“Are all companies messed up?” Let’s explore that question. I have found the words "chronic" and "acute" to be helpful when thinking about the health of a company, and the relative messed-up-edness of companies. Like any words used to describe organisms or ecosystems, there are drawbacks (most notably taking the comparisons too far), but there is value here.
I agree with your bifurcation here, but the hardest part is discerning which problems in an organization are endemic and which ones are acute. Or perhaps more importantly, which endemic problems actually have the possibility of changing within an acceptable timeframe (poor leadership, inability to innovate, etc.) You mentioned Satya Nadella, for example - ask anyone during the Ballmer era of Microsoft, when the company was clearly in a decline, whether they would have held out hope for a revival such as the firm has seen, and I expect most of them would have emphatically said no.
Perhaps the most useful advice is to define for oneself what one's own acceptable timeframe for resolving endemic problems is, so that one does not get trapped in a "sick system" that constantly dangles the next variable reward just out of reach, and ensure that one makes good on a plan to leave that firm if the deadline has passed and things aren't better.
This may be a cynical view, but organizations are comprised of humans and humans are peculiar. If you reflect on the people closest to you they all have their weird quirks that make sense when you know them.
If they don't have weird quirks you probably don't know them that well, it's part of being human. Nobody is normal. What the hell is normal anyway!
Hi, John. First, my "helpful" comment: In the third paragraph of "Taking care of Yourself", I think you meant to say chronic instead of acute, "Before you know it, you've internalized the acute issues as your issues." That, or I misunderstood your point 🙂
Second, I fan (boy/girl/person) out: I've found all your tweets and links to content incredibly insightful and still accessible to a non-Product person like myself. Your Substack appears to be even more so.
This post specifically hits home. As a software dev who has felt like something is "wrong" without being able to see or articulate what, I've found myself burnt out without realizing it. Technical issues I can tackle, but "everything else" has a larger impact on actually building a product (that I am proud of anyway 😉) and making good use of my effort. The "else" is also harder to grasp.
That began my stumbling around and picking up pieces of the world of Lean, Agile, product development, etc. All of which helped restore my sanity bit by bit, but your content consistently helps me begin to truly comprehend the many aspects involved. Thank you for that.
I have definitely seen some organisations worse than others. I call it The Fog. Talking to a contact who now works at Netflix, he said he felt the organisation worked well because of the culture there … famed (now I read about it online) for ‘loose control’ and ‘openness’
Yes, which leads immediately to WHY some companies are better at dealing with such issues. Would you say John, that it is primarily because leads and employees have built the cultural capability to stay aligned? By that I mean they can be open, honest (candid), and inclusive of different views; hey can deal with conflict constructively, support and challenge each other and so handle what needs attention.
I agree with your bifurcation here, but the hardest part is discerning which problems in an organization are endemic and which ones are acute. Or perhaps more importantly, which endemic problems actually have the possibility of changing within an acceptable timeframe (poor leadership, inability to innovate, etc.) You mentioned Satya Nadella, for example - ask anyone during the Ballmer era of Microsoft, when the company was clearly in a decline, whether they would have held out hope for a revival such as the firm has seen, and I expect most of them would have emphatically said no.
Perhaps the most useful advice is to define for oneself what one's own acceptable timeframe for resolving endemic problems is, so that one does not get trapped in a "sick system" that constantly dangles the next variable reward just out of reach, and ensure that one makes good on a plan to leave that firm if the deadline has passed and things aren't better.
Every company has it's shit.
You gotta find one with crap you can live with.
This may be a cynical view, but organizations are comprised of humans and humans are peculiar. If you reflect on the people closest to you they all have their weird quirks that make sense when you know them.
If they don't have weird quirks you probably don't know them that well, it's part of being human. Nobody is normal. What the hell is normal anyway!
Hi, John. First, my "helpful" comment: In the third paragraph of "Taking care of Yourself", I think you meant to say chronic instead of acute, "Before you know it, you've internalized the acute issues as your issues." That, or I misunderstood your point 🙂
Second, I fan (boy/girl/person) out: I've found all your tweets and links to content incredibly insightful and still accessible to a non-Product person like myself. Your Substack appears to be even more so.
This post specifically hits home. As a software dev who has felt like something is "wrong" without being able to see or articulate what, I've found myself burnt out without realizing it. Technical issues I can tackle, but "everything else" has a larger impact on actually building a product (that I am proud of anyway 😉) and making good use of my effort. The "else" is also harder to grasp.
That began my stumbling around and picking up pieces of the world of Lean, Agile, product development, etc. All of which helped restore my sanity bit by bit, but your content consistently helps me begin to truly comprehend the many aspects involved. Thank you for that.
All happy companies resemble one another. Each messed up company is messed up in its own way.
I have definitely seen some organisations worse than others. I call it The Fog. Talking to a contact who now works at Netflix, he said he felt the organisation worked well because of the culture there … famed (now I read about it online) for ‘loose control’ and ‘openness’
Yes, which leads immediately to WHY some companies are better at dealing with such issues. Would you say John, that it is primarily because leads and employees have built the cultural capability to stay aligned? By that I mean they can be open, honest (candid), and inclusive of different views; hey can deal with conflict constructively, support and challenge each other and so handle what needs attention.