like a little Labrador puppy the whole way, I'm afraid that, first of all, unlikely to work, and secondly, it will lead to much poorer results than a more calm but conscious path toward goals that, as you rightly pointed out, are constantly changing, especially now. Thank you again for the article!
Reading this article, I believe my belief that we have much in common is surprisingly reinforced. Listening to this article, I feel my feelings that there is a a product management caste system are unfortunately validated. Reflecting this article, I start to wonder if my suspicion that there is a TV evangelist-like product manager royalty is more than just a suspicion.
For those working on products in small and medium-sized companies, I worry that overly compact models might create false expectations. Doing "best practices" doesn't guarantee success 2player.co/, and failure doesn't necessarily mean doing things wrong.
I loved your critique. It really resonates with my beliefs. I personally believe that the concept of excellence has not a single dimension and western culture value individual success over collective wellbeing and results. Additionally, I have this feeling that we live times in which cycles are short, we need immediate results, we are anxious to know the next big change. Perhaps the ones who seek long term improvement are judge as lazy or without ambition, but in some cases are the ones who resist while others burnout and break (or leave an unhealthy personal life).
This was a fun read! That Olympics poll is so interesting. It's funny how many people think they could make it, especially for air rifle. Thanks for sharing!
This was a fun read! That Olympics poll is so interesting. It's funny how many people think they could make it, especially for air rifle. Thanks for sharing!
Really appreciate all the perspectives here — especially the points about survivorship bias and the “endless achievement” mindset. It’s refreshing to see more people acknowledge https://ozgames.io that long-term, steady progress often beats the constant chase for quick wins. The idea that not every company needs to fit the same success narrative really resonates.
I've enjoyed seeing how crystallising this critique shaped your subsequent work.
We coincidentally had an Olympics reference in our latest piece:
"After the 2024 Olympics, YouGov ran a poll in the UK
They asked the Brits:
“The next Olympic Games will be held in Los Angeles in 2028. Hypothetically speaking, if you began training TODAY, which of the following sports, if any, do you think you could qualify for the 2028 Olympics with?”
And 27% of people actually picked a sport.
OK, the framing of the question is a little unfair as it nudges you to pick a sport.
And to be fair … 15% said 10m Air Rifle, inspired by the Turkish everyman in a slouchy tee who became a viral meme overnight, so this is sort of understandable – you might’ve seen someone who looks a bit like you.
But 6% said 100m sprint! That's more than 4 million people.
Something about this is strikingly similar to corporate vision-setting situations. The notion that the organisation will be capable of competing at the highest level is a given, and all that remains is to align on the correct target. Naturally, you wouldn't want to put effort into qualifying for rhythmic gymnastics (3%) if you can all pull in the same direction and go for rowing (7%).
All of which is to say – I suspect the deluded belief that "but of course our org is Olympics material" is baked into many vision and strategy documents in order to make them "inspiring".
And yet it's accompanied by resistance to doing what it would actually take to operate at that level – often with good reason, because being Olympics material when you're competing in a village league is a mismatch. If you're realistic with yourself, your training regime can be balanced with real life and community. Olympic athletes are singularly weird.
I really agree with your critique of ambition – it can show up in very different ways, many much healthier than a pathological drive to be The Best Of All.
An aside to the main theme, ChatGPT tells me that “The term “feature factory” was popularized by John Cutler, a well-known product management and agile thought leader. He began writing and speaking about it around 2016, using it as a metaphor to describe organizations that are overly focused on churning out features without:
• validating whether those features solve real problems,
Product Thought leader not self-aware or even aware of his own biases? Systems thinking is a lot deeper than surface level platitudes people often see.
Funny how there I’d a lack of curiosity on why those without ambition exist (and doing it without judgement). Good response. I think you tried to be fair and respectful but I think you could’ve been even more critical.
Feels like the usual combo: survivorship bias + the consultancy need for a clean story.
Odds ratio thinking would show the “successful companies did X” pattern doesn’t hold up so neatly. Plenty of teams did the same things and still failed.
But “it depends” doesn’t sell workshops. So we get overfit models packaged as universal truths.
