Shownotes
In this episode we discuss: The intentional organization. We are joined by Mathias Meyer, The Startup CTO Coach, and Sara Hicks, Product Leader and Founder.
Love The Operations Room? Please support us by rating and reviewing it here.
We chat about the following:
- How should leadership roles evolve as a company shifts from startup to scale-up?
- What’s the real cost of not shipping products regularly, beyond just revenue impact?
- How can meeting culture be reshaped to truly drive collaboration and outcomes?
- Where’s the balance between a CEO’s product vision and a COO’s operational priorities?
- How do you hire quickly for growth without compromising cultural fit?
References
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/themathiasmeyer/
- https://intentionalorganization.com
- https://intentionalorganization.com/book
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/saralouhicks/
Biography
Mathias Meyer is an executive coach, repeat startup founder, and writer based in Berlin. A former CEO and CTO, he has grown multiple remote teams to successful exits, including Scalarium (Amazon), Travis CI (Idera), and Reaction Commerce (Intuit). Today, through The Intentional Organization, he coaches and advises leaders navigating the challenges of scaling their businesses and themselves. Outside of work, Mathias enjoys nature, cultivating his vegetable garden, and fermenting produce.
Sara Hicks is a seasoned product leader and founder, having held senior roles at Yahoo!, Etsy, and Media Temple before launching her own company, Reaction Commerce, where she served as CEO until its acquisition by Mailchimp (later Intuit). Now based in Los Angeles, she partners with Mathias at The Intentional Organization, supporting founders and executives through coaching, mentoring, and facilitation.
To learn more about Beth and Brandon or to find out about sponsorship opportunities click here.
Summary
00:05:58 – Leadership in growth
00:08:21 – Shipping momentum
00:10:57 – Fixing meeting culture
00:14:47 – Scaling challenges
00:18:12 – Product alignment
00:24:30 – CEO/COO dynamics
00:31:05 – Trust as a leadership asset
00:37:40 – Vision vs. operations
00:41:15 – Hiring for fit
00:44:50 – Final reflections
This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:
Podcorn - https://podcorn.com/privacy
Transcripts
Hello and welcome to another episode
Speaker:of The Operations Room, a podcast
Speaker:for CEOs.
Speaker:I am Brandon Mencinga joined by
Speaker:Bethany Ayers. How are things going
Speaker:today?
Speaker:I'm like, you're a lovely co-host
Speaker:today, you've mixed things up.
Speaker:Well, my mind is like eight
Speaker:different directions right now,
Speaker:because I'm thinking about
Speaker:defensibility, differentiation,
Speaker:messaging for pitch deck.
Speaker:It requires like an extraordinary
Speaker:amount of like mental thought.
Speaker:So that is why I'm all over the map.
Speaker:Have you used any
Speaker:AI to help you formulate your
Speaker:message?
Speaker:Yes, yes, I have, in fact.
Speaker:It is very helpful to help you
Speaker:think, if that makes sense.
Speaker:It kind of serves the purpose of
Speaker:what Chat GPT kind of is in a way,
Speaker:which is your thought partner to
Speaker:work things out.
Speaker:And thank you, Mr. And Mrs.
Speaker:Chat GP T.
Speaker:Yeah. What is the gender of ChatGPT?
Speaker:So I still haven't actually started
Speaker:my job, although I
Speaker:really feel like I have.
Speaker:So Monday I
Speaker:had a one-to-one
Speaker:with our largest investor,
Speaker:one- to-ones with the entire
Speaker:management team and
Speaker:spoke to a couple
Speaker:of recruiters.
Speaker:So that was my first day off,
Speaker:my first post-peak.
Speaker:You did all that in one day.
Speaker:Yeah, that was all Monday.
Speaker:But part of what I ended up doing is
Speaker:from the board report,
Speaker:the sales leader was talking about
Speaker:not really knowing how to respond to
Speaker:certain competitor
Speaker:propositions. And so then I
Speaker:use both chat GPT and
Speaker:Gemini because Gemini is much better
Speaker:than it was and Gemani is connected
Speaker:to all of our information.
Speaker:And I have no idea if the battle
Speaker:cars are good because I don't know
Speaker:the sector. So I don't No.
Speaker:What might be hallucinations and
Speaker:what is real.
Speaker:But looking at it, it looked very
Speaker:sensible and it was deep research.
Speaker:And the amount of links
Speaker:of documents that were deep
Speaker:researched in five minutes,
Speaker:we would have taken a human weeks.
Speaker:There must have been 50 or 60
Speaker:different sources.
Speaker:I don't know if product marketing is
Speaker:needed anymore, but it's going to be
Speaker:different discipline.
Speaker:I think the people who can do that
Speaker:extra 1% will rise to the
Speaker:top and everybody who
Speaker:focuses on the reading the
Speaker:50 articles and nothing
Speaker:else.
Speaker:Oh, yeah, that's dead.
Speaker:Yeah, so who knows what the
Speaker:entry level jobs are gonna be of the
Speaker:future. So this week, administration
Speaker:of your life combined with just a
Speaker:bit of this kind of intro into these
Speaker:folks that you're gonna be dealing
Speaker:with and you did an
Speaker:exercise of battle cards.
Speaker:I did.
Speaker:During the board meeting, I was
Speaker:like, how hard can this be?
Speaker:Everybody's talking, and I'm
Speaker:prompting for battle cards, and I
Speaker:was quite impressed by them.
Speaker:So you're like a delinquent board
Speaker:member, you're one of those board
Speaker:members, not on their phone per se,
Speaker:but actually doing some work.
Speaker:Well, this is my first board
Speaker:meeting. I was an observer.
Speaker:I'm not on the board yet.
Speaker:I've not actually technically
Speaker:getting paid yet.
Speaker:So I can't remember if I told you.
Speaker:So, I was going to go
Speaker:away and have my very own
Speaker:vacation all by myself.
Speaker:Then I was looking.
Speaker:It was a couple of weeks ago where
Speaker:it was 32 degrees, which is, I don't
Speaker:know, 95 degrees in American
Speaker:temperatures in London, which is
Speaker:unbearably hot.
Speaker:Spain was 52 degrees
Speaker:and the Mediterranean is 28
Speaker:degrees and Crete is burning.
