TBM 273: Transition and Reflection

News! I was part of a RIF at my current employer (Toast). Look for some great folks who may be looking for roles. I'll follow up when there's a spreadsheet, etc. Here's a bit about what I'm looking for if you see anything interesting. I'm in no rush, though—I've been going hard since I started at Amplitude in late 2018.

One thing I've been moving closer to over the last six years is a better awareness of my personal philosophy toward work, improvement, collaboration, etc. When I started my previous job a year ago, I wrote up some Product Enablement principles. They still hold true. But I love taking a step back and documenting where my head is currently.

Here are five areas of critical importance to me now, early 2024.

1. Moving beyond the system vs. individual dichotomy

2. Self-awareness and other-awareness

3. The importance of coherence across multiple "frames"

4. The capability view

5. Action and reflection

Beyond the System vs. Individual Dichotomy

Humans shape environments, and environments shape humans. 

We show up as individuals, form/shape groups, and groups of groups—individuals, teams, functions, companies, and communities. Groups have "dynamics" and behavior patterns and exhibit emergent behavior that cannot be fully understood by analyzing individual behavior (but are experienced on an individual level and can be shaped and influenced by individuals).

The tech community frequently co-opts words like "agency" and "grit" from social science to mean uniquely individual constructs but conveniently ignores the interplay between context, collective capabilities, and individual capabilities and competencies. Similarly, other people in tech cite "the system" as the culprit without exploring how specific individuals may have shaped the current environment. Each approach is a unique form of reductionist "justing".

The only way out of this circular impasse I can see—and I'm not a researcher or philosopher—is to approach things holistically and do our best to collaborate and coexist with people who might be stuck on one end of the spectrum. This version of critical realism/pragmatism may be naive on my part, but that's where my head is at.

Humans shape environments, and environments shape humans. There is no dichotomy. Why is this important? If you observe closely, the structure vs. individual debate becomes a blocker—if not the primary blocker—to deeper understanding and progress. We can be extremely human-centric without ignoring complexity, sociotechnical systems, etc. And we can embrace complexity and interdependence without ignoring humans.

Which brings us to:

Awareness

Know yourself. Know others. Embrace diverse belief systems.

At the heart of many challenges in the work environment are belief system tension and clashes. By "belief system," I am referring to core beliefs related to the role of leadership and management, individual vs. team success, meritocracy, individual vs. team reward systems, assumptions around people's ability to grow/change, bringing problems vs. solutions, the value of diversity, work-life balance, etc. It also cuts to our core beliefs about skills necessary for success.

(Side-note: I've done tons of assessments with teams I've been on, and very few have ever touched on this stuff. Have you? Reply in the comments.)

This, of course, starts (ideally) with self-awareness. Why do we cringe when we cringe? Why do we believe what we believe? What do we believe? Where do our default "justs" come from? Then it continues (ideally) with working hard to deeply appreciate and understand others and, finally, appreciate the emergent behaviors/beliefs of the broader community and company. Conflict and tension will always be present, but I strongly believe that diversity produces better teams, products, experiences, and companies.

Again, we will encounter people who believe that their belief system is the only valid reality ("this is the real world") and people who claim to have no belief system ("it is all contextually mediated"). Still, it seems like the best option is to become as self-aware as possible and work to understand others, their views, skills, needs, etc. This will not guarantee coexistence or collective success but improves the odds.

Coherence and Congruence

Seek coherence across the many frames we navigate in our work.

We will encounter many relevant frames at work: money, value, "the work", goals, technical architecture, humans, internal rewards/incentives, "the culture", customers and segments, and more. I've come to believe that cohering these frames—not necessarily aligning but seeking some congruence—is vital for a company to succeed. 

We can be more effective when strategy, organizational structure, and systems architecture are congruent. We can be more effective when goals are congruent with customer expectations and our performance management system. I write more about this topic in TBM 235: Forms & Shadows, but the basic idea is that coherence matters AND that growth will inevitably involve periods of tension and incoherence that need to be resolved.

From a personal angle, one thing we can always do is help encourage and nudge coherence. I've noticed that much of my work revolves heavily around coherence.

Capabilities

Yes, we can improve. What (and how) is the big question.

At heart, I'm an optimist when it comes to improvement.

I believe it is possible for (and necessary for) companies to get better at some things. I've found the well-known and well-traveled capabilities idea helpful here. Capabilities describe what can be done or our capacity to do something, not how we do it. They can be decomposed into lower-level capabilities. We can map competencies, technologies, practices, reinforcing behaviors, etc., to strengthen capabilities. Capabilities can exist and reinforce each other at various levels: individual, team, group, company, etc. Capabilities can be assessed and improved, though how they are evaluated and how/if they get improved will be highly contextual. 

Capabilities extend to "dynamic capabilities," which describe capabilities that enable organizations to adapt to changing environments and transform themselves to meet new challenges and opportunities.

None of this is new (and it might sound old-school), though there is still an industry-wide addiction to context-free maturity and capability models.

Where my thinking has evolved, however, is the degree to which we must address the areas above—resolving the system/individual divide, awareness, and coherence—before we can effectively jump into the capability frame. Many companies START by discussing capabilities. Where are we weaker? Where do we need to be stronger? What they miss is the critical importance of getting clear and coherent. Otherwise, progress will be very difficult, especially regarding core questions like "Who leads improvement efforts?" and "How do we approach change?"

For more on operations, enablement, and the capability view see here.

I think capabilities offer a helpful way to bridge different belief systems.

Action and Reflection

Do the thing, and reflect.

At the end of the day, we need to move our bodies and minds and act. Do something. And see what happens. Common sense, but ultimately, all the thinking above needs somewhere to "go." We have to try something and see what happens. 

Acting our way into a change has become increasingly important to me and my work.

---

Hope this was interesting, and I’ve appreciated all of your support on this thinking-in-public journey.

Thanks

John