You highlight something important throughout that I'll reiterate: it is common that one part of a business moves at a different speed than another. In my world (insurance), our revenue-generating teams (underwriters) usually raced into new markets and products before we built the underlying plumbing. So, we very much bolted together "things that don't scale" to fill the gap, keep the business compliant, and prototype what to build for production.
I've worked in start-ups, small companies, large companies. Have seen this behavior in them all. And the most enterprising companies have people that barely even ask: they're watching what's happening and building things that don't scale nearly as fast as they arise.
One of the most interesting and rewarding functional parts of my career.
At my previous company, I managed an Ops team responsible for launching and growing our user base in nearly 150 countries and 40 languages, relying largely on manual solutions for translations, user acquisition, and retention. This scrappiness allowed us to take on new customers and use cases at a far greater rate than a product-driven solution would have allowed, and I am quite certain without our team the company never would have scaled the way it did. And watching creative swings pay off could be exhilarating! So this article deeply resonated with me.
At the same time, I saw how leadership came to rely on our team as a crutch, focusing scarce Product and Engineering resources on other parts of the business rather than tools to make our lives a little less painful. The morale erosion over time wore on all of us, and long-term retention and career growth was difficult, particularly as there were few pathways from Ops to Product. That experience fostered in me a deep appreciation of internally focused PMs, and companies/leaders that emphasize career growth for those who take on the grunt work of Ops - particularly those who don't come from a tech background.
I'd also be curious to learn about tactics advocates for these strategies have successfully leveraged in the context of an environment pressuring leadership to cut costs and increase efficiency!
These are good reminders that efficieniency by itself is not always the best path to growth and repeat business. Witness the "moat" as the writer described it, that Amazon has created. You can't even complain if a product doesn't arrive for two days. I'm sure a financial calculation showed that this policy works but I now actively look for Amazon alternatives when once it was an afterthought.
Good one Torsten.
You highlight something important throughout that I'll reiterate: it is common that one part of a business moves at a different speed than another. In my world (insurance), our revenue-generating teams (underwriters) usually raced into new markets and products before we built the underlying plumbing. So, we very much bolted together "things that don't scale" to fill the gap, keep the business compliant, and prototype what to build for production.
I've worked in start-ups, small companies, large companies. Have seen this behavior in them all. And the most enterprising companies have people that barely even ask: they're watching what's happening and building things that don't scale nearly as fast as they arise.
One of the most interesting and rewarding functional parts of my career.
Very good insight😌, thanks 👍
This is a great piece. Thank you!
At my previous company, I managed an Ops team responsible for launching and growing our user base in nearly 150 countries and 40 languages, relying largely on manual solutions for translations, user acquisition, and retention. This scrappiness allowed us to take on new customers and use cases at a far greater rate than a product-driven solution would have allowed, and I am quite certain without our team the company never would have scaled the way it did. And watching creative swings pay off could be exhilarating! So this article deeply resonated with me.
At the same time, I saw how leadership came to rely on our team as a crutch, focusing scarce Product and Engineering resources on other parts of the business rather than tools to make our lives a little less painful. The morale erosion over time wore on all of us, and long-term retention and career growth was difficult, particularly as there were few pathways from Ops to Product. That experience fostered in me a deep appreciation of internally focused PMs, and companies/leaders that emphasize career growth for those who take on the grunt work of Ops - particularly those who don't come from a tech background.
I'd also be curious to learn about tactics advocates for these strategies have successfully leveraged in the context of an environment pressuring leadership to cut costs and increase efficiency!
These are good reminders that efficieniency by itself is not always the best path to growth and repeat business. Witness the "moat" as the writer described it, that Amazon has created. You can't even complain if a product doesn't arrive for two days. I'm sure a financial calculation showed that this policy works but I now actively look for Amazon alternatives when once it was an afterthought.