Speaker:And so it's like, maybe I
Speaker:don't want to go to Europe this
Speaker:year. Maybe I just want to be in the
Speaker:UK where we seem to be having a
Speaker:summer. And I am
Speaker:staying in the U.K.
Speaker:I am going to
Speaker:a spa and retreat.
Speaker:It is a 10-minute
Speaker:taxi journey from Upminster.
Speaker:And Upminster is the end of the
Speaker:district line.
Speaker:So I basically just have to get to
Speaker:the district line, sit to the end of
Speaker:it and take a 10 minute cab and
Speaker:then I'm gonna be on holiday.
Speaker:And then, are you staying there or
Speaker:do you come back?
Speaker:I'm staying there.
Speaker:Four nights, five days.
Speaker:I have different treatments
Speaker:booked in.
Speaker:It's an all-inclusive, so you get
Speaker:three meals a day.
Speaker:I'm going to smuggle in tea
Speaker:bags because it looks like it's a
Speaker:bit of a detox place, but I don't
Speaker:need to detox on caffeine.
Speaker:Thank you very much. I don't want to
Speaker:deal with a headache.
Speaker:Herbal teas will not be sufficient
Speaker:for me.
Speaker:No alcohol, which is fine.
Speaker:Loads of throughout the day
Speaker:and it has a example
Speaker:day, a typical day, and it's
Speaker:like, wake up with
Speaker:lemon water at
Speaker:seven, go for a walk
Speaker:in the countryside.
Speaker:Nine is breakfast and then
Speaker:a cardio class, a stretch
Speaker:class and a something else class,
Speaker:then lunch.
Speaker:And then they have like another
Speaker:couple classes in the afternoon,
Speaker:then they craft and then
Speaker:some different lectures, which I
Speaker:guess is the culty stuff comes out
Speaker:or who knows what the lectures are
Speaker:about.
Speaker:Right, okay, so this sounds like the
Speaker:equivalent of camps that you put
Speaker:your kids into in the summertime.
Speaker:Why not, I don't know, do some kind
Speaker:of yoga retreat, you know, go to
Speaker:India, go to Goa for seven days on
Speaker:a yoga retreat.
Speaker:Why not something wild?
Speaker:Didn't have to get on an airplane
Speaker:and I have to plan it and I have to
Speaker:figure it out.
Speaker:And I might have to get jabs.
Speaker:Like they're just things that I just
Speaker:this is just feels easy.
Speaker:And also like when I was looking at
Speaker:an all inclusive, not only is Europe
Speaker:just unbearably hot right now,
Speaker:but on all inclusive is basically
Speaker:hanging out by a pool and drinking
Speaker:all day.
Speaker:And I thought that might feel a
Speaker:bit lonely on my own.
Speaker:And then I was being a little bit
Speaker:snobby about like, what would the
Speaker:other people be like that I'd have
Speaker:to be around.
Speaker:And so we've got a great topic for
Speaker:today, which is the intentional
Speaker:organization.
Speaker:We have an amazing guest for this,
Speaker:which Matias Meyer and Sarah Hicks,
Speaker:they are co-authors of the
Speaker:Intentional Organization of the same
Speaker:name, a leadership and management
Speaker:guide.
Speaker:So before we talk to Matias and
Speaker:Sarah, one thing that they had
Speaker:spoken about, and this is Matias,
Speaker:you talked about the idea that
Speaker:individual incentives can
Speaker:introduce points of conflict with
Speaker:others, especially if they don't
Speaker:know what those individual
Speaker:incentives are.
Speaker:And I'm just wondering if you can
Speaker:relate any kind of experiences
Speaker:around this in terms of the problems
Speaker:that arise and also maybe some
Speaker:ways of dealing with it.
Speaker:What immediately comes to mind isn't
Speaker:necessarily the
Speaker:friction with people having
Speaker:different objectives or
Speaker:measurements, but the
Speaker:unexpected consequences
Speaker:of the measures that you give
Speaker:people.
Speaker:There's always an unexpected
Speaker:consequence because as soon as you
Speaker:say, this is how you're going to be
Speaker:measured, we start to immediately
Speaker:figure out how to game the system.
Speaker:If you have lots to people.
Speaker:Misaligned objectives or not
Speaker:even misalign, but just lots of
Speaker:them, then you have loads of
Speaker:different places where bad
Speaker:behavior or unintended consequences
Speaker:can come out and come to play.
Speaker:So it's not necessarily like
Speaker:marketing has
Speaker:MQLs and
Speaker:SDRs has pipe generation and those
Speaker:are fighting with each other,
Speaker:but more like if marketing
Speaker:is only comped
Speaker:on MQLs.
Speaker:They have no incentive to make those
Speaker:MQLs high quality other than the
Speaker:goodness of their heart.
Speaker:And then if you have the SDRs are
Speaker:only comped on generating pipeline,
Speaker:then again, like that pipeline is
Speaker:not going to be very good.
Speaker:And so you end up just like stuffing
Speaker:your pipeline with bad things if
Speaker:everybody isn't actually aligned
Speaker:and getting paid on new
Speaker:revenue.
Speaker:And so that's why I don't like
Speaker:paying on any of the other stages
Speaker:except for closed revenue, except
Speaker:for SDRs because SDR is like.
Speaker:Need a combination of both because
Speaker:otherwise it's pretty
Speaker:soul-destroying to book a bunch of
Speaker:meetings and then not get paid or
Speaker:not get pay for ages or
Speaker:hand over a good quality to
Speaker:a bad salesperson and
Speaker:you're at the mercy of someone else.
Speaker:That's only within the go-to-market
Speaker:function. If you bring that up to
Speaker:the exec level and imagine the same
Speaker:thing happening where marketing is
Speaker:only and cares about MQLs
Speaker:and engineering is
Speaker:only comped on like...
Speaker:How fast they fix bugs or
Speaker:the number of bugs they fix then you
Speaker:just get these weird things like
Speaker:you don't ship new products it's all
Speaker:about bugs or if it's
Speaker:a number of bags and people start
Speaker:like finding all the bugs and even
Speaker:stupid bugs get fixed and like you
Speaker:have to think through what are you
Speaker:actually trying to achieve and
Speaker:what's the simplest way of doing it.
