If we push down decisions to be made as close as possible to the people carrying out the work, perhaps the cognitive load moving up the org chart becomes more manageable? This is the approach from the book "Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter"
Today I reviewed a pricing proposal for one of our products. We did the hard part - talking to more than a dozen users These conversations offered a lot of insights into who's using our product, what they're using it for, how they're using it in vivid details, what their willingness to pay looks like.
My colleague did a great job of aggregating and synthesizing all these raw data into higher-level artifacts like JTBDs, use cases, target audiences. But the problem is, it's still overwhelming. There's a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle.
My first thought was: "Okay, I need to simplify this, what frameworks should I use .... ?"
But then I paused. "No, something seems to be wrong with that as the starting point. I should resist the temptation to simplify things". Pricing is a complex problem. It's not supposed to be simple. It's not something that you just throw a framework at and be done.
I recalled your blog post. I took a few notes on that, but I didn't need to read the notes. Just recalling the principle "First Focus. Then Simplify" was enough.
So I asked myself: "Okay, what do we need to focus on?". By pursuing that line of reasoning and taking into account our product vision, mission and strategy, I gained clarity. From 6 different target audiences to 3. From 9 to 3 JTBDs.
The feeling when you feel the "shape" of your thinking seems right is hard to explain. The best I can describe it is like your thinking is approximating Context-Form Fit.
Things are still complex (as reality usually is), but I've identified key levers unique to our own situation that help me focus. Now I can start to simplify. What pricing frameworks should I apply, what's the pricing point, etc. Details still need to be worked out.
As I read this, I think “that’s not simplicity, that’s removing detail, nuance, essential information.” It’s taking a multidimensional model and reducing it to a scalar. That’s not useful and potentially perniscious.
It happens in every org I’ve worked in: when the CEO or exec stakeholder asks ‘but can’t you *just* [insert simple description of simple outcome / capability that requires huge complexity to deliver]’. I spend a huge amount of my time trying to simplify the complexity to justify saying either no, or not now. Which is why trust is so important to establish within the organisation. Interested to learn better ways to communicate / build trust all the time
As Einstein said: "everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Unfortunately, most organizations seem to think that you can just expand the ability to manage indefinitely by expanding managers' spans of control or increasing the number of levels in the hierarchy. What BS!
Most organization simply allow themselves to be dragged into too many initiatives because they don't have the discipline to be focused. Everyone wants to be in charge of something, so everyone gets something to be in charge of. The resulting geometric growth in diversions dooms too many companies to mediocrity.
Absolutely, working on complex problems creates value. So does simplicity in choosing which problems to tackle. In deference to the managers asking for 3 bullet points, they are solving complexity also. Perhaps the issue is how and what they roll up at any given stage of a project. The ultimate summary is the marketing when something is complete. If at an earlier stage, they're trying to summarise the whole complex problem being worked into 3 bullets and getting feedback that the nuance is necessary to understand first, they're making an error in expecting that kind of summary should be provided by their report who's dealing at a detail level with different complexity. The manager in this case needs to listen, and apply their own intelligence to creating the 3 bullets that matter in the manager scope complexity.
I was talking with my team earlier about the unintended consequences of well meaning people in a system. The call center agent is a great example of that "I need to transfer you to the special claims investigation unit." The call center agent doesn't want to transfer the person either! The people in the system want to do the right thing, but the consequences are still frustrating for someone using it.
Super – Could you please summarize this post into 3 bullets - it is TL;DR ;-) But more seriously, a picture would be great, as this is a key problem of our times.
Interesting chimes with a broader point i am mulling over. We often say to people focus on this one goal OR only work on this one thing - BUT we are humans, and speaking for myself, I am a person who lives a full life with many different goals in flight outside of work & many different purposes.
