Your Org is the Product - Integrations
Once there's a team in place, particularly enough people to need (perhaps not have yet) a product manager and a go to market resource, the leader, particularly the founder or CEO, also wear a product hat.
In this case, the product is the organization itself.
Many of the same principles and disciplines that apply with product management can still be in play.
But some things are distinctly different.
Why is this an important distinction? Why is thinking about how well the organization is operating critical?
It's the highest leverage for both outcomes and output. It's constraint, though, is often the founder.
The constraint comes most frequently in the form of all decisions need to go through. All the design reviews.
This is often very important in the early stages to set the bar, to set the culture, to set core DNA.
But a well-run org has an underlying operating system to remove lower-level, lower-stakes decisions.
A situation where all lines of communication, all decisions, flow through one person is an example of a poorly integrated organization.
For Product Managers, this shows up in the form of a "feature factory" where the roadmaps whipsaw in changes, priority and urgency.
For Engineers is shows up in over resourcing, over commitment and slipped deadlines because there's no clear feedback loop around priorities and capabilities.
For GTM team it can run the gamut from unclear comms to an overly broad GTM strategy (which is typically more tactics than strategy).
In the same way that a product that can't connect different functions or features in an app with each other through different navigational paths, an org which can't support a smooth inter-operation will essentially fail.
What are some forms of better integrations?
The first one is from the founder/CEO to the immediate team.
This needs to have a few characteristics:
- Bi-directional
- Coherent
- Directionally right
Bi-directional
The communication needs to be able to be safely and comfortably refined, questioned for clarity, and even challenged (in a good way).
Unfortunately, for some, the ability to refine and gain clarity, is the same as defiance and frowned upon. This reduces multiplier effects and, even worse, will likely lead to bad results.
I've experienced leaders who will turn questions seeking clarity from an unclear directive into a fireable offense. It's one way or the other.
Or will appear to ask for guidance, but has already made up their mind, and ask in a way that communicates the right answer.
Bi-directionality doesn't need to be a long conversation (unless there's a significant stake in the decision).
But it should be a high-bandwidth way to calibrate and bring essential information and perspectives.
Poor integrations have low-bandwidth (not alot of back and forth with high understanding and high throughput) and lossy (misunderstandings, dropped packets, misalignment).
There's an onus on both sides, depending on the stage and stakes of the company.
Small companies that don't have major things at stake can keep things in a tldr;
Large companies may need more detail, and the onus to take complex things will fall to some degree to the writer, as in the case of Amazon's six-page memos. That company is at such a scale that length is necessary; and because of the scale of the decision, often billions of dollars and a large executive team, the one making the presentation often spends weeks preparing it.
The middle ground is one where most companies fail: not enough detail Making Good Decisions as an Org and not an agreed upon decision-making structure and culture.
"Go fast and break things" is too simple to put into practice when it comes to working on bigger decisions and strategy.
I prefer a different approach: Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
As long as there is an opportunity for bi-direction, the discussions and decisions also increased a sense of ownership. This is an important principle (and is one that will grow as web3 ethos expands).
Coherent
Because those communications are often the source of direct and strategy, these must be coherent.
In many ways, these should be much more concise while also being comprehensive and clear. The job of communicating outwards actually bears much more weight because it is so impactful.
Some people will just take what the CEO says as gospel, so if it is not coherent and correct, it will cause a lot of damage.
One way to do this is to clearly tie the things being done to the mission. However, some take a short-cut and just reference the mission without actually saying what it is.
Saying what it is is different; it shows refinement and concreteness. If it is couched in generic terms or slogans, it becomes a rallying cry at best, propaganda at its best, and a basis for mind crime persecution at its worse.
In many ways, these communications should form the basis of "ground truth" -- and as such, need to be thoughtfully considered. Doesn't mean things don't change abruptly, or can't be refined through bi-directional communication, but it needs to articulate a resonant truth.
Directionally Right
It's definitely easy to get lost in the fog of war. And no one can possibly know all the answers and be right all the time.
But direction is a reasonable expectation. After all, without the right direction, what is the purpose of a leader?
Getting direction is still hard, but it is perhaps the critical foundation to success.
Pivots, about faces, zigging and zagging, will lead no where, reduces run-way and communicates indecision to the market. Every decision, even if there's no press release, is a signal to the market.
The communication -- the integration -- must be grounded in the right direction, and I think this is often where companies can go wrong. Because the "direction" is conflated with a state: we "win"; we "IPO"; share price or token "go up."
That is not a direction. It's clear because all of those fluctuate.
Companies that can have a strong decision-making culture have a direction; and that direction is one that most people agree upon and, as creative, sovereign, empowered people, can then team to make happen.
Bad direction is alot like kids playing soccer: they are all going their own way, chasing the ball (or worse, each chasing a different ball!)
Strong direction is a unified field of play with a singular goal: to score.