Speaker:Yes, so I agree with this a thousand
Speaker:percent. Every time we've tried to
Speaker:get fancy with like
Speaker:stages or particular
Speaker:things, A, it's confusing over
Speaker:time, and B, it is kind
Speaker:of complicated to pay out as well,
Speaker:and C, it perverses incentives in
Speaker:terms of what the actual end
Speaker:behavior is.
Speaker:I recognize there's other people
Speaker:that are stage-oriented like BDRs
Speaker:and SDRs where ideally you're
Speaker:putting them in a position where,
Speaker:kind of like your so-called book
Speaker:discovery call is completed,
Speaker:qualified, accepted by the sales
Speaker:rep. And that is a stage where
Speaker:they get comped for that, obviously,
Speaker:but having that small kicker on the
Speaker:end of it for close one for them as
Speaker:well, I've always been a proponent
Speaker:of doing that.
Speaker:So there's still a clear end
Speaker:of line of sight commission there.
Speaker:I think on the leadership team, same
Speaker:thing. I'm a huge fan of like,
Speaker:I think we've talked about this previously
Speaker:where you have a single end
Speaker:goal that the team is trying to get
Speaker:to, you know, the end-of-year ARR
Speaker:numbers, something like that.
Speaker:You're all incentivized with a bonus
Speaker:for exactly the same thing, and
Speaker:that's clear across the group as
Speaker:well. And we're all pulling for that
Speaker:same thing.
Speaker:Yeah, I agree.
Speaker:And for everything except
Speaker:for sales, I feel like it's
Speaker:fairly easy to game out, like with
Speaker:a bit of imagination, you can figure
Speaker:it out.
Speaker:What I'm amazed by every
Speaker:single year is how
Speaker:good salespeople are at
Speaker:figuring out their commission and
Speaker:their path through as
Speaker:quickly as possible with
Speaker:basically the wrong behaviors.
Speaker:And I swear every year I'm like, no,
Speaker:no, I have learned and let me
Speaker:figure this out and let me talk
Speaker:it through and what are the
Speaker:loopholes and how could it possibly
Speaker:go wrong and spend weeks and
Speaker:show it to loads of people and does
Speaker:it, you know, and it all makes
Speaker:sense. And then within five
Speaker:minutes of being with the sales
Speaker:team, somebody in the will raise
Speaker:their hand and be like, ah, if
Speaker:I do this, this and this,
Speaker:does that mean that I earn and, and
Speaker:then yes, yes, that's
Speaker:totally not what we wanted you to
Speaker:do. And if you turn all
Speaker:of your customers, but in a
Speaker:particular way, you're
Speaker:going to your commission and then...
Speaker:Either have to go back or just
Speaker:take it if like the chance is low.
Speaker:But I'm always amazed at
Speaker:good salespeople are at this.
Speaker:Like they can't figure out how to
Speaker:use a spreadsheet.
Speaker:They use a calculator and use a
Speaker:spread sheet as a table.
Speaker:And yet in their brain,
Speaker:you show them a commission plan and
Speaker:they can figure it out in
Speaker:microseconds.
Speaker:Matias also talked about meeting
Speaker:culture, the meeting culture that
Speaker:seems to be in every company on the
Speaker:planet and complained about very
Speaker:aggressively at all times and what
Speaker:to do about it.
Speaker:So when it comes to meeting culture
Speaker:what do you figure out?
Speaker:What's your take on this in terms of
Speaker:doing useful things?
Speaker:I think the problem is more
Speaker:the standing meetings where people
Speaker:have forgotten why the standing
Speaker:meeting's there and then they still
Speaker:go to it and there's no point
Speaker:anymore.
Speaker:One of the things that we used to do
Speaker:at peak was part
Speaker:of the agenda of a standing
Speaker:agenda is do we still need this
Speaker:meeting and just get rid of meetings
Speaker:when we don't need them anymore and
Speaker:when we do the team canvases at the
Speaker:start of how
Speaker:do we work together as a team?
Speaker:What's the point of the team?
Speaker:One of the questions like What's
Speaker:the outcome of the team?
Speaker:What does success look like and
Speaker:how do we disband or when do we
Speaker:disband?
Speaker:So at least there's always this
Speaker:thinking, does this meeting need to
Speaker:go on forever?
Speaker:Or can we do it in three weeks and
Speaker:then just stop?
Speaker:I remember this very distinctly, one
Speaker:of the leaders of the
Speaker:business had this bright
Speaker:idea that we should just cancel all
Speaker:meetings.
Speaker:Let's just go into Google,
Speaker:kill every meeting that's there and
Speaker:force people to reset their meetings
Speaker:basically.
Speaker:So my opinion back to her was,
Speaker:I think that's the dumbest idea on
Speaker:the planet and I think what we
Speaker:should do instead is
Speaker:communicate to the company that we
Speaker:recognize there's concerns around
Speaker:meetings and too many meetings and
Speaker:that every single recurring meeting
Speaker:that we have.
Speaker:Across the board within the next
Speaker:two weeks, we expect every
Speaker:recurring meeting to go through a
Speaker:retro process to ask the
Speaker:questions that you just asked, which
Speaker:is, is this meeting still valid?
Speaker:Does this still make sense?
Speaker:Are we still getting value from it?
Speaker:Should it be something different?
Speaker:Should it be killed? Should we go
Speaker:async?
Speaker:Should be modified?
Speaker:That approach was good.
Speaker:And I think culturally set the
Speaker:company on a slightly new path in
Speaker:the sense that it was a bit of a
Speaker:recognition that retros in a meeting
Speaker:form actually can be quite useful.
Speaker:And then on top of that, the other
Speaker:one is to be conscious about
Speaker:where you put your standing meetings
Speaker:and your internal meetings.
Speaker:Like at peak, we tried to do it all
Speaker:on Mondays and Fridays to leave
Speaker:the center of the week for actual
Speaker:work and seeing customers,
Speaker:because also loads of customers tend
Speaker:to not take external meetings
Speaker:on a Monday and a Friday.
Speaker:It makes them very intense days, but
Speaker:then you have three days
Speaker:for work,
Speaker:rather than having all these
Speaker:meetings scattered throughout the
Speaker:week.
