This is lovely post by John Arundel (“Come for the schadenfreude, stay for the thought-provoking advice” indeed!). I especially like the section on how to become a good manager:

If you want to become a great manager, which I think is the only kind worth being, start practicing now. Learn people skills, communication, collaboration, psychology. Work on understanding the things that make different kinds of people tick. Manage yourself excellently. If you can’t organize yourself, how do you expect to be responsible for a team?

Lots of great planning advice in this First Round article. There are two things related to Strategy that I especially like. First, this definition (Strategy is not a vague vision statement!):

Strategy is the sequencing of how you take a very long-term end goal and break that down into more digestible components. Done right, it gets you a really clear picture of what’s in your long-, mid-, and short-term plans, where you stack up in the market, and how you’ll win.”

And then, the importance of org design in executing that strategy well:

Org design is how you deliver on your plan. Instead of meticulously planning all of the ‘what,’ the right org design will give you the ability to hand a talented group of people a new goal, and have them continuously come up with the best way to achieve it.

The post also covers another topic I’ve been thinking about a lot, which is the cadence for planning, and how to make the quarterly (or however often you do it) planning cycle less painful/stressful. We’re in our annual planning cycle right now—once we’re done I will write a post that touches on these topics, and more.

This is another amazing AHP essay, this time about the critiques of Gen Z employees:

I’ve long argued that the critique of younger generations is a sublimated critique of a generation’s own parenting and child-rearing practices: no one wants to admit that the decisions they made (or tacitly endorsed) are responsible for the type of worker they find objectionable. But that sort of introspection requires, well, work.

It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but I also wanted to highlight the recommendations for what we (Gen X, etc.) can do about this:

So how do we break this cycle? If, upon encountering or even considering the attitude, ambition, or “work ethic” of a younger generation, your impulse begins to drift towards they don’t work like we do, my hope is we consider the following:

• How have we, as a society — and how have I, as a leader — helped foster the conditions that encourage someone to work a certain way, with certain habits, or attitudes, or ambitions?
• How much of my reaction is to the fact that someone is not working exactly the way I did at that point in my life — even though my circumstances were almost certainly wildly different?
• How has our society — or our industry — tacitly agreed on an understanding of excellence that has little room for different ways of navigating the world, of making space to care for others, or collectivism just generally?
• What if working differently is also an attempt to keep people in the industry for longer — and make the industry as a whole more sustainable?
• What can I learn from the way they’re approaching work?

Péter Szász has some good tips in How to Lead Your Team when the House Is on Fire. The article is about managing a team while a company is in “war time” , but many of these are just universally good practices—such as this one:

Protect the team’s focus time. The chaos and uncertainties of wartime can be incredibly distracting. Set up processes to shield the team from constant interruptions so they can have deep, creative work sessions. Remove them from low-value meetings and relieve them from monotonous administrative duties. One effective technique is to establish a rotating “firefighter” role to singlehandedly deal with any incoming requests, represent the team in meetings, and handle the necessary amount of bureaucracy, allowing the rest to stay heads-down on the critical priorities.

This isn’t a new revelation, but it’s helpful to see research to back up how important good managers are:

Managers play a crucial role in shaping an employee’s experience. For example, research shows that nearly 70% of the variability in employee engagement can be predicted by their managers’ behavior, decisions, and personality traits. In other words, whether people are happy, energized, or miserable at work depends mostly on their boss—and whether or not they’re an incompetent manager.

The article goes on to talk about the well-known Peter Principle, which states that “employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent”:

One of the core mechanisms behind the Peter Principle is the gap between the skills needed in junior technical roles and those newly and additionally required in senior and managerial positions. To improve the promotion system, especially for significant promotions for team leader or line manager roles, it’s essential to consider a person’s past performance or technical expertise and leadership potential, such as collaboration experience or services to the team. Organizations can counteract the Peter Principle through comprehensive training programs that equip employees with necessary competencies, such as people management skills, strategic thinking, and emotional intelligence before promoting them to managerial roles.

It’s mind-boggling how often organizations promote individual contributors into manager roles without any training at all. This is a major contributing factor to the Director problem so many orgs are battling with right now:

Your organization will succeed or fail on the basis of your director layer. And in most organizations, that layer is a mess right now.

I like this idea from James Stanier on how to make sure that product strategy doesn’t die the moment it’s created:

One way to do this is to create a regular heartbeat for your strategy. The duration of this heartbeat is up to you, but aligning with one of the larger cycles of the year is a good bet: for example, perhaps you could do it quarterly or biannually. The heartbeat is a communication that looks back at the strategy, recaps the key points, and then shows how it has been implemented in the time since the last heartbeat. It’s a chance to show how the strategy is living and relevant, and that it’s not just a document that was written once and then placed on the shelf.

This is excellent advice from Will Larson:

Many high-agency managers try to prevent executives from doing silly things, but it’s almost always more effective to translate their energy for a silly thing into energy for a useful thing. It also leaves the executive feeling supported by your work rather than viewing you as an obstacle to their progress.

He shares some practical examples in the post to illustrate the principle. Also relevant—Casey Winters’s story about executives sometimes wanting their rounded corners on images:

You are going to run into founders, CEOs, execs that want their “corners”, or seemingly irrational markets, product, features, etc. And it’s going to be your job to make those things happen. As a former product leader, I think every CEO or founder should be trusted when they ask for a corner. Now, if they’re doing it all the time, it might just be a bad leader, and you should get a new job. But I have learned to respect there is a thought process I can’t always see, an important reason they can’t always share with me that may make this the right call. So, now I just label certain ideas as corners in the strategy to teams. I can’t exactly lay out all the reasons this makes sense to do now or agree with the ones I’ve heard, but we’re going to do it anyway, and hope it’s the right thing.

I am a big believer in “moving at the speed of trust” with teams. You cannot shortcut the work to build strong relationships—and I’m afraid there is no roadmap or deadline for that. Sometimes it’s easy, sometimes it takes longer. But don’t skip this work. Move at the speed of trust.

Ben Kuhn shares some good tips around this in Trust as a bottleneck to growing teams quickly. I particularly like these two:

• Overcommunicate status. This helps in two ways: first, it gives stakeholders more confidence that if something goes off the rails they’ll know quickly. And second, it gives them more data and helps them build a higher-fidelity model of how you operate.
• Proactively own up when something isn’t going well. Arguably a special case of overcommunicating, but one that’s especially important to get right: if you can be relied on to ask for help when you need it, it’s a lot less risky for people to “try you out” on stuff at the edge of what they trust you on.

And speaking of communication… Also see Arne Kittler’s Part 4: Clear Communication, part of a series on “Clarity for Product Managers”:

Lengthy texts dilute your message or even discourage your counterparts to deal with them in the first place. Focus on the main points you want to make and provide the context that’s necessary to understand them as quickly as possible. When asking for information or a decision, be clear about what’s unclear.

I love this reflection about personal resilience from Mandy Brown:

That is, we grow not only up—not only skyward—but down, into the roots, back to that from which we came and to which we will, one day, return. We become, in time, more rooted and resilient, more capable of surviving the storm, less easily shaken away from ourselves by idle wind or rain. When I think about growing down instead of up, I think about becoming centered, about knowing what work is ours to do (and, critically, what work is not), about a slow, steady power rather than a rash and inconstant one. After all, as anyone who’s ever lived among city trees can tell you, neither brick nor concrete nor iron can stop a root as it seeks out water. We should be as steady in our search for that which nurtures our own lives.