I was recently talking with a CPO who asked their roughly 200-team (~2000-person) organization to put together a short biweekly report, made up of a direct update from every team, that they could scan.
I lived what you described yet, the most common feedback I received as a CTO is that they appreciated when I'm there when things go wrong. I'm in the war room, listening to what happens, mostly reinsuring them most of the time, or helping them push through some hesitation or conflicting priorities or opinions. I found those times most teaching about the culture in my teams, but also great opportunities in propagating the culture I want for them.
I bring that up because for me, it's an important part of what organizational culture is: when and how decisions are made, who are making them, who are listened to, what criterias are used. Senior leadership can influence the org culture but cannot create it. Culture is breathing interactions, not documents and policies, and you have most of those interactions within a team, with your direct reports and your skip levels. That's where culture is created.
And that is the problem with the CPO request: he wants to change some aspect of that culture (the who get informed of what's going on) but moved it at the policy level. I think it would have been better to address it with his direct team, maybe by identifying what information he missed (or lack pertinence) and what format can be better adapted to bring it up (ideally that doesn't involved him being invited to all meetings, a a solution have been proposed too many times). It's a slower change and, in my experience as CTO, often involved changing how my directors approach their own teams: they often lack the proper information to answer my questions, and so are their teams too. Each group is different and so often requires different interventions, but it's why it's interesting to present it to your whole team of directors: the weakness of one is the strength of another and they can help each other. That's for sure supposed that your directors are working as a team rather than separated entities reporting to the same manager, which is an issue by itself.
"The implicit promise is that if you hire smart people and apply just enough management to let the nerds do their work, good outcomes will naturally follow."
I call this neoliberal's "invisible hand" management.
Performance in most companies is based on a bell curve, where peers are stacked against each other. It's no surprise the team pushed back, when there is no safety, any data you share in good faith can be misused.
Additionally it looks to me a low trust environment where the CPO is not trusting the conversations he is having and his own direct reports. Context is important and is difficult to convey and some sensitive to convey in written reports. I am glad the teams pushed back.
"You’ll often find companies with five to seven layers of management, but none of the cultural reinforcement those layers assume. The structure is there; the doctrine isn’t."
This also applies to "flat" companies that aim for 'self management', but don't put the requisite process in place - dissolving middle management into an informal 'coordination layer' that lack real accountability and boundaries on decision rights.
I lived what you described yet, the most common feedback I received as a CTO is that they appreciated when I'm there when things go wrong. I'm in the war room, listening to what happens, mostly reinsuring them most of the time, or helping them push through some hesitation or conflicting priorities or opinions. I found those times most teaching about the culture in my teams, but also great opportunities in propagating the culture I want for them.
I bring that up because for me, it's an important part of what organizational culture is: when and how decisions are made, who are making them, who are listened to, what criterias are used. Senior leadership can influence the org culture but cannot create it. Culture is breathing interactions, not documents and policies, and you have most of those interactions within a team, with your direct reports and your skip levels. That's where culture is created.
And that is the problem with the CPO request: he wants to change some aspect of that culture (the who get informed of what's going on) but moved it at the policy level. I think it would have been better to address it with his direct team, maybe by identifying what information he missed (or lack pertinence) and what format can be better adapted to bring it up (ideally that doesn't involved him being invited to all meetings, a a solution have been proposed too many times). It's a slower change and, in my experience as CTO, often involved changing how my directors approach their own teams: they often lack the proper information to answer my questions, and so are their teams too. Each group is different and so often requires different interventions, but it's why it's interesting to present it to your whole team of directors: the weakness of one is the strength of another and they can help each other. That's for sure supposed that your directors are working as a team rather than separated entities reporting to the same manager, which is an issue by itself.
"The implicit promise is that if you hire smart people and apply just enough management to let the nerds do their work, good outcomes will naturally follow."
I call this neoliberal's "invisible hand" management.
Performance in most companies is based on a bell curve, where peers are stacked against each other. It's no surprise the team pushed back, when there is no safety, any data you share in good faith can be misused.
Additionally it looks to me a low trust environment where the CPO is not trusting the conversations he is having and his own direct reports. Context is important and is difficult to convey and some sensitive to convey in written reports. I am glad the teams pushed back.
"You’ll often find companies with five to seven layers of management, but none of the cultural reinforcement those layers assume. The structure is there; the doctrine isn’t."
This also applies to "flat" companies that aim for 'self management', but don't put the requisite process in place - dissolving middle management into an informal 'coordination layer' that lack real accountability and boundaries on decision rights.
This is well designed post!
Não conhecia o conceito dos Objetivos pro Missão. Vai me ajudar aqui no meu 2026. Obrigado por compartilhar ☺️