Speaker:I think for async communications,
Speaker:async communication is a weird one,
Speaker:right? Because sometimes you're
Speaker:like, yeah, this should totally be
Speaker:async and you send out your Slack
Speaker:messages and
Speaker:nobody engages with it.
Speaker:With the async Slack message,
Speaker:couple that with a Loom video,
Speaker:it adds a whole new dimension of
Speaker:communication to the message that
Speaker:is more engaging.
Speaker:I can see it on the Loom numbers,
Speaker:basically, where they may not
Speaker:necessarily want to read Slack
Speaker:message per se, but they're happy to
Speaker:have. Branded on 1.5
Speaker:and just get the burn down in terms
Speaker:of whatever that message is.
Speaker:So my recommendation that I
Speaker:think is a good one is do that
Speaker:async message,
Speaker:put on the loom and boom.
Speaker:All right. Perfect.
Speaker:So why don't we get on to our
Speaker:conversation with Matthias and
Speaker:Sarah?
Speaker:Using the word intentional seems
Speaker:very intentional, so what's the
Speaker:background behind that?
Speaker:There's an interesting meta level
Speaker:at this. I was actually just
Speaker:thinking about the word intentional
Speaker:on this, which I find resonates
Speaker:with people a lot when they hear
Speaker:it or see it written out.
Speaker:Like the intentional organization is
Speaker:like, oh yes, it's about,
Speaker:you know, not leaving things up
Speaker:to chance or not leaving as
Speaker:much as you can up to random things.
Speaker:It's about sweating the small stuff.
Speaker:It's about caring about
Speaker:some or as many as possible of those
Speaker:little details.
Speaker:A growing startup in a scaling
Speaker:company you might gloss over.
Speaker:And somehow we landed on this word
Speaker:and, you know, it created the,
Speaker:it helped create the title of the
Speaker:book. It's the name of our company.
Speaker:And it's also kind of the spirit
Speaker:that we want to imbue in our
Speaker:clients. And, you know, as they
Speaker:think about their companies,
Speaker:it's not just leaving things up to
Speaker:random chance, It's like not
Speaker:leaving.
Speaker:Conflicts unaddressed, hoping they
Speaker:will resolve themselves, for
Speaker:example, or not leaving teams
Speaker:in the hope or in the illusion
Speaker:that they can make their own
Speaker:decisions.
Speaker:But it's about, not necessarily
Speaker:about what the exact decision-making
Speaker:process is, but it's bringing that
Speaker:clarity of what it
Speaker:is. What's the process?
Speaker:What can we expect?
Speaker:What are the boundaries that we can
Speaker:work with?
Speaker:And what are all of
Speaker:the artifacts that can go into this
Speaker:decision- making?
Speaker:So if you had to look at a
Speaker:series A company, what's like the
Speaker:one or two top of mind
Speaker:elements that we should be thinking
Speaker:about and unglossing as it were?
Speaker:We see a lot of early stage startups
Speaker:jump into putting together
Speaker:OKRs.
Speaker:Let's just go straight to OKR.
Speaker:Oh, the OKR's.
Speaker:Here we go.
Speaker:And you kind of unpack it
Speaker:and let's just be clear,
Speaker:like unglossing that OKR is don't
Speaker:replace strategy.
Speaker:So what's happening often is that
Speaker:we see is that the underlying
Speaker:direction isn't clear and
Speaker:OKR won't fix that.
Speaker:And so everyone's glossing over are
Speaker:busy. We have these lists, we have
Speaker:these tasks, these features.
Speaker:We're doing these things.
Speaker:Our overall vision and
Speaker:direction and strategy might be
Speaker:a little bit murky.
Speaker:Matias and I had this issue at
Speaker:our company.
Speaker:We tried to implement a
Speaker:North Star metric.
Speaker:We tried to, you know,
Speaker:implement some KPIs and we
Speaker:just weren't ready for it.
Speaker:We weren't mature enough as an
Speaker:organization and we kind of glossed
Speaker:over an important thing which
Speaker:is we needed to step back and
Speaker:do the hard work of vision and
Speaker:strategy.
Speaker:So that's a big one, I think, that I
Speaker:see often and have been guilty
Speaker:of in my own work.
Speaker:Covered everything that's hard
Speaker:about business between OKRs,
Speaker:do they work?
Speaker:What's the vision?
Speaker:What's a strategy?
Speaker:So why don't we start with what
Speaker:do you mean by strategy?
Speaker:When I think about strategy,
Speaker:I think about a very simple
Speaker:document. I don't think about, you
Speaker:know, something that is pages and
Speaker:pages that everyone then
Speaker:needs to these days feed into chat
Speaker:GPT to understand and get the gist
Speaker:of. I think about something that is
Speaker:simple, outlines a set of,
Speaker:well, not exactly objectives, maybe
Speaker:priorities or focus areas that
Speaker:determine the focus of
Speaker:the team for
Speaker:maybe 12 to 18 months, right?
Speaker:It's a longer term horizon for me.
Speaker:Uh, in my definition that
Speaker:I don't need to touch very often.
Speaker:Uh, it talks a little bit about what
Speaker:changes might need to happen in the
Speaker:organization to support those,
Speaker:whatever those goals are, or you're
Speaker:not supposed to use the word goals.
Speaker:And when talking about strategy,
Speaker:whatever your focus areas are
Speaker:laid out in that strategy and
Speaker:you know, maybe comes up with a few
Speaker:supporting processes.
Speaker:It outlines the challenges and
Speaker:the risks.
Speaker:I like, in some ways, the simplicity
Speaker:of good strategy, bad strategy.
Speaker:It doesn't overthink it too much,
Speaker:even though, I mean, the book is
Speaker:long, but you can boil down the
Speaker:framework to maybe a
Speaker:one or two pager.
Speaker:I think strategy has the tendency to
Speaker:be overthought and to be
Speaker:overdone, just like vision and
Speaker:mission statements.
Speaker:For me, one of the things
Speaker:that when we started working
Speaker:together, I started putting together
Speaker:one that was specifically for the
Speaker:engineering organization.
