Tyranny
We are seeing the impact of tyranny on the world stage and at home.
This is not going to be a political piece. It's still about products and strategy.
But inevitably, comparisons to government will be made:
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison
While looking at tyranny from afar makes it easy to revile, within many companies, tyranny also reigns.
To some degree, a company must impose some governance on the employees. Otherwise chaos reigns.
But what I mean by tyranny has less to do with behavioral policies ("return to work" is something employers can expect, for example), but more about the expression and discussion of ideas.
It's the different between empowered or enslaved.
Tyranny takes disagreement or misalignment as mutiny and rebellion. And once the social dynamic sparked by tyranny builds up within a company, the empowered behavior that comes from freedom (not chaotic dissent by employees, but freedom to 'do the right thing') is squashed.
"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." - Bertrand Russell, "Unpopular Essays"
As I write this, while most writing on product talk about the craft, the strategies, and practices of a good product manager, the most important product seems often overlooked: the organization itself.
Product leaders have limited scope to truly change this, although it is in part their responsibility at least to build a successful organization.
But the CEO or founder, once a competent team has been built, in part is the product manager of the company, itself.
Which is a tricky dynamic. For example, who is the actual "customer" of the organization?
But the design is less important than the base principle, and as I think about it, one of the fastest ways to limit the creativity and productivity is tyranny.
Tyranny punishes:
- Trying to address the tension of 'sacred cows'
- Advocating for real evidence from actual customers
- Identifying limitations and threats to success, even with a mindset to solve for those problems
In some places, cheerleading is richly rewarded.
And a tip I read from a corporate HR professional confirmed this: especially as a start-up, be a cheerleader. This means that, in order to do so authentically, have some conviction about its success as a product in the market (even if the insides and social dynamics are painful, find a true north about how great the product is).
The problem comes when there are actual problems that are in your scope to address.
And for a PM, anything that is affecting the product is in your scope to address.
The problem with tyranny, especially when it comes from the top, is that a "wishful thinking" leadership believes that, as long as things are whitewashed, success will ensue.
The question always comes back to this: how does one reduce tyranny, when we know truth speaking can be punished:
"All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force." (George Orwell from a letter to Noel Willmett, 1944)
Tyranny, once instilled, even a little bit, cannot back down on its own accord.
Typically, revolution creates freedom.
And most typically, revolution is seen performed by those stripped of power, banding together to overthrow the tyrant.
But I think many people who run companies, except for a small subset, ultimately want to lead, because leadership of people should (in theory) result in better outcomes than tyranny.
What then is the more peaceful revolution?
I would argue that it perhaps doesn't come from below. We see how employees at certain companies have weaponized their personal freedoms and rights to hold company leaders hostage.
This is not what I am talking about.
The freedom is the freedom of thought to galvanize people to do what's best for the company, from strategy to execution. This cannot be done by mob rule.
But it still means there's a revolution.
It's an overthrowing of the leader's own lizard brain and blindness with discernment and openness to better ideas than one could come up with solo.
The revolution is an internal matter.
Perhaps it starts with the leaders conscious and a willingness to institute a process, a truth teller, where there is no imbalance in power.
This doesn't typically exist: the board can't do it, because there's often an implicit adversarial relationship, even when there shouldn't be; executive teams can't do it because of the asymmetry in power.
The external truth teller, given the charter to do this, not to give advice, but to stage the space for a comfortable overthrow of blindness and ego to surface the best ideas and thinking.
The best kind of wartime consigliere.