“I noticed that the dynamic range between what an average person could accomplish and what the best person could accomplish was 50 or 100 to 1. Given that, you’re well advised to go after the cream of the cream. A small team of A+ players can run circles around a giant team of B and C players.” — Steve Jobs
“My peers are using your training as a weapon against me. Everytime I try to move us forward they come back and condescendingly say, Well, have you actually written that in proper Jobs to Be Done format? I know what the problem is. We’ve researched it. I experimented. I have data. I validated it. Who fucking cares if I write this in proper Jobs to Be Done format?”
…ance of getting the problem statement right. Though many factors contribute to a project’s failure, nothing is more certain to cause a project to fail than a misunderstanding of the problem you are solving. In the example above, we recognized too late that the real problem we should have been solving was…
I assured her, I do not care. And they shouldn’t care. These motions, these frameworks, they were made to teach you to think. They were a means to an end, not the end goal itself. They are training wheels. How can they help you understand your work better, so you can DO your work better?
You need to push the team to think big and long term. They will only think as big as you do. If you are too pragmatic all the time and focused on the not-too-hard or not-too-risky stuff, your team will only develop incremental product, and nothing innovative will ever emerge.
Even when the Objective is stable and well defined, it’s easy to define Key Results based on outputs (instead of outcomes), turning them into a sort of waterfall-ish plan for the quarter. Although doing the opposite (focusing on outcomes) is literally “textbook OKRs”, the pull to outputs is too strong—especially under certain organisational contexts (more on this in Part 2).