Speaker:And that was maybe a little bit more
Speaker:than one page and just basically
Speaker:have these three sections
Speaker:of this is what we're gonna focus
Speaker:on. These are some technology
Speaker:changes or focus areas
Speaker:that we're going to do.
Speaker:Maybe here's a, I think at this
Speaker:point it was also a new programming
Speaker:language that we wanted to bring in
Speaker:that would help build the
Speaker:architecture that we were striving
Speaker:for.
Speaker:And then, you know, some focus areas
Speaker:like for the engineering department,
Speaker:it was I wanted that entire
Speaker:organization to focus more on
Speaker:continuous integration and
Speaker:continuous delivery practices.
Speaker:So it was just made explicit in
Speaker:there. There were no specifics about
Speaker:how that might actually happen.
Speaker:That was then a much longer process
Speaker:taking it from almost
Speaker:from month to month, quarter to
Speaker:quarter to improve the team,
Speaker:getting the team from shipping
Speaker:quarterly releases to
Speaker:shipping every other week.
Speaker:I had said it was a very simple
Speaker:document, but it was
Speaker:one where I was like, This is one of
Speaker:my artifacts.
Speaker:So there's various ways in which you
Speaker:can set up OKRs, different styles
Speaker:of doing it. Some OKR's are like
Speaker:bigger resets than others.
Speaker:Any kind of like little tricks of
Speaker:the trade as to like what
Speaker:doesn't really work in different
Speaker:circumstances and maybe what does
Speaker:work more often.
Speaker:I think OKRs often get misused,
Speaker:we see that all the time.
Speaker:I think what I've seen is folks
Speaker:confuse the intent.
Speaker:So often they're an outcome-focused
Speaker:goal versus a,
Speaker:is this an actual feature that's
Speaker:supposed to be implemented?
Speaker:So that's a disconnect right there.
Speaker:Achievable versus a stretch goal.
Speaker:That's another one I see oftentimes,
Speaker:like there's this OKR that's like
Speaker:really meant to be a stretch call.
Speaker:Most likely the company will not
Speaker:hit it, teams will not it it.
Speaker:But then it's misinterpreted
Speaker:and folks see it as like,
Speaker:why didn't this happen?
Speaker:Why, like, is this achievable?
Speaker:And then the other thing I think
Speaker:that's problematic that I've
Speaker:seen is just how time consuming they
Speaker:become. The company becomes just
Speaker:very bogged down in the bureaucracy
Speaker:and the overhead and the
Speaker:rigidness of creating
Speaker:and updating and maintaining their
Speaker:OKRs.
Speaker:There's an underlying symptom,
Speaker:right? There's something else going
Speaker:on when that's happening, which is
Speaker:usually back to.
Speaker:Maybe the strategy or direction is
Speaker:just not so clear.
Speaker:Either the strategy and directions
Speaker:aren't clear or you're dealing with
Speaker:a massive command and control
Speaker:environment where you need to make
Speaker:sure that everybody's day is
Speaker:understood to the nth degree.
Speaker:I've seen this happen so many times
Speaker:where like a new leader will come
Speaker:into the org and they're like,
Speaker:let's implement this framework that
Speaker:I used in my last job.
Speaker:And it's square peg round hole,
Speaker:right? It's like, it's not the right
Speaker:size or framework for the
Speaker:stage of the company or for the team
Speaker:or for their culture.
Speaker:One example that stuck with me
Speaker:was a company that had monthly
Speaker:OKRs that they said for the
Speaker:entire team. And those OKR's
Speaker:might actually change
Speaker:during the month.
Speaker:We just created a lot of confusion,
Speaker:but in some ways it turned into
Speaker:more of, again, of a command control
Speaker:structure for a very, very small
Speaker:company where of founders.
Speaker:Change their minds,
Speaker:whatever they wanted the
Speaker:team to focus on, on
Speaker:a whim without really
Speaker:having to give explanations or
Speaker:reasoning why they would be doing
Speaker:that.
Speaker:But also, if you want to be able to
Speaker:change that quickly, why bother with
Speaker:OKRs?
Speaker:Is it just at a point where you
Speaker:aren't ready to have that level of,
Speaker:you know, what direction you're
Speaker:going in, in which case it's just
Speaker:experimentation and learning?
Speaker:That's right. Then just set
Speaker:priorities for two weeks
Speaker:and you're then just set
Speaker:them again.
Speaker:It's called a sprint.
Speaker:Probably more appropriate for
Speaker:that. But yes, of course, they had
Speaker:a combination of both.
Speaker:OKRs offer a golden
Speaker:path, something that is shiny,
Speaker:a quick solution to something that
Speaker:isn't easily solved.
Speaker:And I think, Beth, in one of the
Speaker:episodes you had mentioned
Speaker:that You have yet to find
Speaker:something as simple as setting
Speaker:three priorities.
Speaker:I think that's the benefit I can
Speaker:extract from OKRs.
Speaker:If it leads people to actually
Speaker:concluding these are our three
Speaker:priorities and this is what we're
Speaker:gonna focus on or we're going to cut
Speaker:out the rest, that's great
Speaker:for me, but then you also
Speaker:don't need the entire framework.
Speaker:You don't need the cascading.
Speaker:I've learned that I like OKRs,
Speaker:but I only like them
Speaker:at a company level and
Speaker:do not like the cascatting.
Speaker:So I think as a company to explain,
Speaker:I mean, this is where we get into,
Speaker:is it a strategy?
Speaker:Is it a direction?
Speaker:Whatever, like what's the
Speaker:priorities? But to explain where
Speaker:we're going for the year and
Speaker:then how we're gonna get there each
Speaker:quarter for the company, that works
Speaker:quite well for me.
Speaker:To A, figure out and B, to have some
Speaker:level of certainty that whatever it
Speaker:is you're doing, whatever your
Speaker:individual or team OKR is,
Speaker:that it actually contributes
Speaker:something meaningful or
Speaker:something visible to
Speaker:whatever the top level OKR.
Speaker:And just the time it takes to
Speaker:administer it is just unnecessary.
