What's your stance on this hot take: "Product hybrids" can only blossom if the company culture values asking "why are we doing X" or "how does doing X convince a user to go from being hesitant to full commit?"
In companies that are "top down", I suspect it is difficult for folks who would be brilliant "Product hybrids" to never truly discover themselves.
* But product-thinking is fractal and even if you're given top-down direction, there are usually lots of features and details to design. PMs and Managers don't often have the time. Perhaps the problem arises later, when you start wanting to help with the *big* decisions.
* Sometimes, bottom-up engineering teams I've been in are the *least* product-minded because they are systems-led. Infra teams are a classic example. Management usually realizes that they don't understand what infra teams should do, but infra teams can lack the skillset to serve their internal users well. But it also means that you can make a big impact in those orgs as long as your managers value it, i.e. aren't just counting diffs.
My mind is boggled by the idea that there are engineers have no concept of who the users are or what they need out of a design or algorithm. How can you possibly design the "right" solution without answering "right for who?" I am tempted to say that anyone who doesn't do this user-centric design shouldn't be doing the job at all. Ivory tower design is for hobbyists and academics, not professionals.
To be fair, I think that only junior engineers have *no* concept of the users (colleges being "ivory towers" often times). But in my experience, most senior and even many staff engineers have only a rudimentary understanding.
Being an engineer is pretty hard, and focusing on users takes time and effort and a bit of brain rewiring.
What's your stance on this hot take: "Product hybrids" can only blossom if the company culture values asking "why are we doing X" or "how does doing X convince a user to go from being hesitant to full commit?"
In companies that are "top down", I suspect it is difficult for folks who would be brilliant "Product hybrids" to never truly discover themselves.
Great question, gave me pause! A few thoughts, some agree, some disagree.
* After I became a product hybrid, I started avoiding top-down companies and orgs. I have limited data.
* In a top-down environment, maybe harder to find a cheat code if it involves exhibiting some autonomy. I wrote about autonomy here, btw: https://drewhoskins.substack.com/p/drew-youre-hard-to-control
* But product-thinking is fractal and even if you're given top-down direction, there are usually lots of features and details to design. PMs and Managers don't often have the time. Perhaps the problem arises later, when you start wanting to help with the *big* decisions.
* Sometimes, bottom-up engineering teams I've been in are the *least* product-minded because they are systems-led. Infra teams are a classic example. Management usually realizes that they don't understand what infra teams should do, but infra teams can lack the skillset to serve their internal users well. But it also means that you can make a big impact in those orgs as long as your managers value it, i.e. aren't just counting diffs.
Your write-up at https://drewhoskins.substack.com/p/drew-youre-hard-to-control resonated a lot.
I actually see it as a perfect complement to this "Cheat Code" article.
If I had to frame it in Pokemon terms:
* This "Cheat Code" article describes what an evolved form (could) look like.
* "Hard to Control" paints the journey of getting there within the constraints of an organization — because working with people is hard.
Curious if you'd be interested in turning this into a series, with backlinks to tie them all together.
Thanks! I like your idea about a series and generally adding more structure and planning to my posting.
My mind is boggled by the idea that there are engineers have no concept of who the users are or what they need out of a design or algorithm. How can you possibly design the "right" solution without answering "right for who?" I am tempted to say that anyone who doesn't do this user-centric design shouldn't be doing the job at all. Ivory tower design is for hobbyists and academics, not professionals.
To be fair, I think that only junior engineers have *no* concept of the users (colleges being "ivory towers" often times). But in my experience, most senior and even many staff engineers have only a rudimentary understanding.
Being an engineer is pretty hard, and focusing on users takes time and effort and a bit of brain rewiring.