TBM 363: Is Matt A Loser?
I’m cooking up a new playbook around turning the more general, context-free “product operating model” into a uniquer OS for your company. It is in draft form here if you’d like to take a look. Comments appreciated! I’ll be evolving this doc over time. Yes, there are day-job overlaps, but the content should be applicable anywhere.
Note: I checked with Matt before posting this. The title of the post was his idea.
"Matt" is a friend of mine. Matt's job is to help his company be more effective. After a handful of conversations with Matt, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing standing between Matt's company achieving a huge multiple in terms of effectiveness is that there is a cadre of senior executives who 1) are incentivized to ignore Matt's advice to get their bonuses, and 2) would need to consume a large serving of "humble pie" if Matt's advice turned out to be effective.
I say this as someone highly allergic to singling out individuals as the "root cause" of the problem. But in this case, while I'm sure there are *other* things contributing to the challenge, I'm confident that the behavior of this executive group is a major constraint standing in the way of organizational effectiveness.
Their power and influence amplify this constraint—they set the budgets, make hiring decisions, and "own" key communication channels with the C-suite. They are "in the room," which has a massive impact on shaping narratives within the company. When layoffs were floated internally, these leaders "had the ear" of key executives and could collectively offset blame onto a layer of middle managers, many of whom had been at the company for a long time.
Matt could tell this was happening based on the types of reports requested from his group. It was far easier to rationalize a layer of inexperienced managers than to face the fact that the strategy was scattered and shifts in the technology landscape threatened the core business model. "It isn't our job to raise the flag that teams are overloaded! That's middle management's job. We want to do ambitious things here at Acme!"
Matt is pretty sure his role is next on the chopping block. The company has decided that the "product operating model" is the answer. In that model, people like Matt don't have a job unless they transition to product leadership or fight their way into the newly formed product operations team (which was a consolation because someone read an article saying product operations is a crutch). Matt's prior work is considered "process-focused," which is a bad word now. Matt describes it in other ways, but that doesn't matter much.
But for some reason, as Matt describes, "I'm somehow wired to want to help. Objectively, my days here are numbered. But I care desperately about the people here. As a professional, I care about using my knowledge and having an impact. Every signal says I should be out looking for a job. But I can't let go of the fact that there's so much waste here. I see it every day. I see all the 1:1s and people working around the official process. People talk about not getting anything done for a month while waiting on overloaded teams. The 'golden child' teams get rewarded for being so effective when actively throwing other teams under the bus. It makes me angry."
How did you personally react to Matt’s story? Does Matt disgust and annoy you? Do you relate to Matt? Is Matt a “loser” or “low agency”? Or a normal personal navigating their company?
Is Matt too naive for his own good?
What drives people like Matt? How does it differ (or does it) from what drives the executives mentioned in the post?
Why isn't he actively looking for another job?
Is Matt's anger helping or hurting?
How does Matt's role—trying to help the organization be more effective—differ from individual leaders/managers?
Is there objectively such a thing as "low-hanging fruit?" In Matt's mind, everything could be more effective if leadership could "just ________." But maybe that is an illusion. Maybe the people with more power in the organization are getting exactly what they need and want.
Should Matt accept the situation's limits and spend more time working on things he directly controls? Should he play the game and try to get into that product operations group?
Are companies rational entities?
Why do you have such a hard time of singling people out as accountable for a situation? Why aren’t leaders held accountable for the cultures they create? Being a leader means being responsible for the systems and culture below you. If it sucks or is inefficient or toxic that’s ultimately on the leader(s) who created it, incentivized it etc. By not holding leaders accountable we end up with situations like Cuomo who left office in disgrace making a comeback for NYC mayor. There are only do overs for white men who do bad things. No one else has that luxury.
Assuming the company is serious about transitioning to a product operating model, Matt’s best bet is to partner with the person leading that effort and offer them insight into the land mines they may encounter. Matt could transition to a product Director or equivalent and own the transformation work rather than the strategy work in the future.
The article resonates with me because I have been in Matt's position in the sense of wanting to be an agent of change and trying to improve something I felt passionate about. Still, I got caught in a system I wasn't able to influence because the decision-makers had a conflict of interest and were unwilling to be humble and accept help.
My realization after that experience is that companies or organizations are not rational entities. They're composed of humans, and we humans are driven by emotions. Even if we like to think, we're driven by logic and rational thoughts. I tried to address the problem by throwing more logic at it, but obviously, it didn't help at all.
Something that has helped me navigate these situations tremendously is getting to know myself better. Understand my motivations, values, and feelings. Anger is a secondary feeling that comes from a need not being met. Knowing myself has really helped me understand why and how I react to situations and whether I'm being authentic.
There are no low-hanging fruits; that's an illusion. Bringing a group of people together is messy and requires constant effort and change. I can't tell you what Matt should do, but I can tell you what I have done: I have focused on things I can directly control, and I have tried to become a more influential individual contributor in the processes, so when I need to play the game, I have plenty of social capital to spend.