Speaker:So what do you think about MBOs,
Speaker:Management by Objectives, or any of
Speaker:our listeners? That's what it stands
Speaker:for. But it's basically either
Speaker:rating people based on
Speaker:what they achieve via MBO, but
Speaker:more often it's paying their
Speaker:variable as an element of
Speaker:what percentage of something that's
Speaker:not revenue they contributed.
Speaker:I'm not a fan, I'll just say,
Speaker:I've not seen it implemented well,
Speaker:or I've seen it get used as a
Speaker:weapon. And ideally, you want to add
Speaker:clarity, right, reduce confusion,
Speaker:and they should be inclusive, they
Speaker:should fair, and should be flexible
Speaker:and adaptable.
Speaker:And I too often see the same thing
Speaker:with OKRs as I see with NBOs,
Speaker:which is they just become these
Speaker:like, got to do it this way.
Speaker:These rigid structures don't
Speaker:really account for the
Speaker:cultures and humanness of teams.
Speaker:I worry whenever something like
Speaker:this, whether, I mean, okay, art can
Speaker:be used almost in the exact same way
Speaker:when some monetary
Speaker:incentivization is broken
Speaker:down on a team or
Speaker:even an individual level.
Speaker:I think the further up you go, the
Speaker:more useful it can be.
Speaker:But as you break it down, say as
Speaker:one individual variable
Speaker:is depending on
Speaker:certain achievements or, you know,
Speaker:meeting those objectives, it gets
Speaker:harder and harder to actually
Speaker:measure.
Speaker:In a meaningful way, the
Speaker:impact on whatever the
Speaker:larger objectives are more
Speaker:on the individual level.
Speaker:I think the the individual
Speaker:incentivization just
Speaker:generally worries me.
Speaker:Like when someone is incentivized
Speaker:or even a team is incentivize on
Speaker:something different than another
Speaker:team.
Speaker:In some ways, there's an instant
Speaker:immediate clash for me of
Speaker:what is important to each of these
Speaker:teams. And I think there's a
Speaker:stretch into bonus structures
Speaker:in this.
Speaker:Basically a similar thing or if not
Speaker:the same thing, but with a different
Speaker:name. That's what I'm always worried
Speaker:about I mean, we've also experienced
Speaker:where this level of
Speaker:incentivization can just lead
Speaker:an almost an entire organization
Speaker:History like if someone on
Speaker:the sales side is incentivized
Speaker:even just on their own like they are
Speaker:incentivized and nobody else is
Speaker:That's an instant point
Speaker:of conflict for me because they or
Speaker:they will the
Speaker:however they're incentivized.
Speaker:They will do whatever they can
Speaker:to meet whatever the objective is
Speaker:to get that monetary benefit.
Speaker:And there's nothing worse as a
Speaker:leader of the business when other
Speaker:leaders of the business have MBOs or
Speaker:special incentives that you're not
Speaker:aware of, and it ends up skewing
Speaker:their behavior and you have no idea
Speaker:why they're doing what they're
Speaker:doing. You're like, what is going
Speaker:on? Like, why is Bethany doing this?
Speaker:I was talking to somebody the
Speaker:other day who was
Speaker:looking for a new chief
Speaker:people officer because had
Speaker:an exec team where
Speaker:it wasn't around necessarily MBOs,
Speaker:but promotions and
Speaker:leveling had gone a bit
Speaker:crazy because every exec
Speaker:was doing what they wanted to do
Speaker:and not realizing that if they
Speaker:suddenly promote somebody
Speaker:or create a VP level.
Speaker:Or a new grade that it
Speaker:impacts the rest of the business.
Speaker:And so I was looking for somebody to
Speaker:help coordinate and
Speaker:make sure that as execs,
Speaker:everybody was realizing that their
Speaker:actions impact others.
Speaker:I think that's part of the other
Speaker:thing is where when you
Speaker:have objectives that
Speaker:are maybe either on the individual
Speaker:or on the team level,
Speaker:but you are, and that's
Speaker:just nature of working in a company,
Speaker:working in a large group of people,
Speaker:you are depending on the work of
Speaker:others to be successful.
Speaker:You are, but there's also as
Speaker:an exec team, you need to understand
Speaker:and work together and over
Speaker:communicate.
Speaker:We had an example, a couple of
Speaker:companies back where the
Speaker:sale, again, sales, it's always
Speaker:sales's fault.
Speaker:I can say that as a formal sales
Speaker:leader, the sales leader
Speaker:decided unilaterally to promote one
Speaker:of the people in his team.
Speaker:And that created such a ripple
Speaker:effect across all of our teams
Speaker:because like, well, if
Speaker:X gets to be a VP now,
Speaker:I've been around longer and I'm
Speaker:better than X and why am I not a
Speaker:VP and we just had this like
Speaker:overnight grade inflation across
Speaker:about four departments.
Speaker:And here I'm curious about like your
Speaker:experience.
Speaker:Like what, what makes a
Speaker:great leadership team?
Speaker:Like as they over communicate, like
Speaker:in this specific scenario,
Speaker:what would have been the ideal thing
Speaker:to happen?
Speaker:Like this, uh, this person wanted
Speaker:to promote a new person
Speaker:to a VP.
Speaker:What would have been the ideal?
Speaker:We didn't have a particularly
Speaker:strong chief
Speaker:people officer.
Speaker:Like we had an HR leader, but not
Speaker:necessarily somebody who's owning
Speaker:the people strategy.
Speaker:So we didn't, have clear
Speaker:promotion times and
Speaker:processes.
Speaker:And so the sales leader in
Speaker:some ways was forcing the issue
Speaker:because he wanted to be able to
Speaker:promote his person and he doesn't
Speaker:want to lose that person because
Speaker:the rest of the organization doesn't
Speaker:have the structure in place.
Speaker:Have a lot of sympathy for that.
Speaker:So if there's missing structure to
Speaker:make it easy for promotions,
Speaker:I understand the decision he made.
Speaker:I guess mine, my preference would
Speaker:have been for him to surface it in
Speaker:a leadership meeting, explain
Speaker:that he doesn't want to lose
Speaker:somebody would like to have a
Speaker:promotion.
Speaker:How do we do this?
Speaker:And how do we structure promotions
Speaker:across the board?
Speaker:One of the last things I led before
Speaker:I left the corporate world
Speaker:was calibrations
Speaker:and end of year performance
Speaker:management for all of
Speaker:design and all of products.