It feels to me that we are asking people to be less fully human in work - well that’s where I am at this morning :)
If we push down decisions to be made as close as possible to the people carrying out the work, perhaps the cognitive load moving up the org chart becomes more manageable? This is the approach from the book "Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter"
Today I reviewed a pricing proposal for one of our products. We did the hard part - talking to more than a dozen users These conversations offered a lot of insights into who's using our product, what they're using it for, how they're using it in vivid details, what their willingness to pay looks like.
My colleague did a great job of aggregating and synthesizing all these raw data into higher-level artifacts like JTBDs, use cases, target audiences. But the problem is, it's still overwhelming. There's a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle.
My first thought was: "Okay, I need to simplify this, what frameworks should I use .... ?"
But then I paused. "No, something seems to be wrong with that as the starting point. I should resist the temptation to simplify things". Pricing is a complex problem. It's not supposed to be simple. It's not something that you just throw a framework at and be done.
I recalled your blog post. I took a few notes on that, but I didn't need to read the notes. Just recalling the principle "First Focus. Then Simplify" was enough.
So I asked myself: "Okay, what do we need to focus on?". By pursuing that line of reasoning and taking into account our product vision, mission and strategy, I gained clarity. From 6 different target audiences to 3. From 9 to 3 JTBDs.
The feeling when you feel the "shape" of your thinking seems right is hard to explain. The best I can describe it is like your thinking is approximating Context-Form Fit.
Things are still complex (as reality usually is), but I've identified key levers unique to our own situation that help me focus. Now I can start to simplify. What pricing frameworks should I apply, what's the pricing point, etc. Details still need to be worked out.
As I read this, I think “that’s not simplicity, that’s removing detail, nuance, essential information.” It’s taking a multidimensional model and reducing it to a scalar. That’s not useful and potentially perniscious.
It happens in every org I’ve worked in: when the CEO or exec stakeholder asks ‘but can’t you *just* [insert simple description of simple outcome / capability that requires huge complexity to deliver]’. I spend a huge amount of my time trying to simplify the complexity to justify saying either no, or not now. Which is why trust is so important to establish within the organisation. Interested to learn better ways to communicate / build trust all the time
As Einstein said: "everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Unfortunately, most organizations seem to think that you can just expand the ability to manage indefinitely by expanding managers' spans of control or increasing the number of levels in the hierarchy. What BS!
Most organization simply allow themselves to be dragged into too many initiatives because they don't have the discipline to be focused. Everyone wants to be in charge of something, so everyone gets something to be in charge of. The resulting geometric growth in diversions dooms too many companies to mediocrity.
Absolutely, working on complex problems creates value. So does simplicity in choosing which problems to tackle. In deference to the managers asking for 3 bullet points, they are solving complexity also. Perhaps the issue is how and what they roll up at any given stage of a project. The ultimate summary is the marketing when something is complete. If at an earlier stage, they're trying to summarise the whole complex problem being worked into 3 bullets and getting feedback that the nuance is necessary to understand first, they're making an error in expecting that kind of summary should be provided by their report who's dealing at a detail level with different complexity. The manager in this case needs to listen, and apply their own intelligence to creating the 3 bullets that matter in the manager scope complexity.
Occam's Razor only works in a reductionist's world. Execs are Newton living in a Quantum Universe.
I was talking with my team earlier about the unintended consequences of well meaning people in a system. The call center agent is a great example of that "I need to transfer you to the special claims investigation unit." The call center agent doesn't want to transfer the person either! The people in the system want to do the right thing, but the consequences are still frustrating for someone using it.
Super – Could you please summarize this post into 3 bullets - it is TL;DR ;-) But more seriously, a picture would be great, as this is a key problem of our times.
Hi John
Great article as always.
Interesting chimes with a broader point i am mulling over. We often say to people focus on this one goal OR only work on this one thing - BUT we are humans, and speaking for myself, I am a person who lives a full life with many different goals in flight outside of work & many different purposes.
It feels to me that we are asking people to be less fully human in work - well that’s where I am at this morning :)