John Cutler’s Post

Current LinkedIn timeline.

I've been thinking a lot about "empowerment" in the context of Western countries (along with calls to "democratize" design research, etc.). In Western countries, we strongly emphasize individualism (freedom, autonomy, and self-reliance). Empowerment promises individual efficacy and fulfillment. The delegation of authority encourages, in theory, individual decision-making. In the U.S., we have a complex relationship with authority: we’re skeptical of centralized power but admire “strong” people who use power effectively. The charismatic, inspirational, and entrepreneurial leader sets the tone but does not usurp the freedoms of their team. We are uncomfortable talking about power and control—because of individualism and fear of centralization)—so we opt instead for a construct of individualism, empowerment, and strong-but-not-autocratic leadership. Bookstores (especially in airports) are filled with this stuff. This explains our discomfort with the idea of product managers as “mini-CEOs”—it doesn’t compute. You can’t have a relative equal hoarding over you. Hence replacing “mini-CEO” with the idea (ideal) of the competent, influencing, entrepreneurial, high-agency product manager with the right mindset. We try to remind ourselves that “a group of A players does not make the team,” but then immediately rely on the idea of a charismatic A-playing coach required to harness all of that merit. Teams are individuals united by individual goals, shepherded by “strong” leaders. However, another view is that true empowerment involves critical consciousness and collective action. The empowerment we discuss is often limited to individual efficacy within a predefined “operating system” rather than the empowerment to challenge those structures themselves. Talk of democratizing certain roles (e.g., UX research) is pinned on the premise that the collective power balance will magically work itself out if you inject enough empowerment and leadership. Will it? Who knows? The thought that sticks in my mind is the degree to which empowerment and our leadership narratives, while ostensibly about freedom and creativity, are in fact reinforcing power structures that we aren't calling out explicitly.

Put justers and butters together—provided they trust each other—and you're in good shape. Without trust, a juster and butter will just butt heads incessantly. https://lnkd.in/ghFNCWs7

"We don't do continuous improvement and retros. By design." I'll always remember the time I heard this from a leader of a tech company (US-based, ~12yo). They went on to explain. "Continuous improvement is a manager's job. That's it. They are responsible for fixing anything on their team. It is so ingrained in a manager's job, that it isn't worth even calling it out. Retrospectives are a waste of time. It is a stupid process. If someone has a problem, they should fix it, or tell their manager who should fix it. That's what smart people do." Note the themes and remember the context (US-based): * Emphasis on self-reliance and personal initiative * Flexibility > process adherence * Focus on merit and perceived competence This approach had upsides. The downside included: * Anything that spanned more than one team, function, group, technology, etc. (and in many cases more than one or two individuals) was very hard to nudge. * Anything that required a more collaborative, systemic solution at any meaningful scale tended not to happen. * The team didn't necessarily align or prioritize their energy investment. The problem of the day got attention vs. sustained efforts. Have you worked in a company that took this approach (no retrospectives, ad-hoc continuous improvement, more individualistic focus)? If so, what worked and where did you have challenges?

Wow. This article is 26 years old. Feels like yesterday. I'm very curious how people think it has held up, where the ideas hold (but circumstances have changed), how things have changed, etc. https://lnkd.in/gjXy7eX5

Outcomes over outputs is a confusing dichotomy. There are three primary models for thinking about this: A: Work is the output, and it feeds a chain of outcomes. B: Work is the input, and it feeds a chain of outputs (that are themselves inputs) C: Information, research, and learning is the input, and it feeds a chain of outputs (of which the initial output is the work itself) When teams talk about being "outcome focused", it is extremely important to qualify that. Do they mean driving in data circles trying exclusively to move actionable inputs? This is very common among companies that claim to be data-driven, and frankly can be even more damaging that just focusing on reasonably well-designed features. Does it mean thinking strategically about near-term and their impact on longer-term outcomes? In many ways, this is the key thinking missing everywhere at the moment. And might C be a compelling prospect? That the input is not what you build, but the information, research, and learning that you "input" into the chain? Whichever mode you choose, it is likely better than output-->outcome without a concept of a causal chain / time-oriented outcomes.

Things not adding up? Struggling with incoherence? Welcome to professional Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Things not adding up? Struggling with incoherence? Welcome to professional Everything Everywhere All at Once. The Hope 🦄 On one hand, we're hearing things that inspire and give hope. A call for courageous leaders who get into the details in all the right ways, empower teams, and have the potential to improve our organizations. Agency, connecting with customers, seeing the impact of our work. Focusing on outcomes instead of outputs. The potential of AI. All of these things speak to purpose, hope, possibilities, and opportunities. They talk about fulfillment, career enhancement, and purpose. The Reality (For Many) 🔥 Multiple rounds of layoffs (amidst record profits). Truly hurtful hiring practices ("Oh whoops, we've decided to restructure, offer rescinded, thanks for the 3hr assignment"). Thoughtless RTO mandates. Same old corporate doublespeak in all companies—startups, 100y enterprises, and everything in between. Tech CEOs are saying dumb, insensitive things that are so predictably biased that it hurts to listen. Gaslighting is in full effect. A rapidly declining sense of loyalty in companies. We're still working through the trauma of the pandemic. The climate change news is terrifying. Global conflict. A reported epidemic of loneliness (here in the US). We're bombarded by a full range of perspectives on AI, from blind AI fan-boy enthusiasm all the way to complete Luddism and genuine fear for jobs and everything in between. Across the spectrum of companies, regardless of maturity, we're hearing about things that are not good, or at least not as good as we thought (or wanted to believe). The Advice... 🔇 And then you have people dealing with all this in their own way or trying to help others,  -Give them a version of harsh truth / tough love in an effort to help. -Help them be more resilient, accepting, and pragmatic. -Support their job search and analyze the current job market. Discuss how roles will change or not change.  -Urge people to adapt their skills and encourage companies to transform. They are all doing what people do for the most part, which is trying to help in their own way. But sometimes it isn't landing. There's a deluge of coping advice. My realization… 🤔 People are tired. People feel in limbo. People are questioning themselves, their companies, and their craft. It's not the rate of change that is truly gripping people, it is the tension of the change. It is crucial to be empathetic, sensitive, and helpful in genuine ways. Our default ways of helping may not even be helpful right now, so it's important to be super self-aware. We all need someone to listen and not lecture. I've written, taught, spoken, and drawn infographics for many years about good products, high-performing teams, feature factories, and continuous improvement. It's my thing, I guess. In the last couple weeks I've had the time to connect with so many friends and hear about what's going on in people's heads lately. Things are tough. Be kind.

I'm probably being shortsighted, but why would a someone add a bunch of signups to a newsletter (I've had hundreds of odd signups on Substack in the last couple days) from domains with very little prior activity.

Fascinating take from a team using AI in their product. Thank you Henrik Mattsson