Speaker:So hundreds of, you know, employees
Speaker:across these orgs and a very
Speaker:well structured process, like
Speaker:mid-year reviews, end of your
Speaker:reviews, calibrating
Speaker:used differently depending on who
Speaker:your manager was or who your team
Speaker:was.
Speaker:And I think, Beth, just like you're
Speaker:saying, we spent hours upon
Speaker:hours upon hours in meetings,
Speaker:doing calibrations and
Speaker:having those discussions.
Speaker:And it was still an incredibly
Speaker:imperfect process and
Speaker:it's people, right?
Speaker:Like, that's why it's for people
Speaker:and emotions and
Speaker:people's careers and
Speaker:advocating for your team.
Speaker:And you're doing that in front of
Speaker:your peers, in front of other
Speaker:leaders. It's.
Speaker:Lots of communication challenges
Speaker:and often it's the
Speaker:process is just too complex.
Speaker:The two pain points in organizations
Speaker:generally are OKRs in performance
Speaker:management, and all performance
Speaker:management everywhere is pretty
Speaker:terrible for the most part and
Speaker:nobody's really solved it.
Speaker:They've both come up today.
Speaker:Yeah, we just we just went right
Speaker:into the deep end.
Speaker:It's such a hard one.
Speaker:You know who your superstars are,
Speaker:you can figure out who they are, and
Speaker:they just do stuff and they're
Speaker:amazing.
Speaker:And you know who you're under
Speaker:performers are.
Speaker:And then you kind of have these
Speaker:buckets of almost good,
Speaker:like definitely not obviously
Speaker:underperforming, doing well enough.
Speaker:But they're not like you can just
Speaker:tell they're not trying hard or they
Speaker:are trying hard, but they're just
Speaker:not quite there.
Speaker:And then you have the bucket next to
Speaker:them where they're like.
Speaker:Getting it, but they're not a
Speaker:superstar. And pretty much
Speaker:everybody's in that, whether you're
Speaker:scientific about it or not.
Speaker:And then it's like, how many
Speaker:of those buckets can you afford to
Speaker:carry? And you want to get rid of
Speaker:your underperformers, definitely.
Speaker:You can't make an entire
Speaker:business of superstars, or maybe you
Speaker:can.
Speaker:And we have that talent density,
Speaker:you have to make a decision if you
Speaker:want too.
Speaker:But the real question seems to be
Speaker:like, let's just say where there's
Speaker:four buckets, and you have your ones
Speaker:who are leaving, and your fours who
Speaker:are superstars.
Speaker:You need to keep your threes,
Speaker:because... Some of them will be
Speaker:fours and you can't find only fours.
Speaker:And then what do you do with your
Speaker:threes?
Speaker:And that ends up being you do
Speaker:something with your three's when
Speaker:you're running out of money.
Speaker:And if you're growing fast, you
Speaker:accept them.
Speaker:But do you need an entire fancy
Speaker:process to discover those?
Speaker:Or do you actually in the size of
Speaker:organizations that we're talking
Speaker:about, or even managers can
Speaker:just gut feel it,
Speaker:they know who they are.
Speaker:But then you have the thing of like
Speaker:the personality clash between the
Speaker:manager and the person in their
Speaker:team. They didn't say hi to the
Speaker:person in their team because it was
Speaker:at their fault as well.
Speaker:I don't know.
Speaker:It makes total sense and it's,
Speaker:I mean, obviously it's so
Speaker:complicated, right?
Speaker:Like what's the size of the
Speaker:organization, where they are in
Speaker:their funding cycle and their
Speaker:revenue cycle, where are they at
Speaker:with their growth, all
Speaker:those things. And then, you know,
Speaker:those threes that we're talking
Speaker:about, you can you tolerate them?
Speaker:I think that was a really great
Speaker:question. It's like, well, it's
Speaker:also going to be inconsistent
Speaker:because you're going to
Speaker:have different people who
Speaker:manage differently, who perceive
Speaker:performance differently.
Speaker:And so
Speaker:The magic in there is you've
Speaker:got to do the work in there.
Speaker:And again, the work can be really
Speaker:lightweight in a small company,
Speaker:smaller company, lower risk.
Speaker:In a larger company, yeah, you want
Speaker:to have a little bit more structure
Speaker:to that process to try to
Speaker:normalize and kind of get
Speaker:a fair and transparent
Speaker:process.
Speaker:I think gut feeling on its own can
Speaker:lead you somewhere.
Speaker:It also can lead your astray.
Speaker:What in your team, how do you know
Speaker:this person's not performing?
Speaker:What are three or four
Speaker:examples that you can give me,
Speaker:and then also subsequently
Speaker:them, that they can
Speaker:understand where they are not
Speaker:performing.
Speaker:Facts, and they should be facts,
Speaker:facts, yeah.
Speaker:They should be observable facts,
Speaker:yes, and not, you know, necessarily
Speaker:gut feelings.
Speaker:And that is some of the challenge,
Speaker:turning that gut feeling into
Speaker:more observable facts,
Speaker:right? And I think when you have
Speaker:those observable, facts and maybe
Speaker:see ideally some definition of
Speaker:performance that the person who
Speaker:is not performing also understands
Speaker:and is somehow bought
Speaker:into, whether it's just through an
Speaker:explicit commitment or some it's,
Speaker:just company policy, you
Speaker:spell those out them and then at
Speaker:least you can start having a
Speaker:discussion. Right.
Speaker:It's not the first step doesn't need
Speaker:to be, well, they're not, I have a
Speaker:gut feeling they're not performing.
Speaker:They need to go, but it's more,
Speaker:okay, I've got feeling.
Speaker:How can I find out more about
Speaker:what my gut feeling is telling me?
Speaker:Then can I either discuss
Speaker:this with somebody else, either
Speaker:with my boss who's more experienced
Speaker:or directly
Speaker:with that person, ideally.
Speaker:And then is there a
Speaker:shared understanding of that?
Speaker:This is what the current status quo
Speaker:is. And then is there a
Speaker:path?