Thank you for this article, to be honest with you, it's probably a very first time when i see ideas, highlighting that not everyone from us needed to be ambitious in "western" way of thinking about business and by the way, my personal opinion that the concept of “endless achievement” is, on the whole, quite harmful to long-term and effective work; it is not the fuel that will take you far. It is curious that Marty himself, with his idea of inspired managers, achieved great success. It always seemed to me that there was a certain omission here: if you want to make your product truly successful, you probably have to work on it for at least a few years, maybe three or four, to be able to say with confidence that you have made some kind of tangible breakthrough. If you behave like a little Labrador puppy the whole way, I'm afraid that, first of all, unlikely to work, and secondly, it will lead to much poorer results than a more calm but conscious path toward goals that, as you rightly pointed out, are constantly changing, especially now. Thank you again for the article!
Reading this article, I believe my belief that we have much in common is surprisingly reinforced. Listening to this article, I feel my feelings that there is a a product management caste system are unfortunately validated. Reflecting this article, I start to wonder if my suspicion that there is a TV evangelist-like product manager royalty is more than just a suspicion.
For those working on products in small and medium-sized companies, I worry that overly compact models might create false expectations. Doing "best practices" doesn't guarantee success 2player.co/, and failure doesn't necessarily mean doing things wrong.
I loved your critique. It really resonates with my beliefs. I personally believe that the concept of excellence has not a single dimension and western culture value individual success over collective wellbeing and results. Additionally, I have this feeling that we live times in which cycles are short, we need immediate results, we are anxious to know the next big change. Perhaps the ones who seek long term improvement are judge as lazy or without ambition, but in some cases are the ones who resist while others burnout and break (or leave an unhealthy personal life).
This was a fun read! That Olympics poll is so interesting. It's funny how many people think they could make it, especially for air rifle. Thanks for sharing!
This was a fun read! That Olympics poll is so interesting. It's funny how many people think they could make it, especially for air rifle. Thanks for sharing!
Really appreciate all the perspectives here — especially the points about survivorship bias and the “endless achievement” mindset. It’s refreshing to see more people acknowledge https://ozgames.io that long-term, steady progress often beats the constant chase for quick wins. The idea that not every company needs to fit the same success narrative really resonates.
I've enjoyed seeing how crystallising this critique shaped your subsequent work.
We coincidentally had an Olympics reference in our latest piece:
"After the 2024 Olympics, YouGov ran a poll in the UK
They asked the Brits:
“The next Olympic Games will be held in Los Angeles in 2028. Hypothetically speaking, if you began training TODAY, which of the following sports, if any, do you think you could qualify for the 2028 Olympics with?”
And 27% of people actually picked a sport.
OK, the framing of the question is a little unfair as it nudges you to pick a sport.
And to be fair … 15% said 10m Air Rifle, inspired by the Turkish everyman in a slouchy tee who became a viral meme overnight, so this is sort of understandable – you might’ve seen someone who looks a bit like you.
But 6% said 100m sprint! That's more than 4 million people.
Something about this is strikingly similar to corporate vision-setting situations. The notion that the organisation will be capable of competing at the highest level is a given, and all that remains is to align on the correct target. Naturally, you wouldn't want to put effort into qualifying for rhythmic gymnastics (3%) if you can all pull in the same direction and go for rowing (7%).
(https://reach.crownandreach.com/posts/bunny-ducking)
All of which is to say – I suspect the deluded belief that "but of course our org is Olympics material" is baked into many vision and strategy documents in order to make them "inspiring".
And yet it's accompanied by resistance to doing what it would actually take to operate at that level – often with good reason, because being Olympics material when you're competing in a village league is a mismatch. If you're realistic with yourself, your training regime can be balanced with real life and community. Olympic athletes are singularly weird.
I really agree with your critique of ambition – it can show up in very different ways, many much healthier than a pathological drive to be The Best Of All.
An aside to the main theme, ChatGPT tells me that “The term “feature factory” was popularized by John Cutler, a well-known product management and agile thought leader. He began writing and speaking about it around 2016, using it as a metaphor to describe organizations that are overly focused on churning out features without:
• validating whether those features solve real problems,
• measuring outcomes or customer impact,
• enabling learning or iteration, or
• empowering product teams with autonomy.”
Product Thought leader not self-aware or even aware of his own biases? Systems thinking is a lot deeper than surface level platitudes people often see.
Funny how there I’d a lack of curiosity on why those without ambition exist (and doing it without judgement). Good response. I think you tried to be fair and respectful but I think you could’ve been even more critical.