Speaker:Where they could be improving, that
Speaker:they could see themselves improving,
Speaker:where we said, oh, you give them a
Speaker:new project to try out, or whatever,
Speaker:right? At least offering them an
Speaker:opportunity based on
Speaker:observable facts, because if there's
Speaker:observable fact, then they could,
Speaker:they also might have a better
Speaker:understanding of
Speaker:where they are and where they need
Speaker:to be.
Speaker:We come back to the word
Speaker:intentional. That's what I think
Speaker:about when I think about
Speaker:performance.
Speaker:But what else springs to mind
Speaker:as we're glossing over that
Speaker:we need to tackle?
Speaker:People just seem to be spending a
Speaker:lot of time in meetings and
Speaker:the meetings just proliferate
Speaker:as the company grows and
Speaker:nobody's really talking
Speaker:about it.
Speaker:People are frustrated by it.
Speaker:It is a thing of complaints,
Speaker:but somehow there's an
Speaker:automated thing where just as
Speaker:these companies will adopt OKRs,
Speaker:they will also just let
Speaker:meetings proliferated, right?
Speaker:And then these meetings have very
Speaker:little structure to it.
Speaker:They have very little preparation,
Speaker:but people still.
Speaker:They still show up because
Speaker:the meeting is on the calendar, and
Speaker:I just keep seeing this over and
Speaker:over and over again, and
Speaker:I'm just intrigued by it,
Speaker:because I mean, I know a
Speaker:good meeting can be a very great
Speaker:thing, it can be very useful.
Speaker:Everybody can leave that meeting and
Speaker:feeling really good about having
Speaker:made a decision, you know,
Speaker:just having pushed something forward
Speaker:together. But more often than not,
Speaker:I don't find that to be the case.
Speaker:I think we've all seen meeting
Speaker:cultures gone awry where
Speaker:meetings are just happening for
Speaker:meeting sake and it's kind of a
Speaker:status symbol to see who's invited
Speaker:or who shows up.
Speaker:Take a moment before you jump into
Speaker:solving everything with a
Speaker:meeting. I think what's a
Speaker:pattern company.
Speaker:He's really get into is the
Speaker:standing meeting for
Speaker:a project and then the projects over
Speaker:or didn't need a standing meeting
Speaker:and then you suddenly have it
Speaker:forever.
Speaker:I think standing meetings are good
Speaker:for team meetings.
Speaker:A team meeting I worry about because
Speaker:then how are you disseminating
Speaker:information and how are creating
Speaker:those bonds?
Speaker:But there was a period where
Speaker:probably just after COVID, after
Speaker:COVID where there were a lot of
Speaker:standing meetings and they were not
Speaker:all necessary.
Speaker:And at what point do you realize
Speaker:it's time to kill that meeting?
Speaker:The one thing that we introduced in
Speaker:my last company that worked really
Speaker:well was there was a requirement for
Speaker:all meetings that happen with X
Speaker:number of people for them to at
Speaker:some point within a certain time
Speaker:period to ask the question,
Speaker:like all the participants there
Speaker:together, are we still getting value
Speaker:from this?
Speaker:Yep. Yep.
Speaker:We actually did a little bit of
Speaker:a hack here, which is we changed it
Speaker:so that all recurring meetings,
Speaker:instead of defaulting to never
Speaker:ending, we defaulted them to ending
Speaker:every three months.
Speaker:I think, I mean, there are companies
Speaker:who just empty out calendars
Speaker:entirely at least once a year.
Speaker:Maybe that's too rigorous.
Speaker:Maybe that is what is needed in
Speaker:those companies and maybe that's
Speaker:working.
Speaker:It's about intentionality and
Speaker:not letting these things linger on
Speaker:because then they will just keep
Speaker:proliferating.
Speaker:And I think it's okay to have some
Speaker:amount of meetings to invest
Speaker:in social capital,
Speaker:let's say, like people do need to
Speaker:have relationships, you need to
Speaker:know that somebody has a new puppy,
Speaker:you know, it's all part of,
Speaker:we don't just go to work to work
Speaker:in front of a computer and not talk
Speaker:to other people for the most part.
Speaker:I know some people do, but most of
Speaker:us actually should go to work
Speaker:because we want to interact with
Speaker:other people, whether or not we're
Speaker:in real life or not.
Speaker:If our listeners can only take
Speaker:one thing, Away
Speaker:from listening today.
Speaker:What is that one?
Speaker:I mean, we touched around this and
Speaker:it's interesting, this call, you
Speaker:know, I'm a Californian, we've
Speaker:got the Berlin, we got, we're all
Speaker:over. And the one thing for me is
Speaker:that, and it is in our book, it's
Speaker:that feedback is cultural, that you
Speaker:have to consider cultural
Speaker:differences when interacting with
Speaker:other people.
Speaker:And it's hard work because
Speaker:we talked about these are sometimes
Speaker:invisible differences or
Speaker:invisible information.
Speaker:And I
Speaker:guess the one thing that...
Speaker:I think is really important is that
Speaker:if you are the more senior person,
Speaker:maybe listen a little bit more,
Speaker:period.
Speaker:This doesn't mean tiptoe around
Speaker:sensitive topics, but just
Speaker:understand, pay attention to how
Speaker:others on your teams are learning
Speaker:and communicating.
Speaker:So just be intentional about
Speaker:that. I'll throw that word in one
Speaker:last time.
Speaker:I also come back to the word
Speaker:intentional in some way, and I think
Speaker:ask people to be not
Speaker:leaving things up to chance in their
Speaker:work as executives and managers if
Speaker:they see something, if they listen
Speaker:and hear something that is
Speaker:worth following up on, follow up on
Speaker:it, and you
Speaker:know, not throw wrenches into their
Speaker:team's work, derail them,
Speaker:for example, by changing OKRs
Speaker:during the month.
Speaker:But really think about what the
Speaker:impact of especially your
Speaker:actions as a senior leader are.
Speaker:And see how much you
Speaker:can cushion that as much as
Speaker:possible.
Speaker:So with that, I will intentionally
Speaker:close the podcast today.
Speaker:So thank you, Mathias and Sarah for
Speaker:joining us on the operations room.
Speaker:If you like what you hear, please
Speaker:subscribe or leave us a comment and
Speaker:we will see you next week.
