Good points! Recently I also start to lead my team to rethink of product's north star metric (NSM), our product has more than 10 years history and grant big success and be loved by many users, however, due to the environment and competition change, we need to transfer it's vision and mission, so lead us to redefine the NSM.
And yes, it's really hard to to just relay on only one metrics to align all team and functions's goals, because there is alway has Goodhart’s Law - 'People optimize for the metric, rather than the value it's supposed to represent. They game the system.'
Maybe it's time for me to stop define the NSM, but more emphasis the new vision and mission we are forwarding ?
I like that approach of focusing more on the mission and vision. A key question is: how are we aligning people towards what we want to accomplish. Metrics do that - but they can be less flexible and less instructive than a well articulated strategy. I like to think about a metric as evidence that we are making progress towards a goal, not the goal itself.
Interesting take. Linear is one of the companies I admire that also rejects the overly analytical approach to measuring progress.
One thought this triggered: is a North Star strategy not open to interpretation? I guess one of the benefits (although I certainly agree with the flaws you’ve mentioned) of a NSM is there is no room for interpretation.
Did you find that coming up as an issue at tinder?
Absolutely, a strategic approach has more room for interpretation than a metrics based approach. I see this as a feature, not a bug. Too often, leaders want to program an organization like a computer - give it incontrovertible instructions and hit the "play" button. But, human adaptability is the greatest strength of a company when it is harnessed well. We saw this during the pandemic - companies that gave guided autonomy to their employees were able to quickly adapt. We are seeing it now with AI. Some companies are moving fast to embrace the opportunity and others are moving way too slowly.
Of course, leaving things open to interpretation requires more trust - but leaders who don't trust their team have a bigger problem than what metric to focus on.
Chris, I've been in this situation many times! It's helpful to identify the handful of segments that have very different ways of getting value from your product (i.e., creators vs. consumers on TikTok parents vs. kids for an educational product, etc.)
Yeah - even in B2B SaaS - there's a set of metrics for the prosumer users and the admins of the software. Those kinds of users have extremely different needs at times. Then we've got 3-4 different offerings, each with those pivots... it was clear that a north star didn't make sense.
I love the NSM when it is obvious, and hate it when nothing adds up:) then I simply gave myself permission to not use it when it doesn’t fit or suffice.
But even more I like your reminder that a metric is a sign of something - not a thing itself. Numbers suck you in too fast and you lose sight of what they represent - motives, problems, lives.
Alex, you summed it up really well -- when the NSM is self-evident, then it can be very powerful to name it and align around it. Clayton Christensen talks about the perils of focusing only on metrics: "In organizations, once you articulate how success will be measured, everybody tries to game the system so that they are measured in the best possible way." Losing sight of what the metric is exactly measuring disconnects teams from those motivations and challenges that drive customers to act.
When I was leading a product analytics tool, I referred to Amplitude's NSM framework, and honestly I'm not too sure how they made it, because it is extremely hard to unify all the possible analytics use cases under one metric.
I really love the concept of the North Star strategy, but I have to admit that it would have been extremely hard for me to "sell" it because of the leadership orientation towards outcomes and their operationalization. I think that it would have required me more leadership experience and influence :(
I've had similar experience. I understand why leadership likes the metrics-based approach. Per Danny's comment, its less open to interpretation - it feels more clear and more certain. But, I think leaders are often fooling themselves into a false sense of security. Its much more scaleable and resilient to build a team's understanding around the "Why?" (i.e., the underlying strategy) than to have them blindingly deliver against a metric.
Good points! Recently I also start to lead my team to rethink of product's north star metric (NSM), our product has more than 10 years history and grant big success and be loved by many users, however, due to the environment and competition change, we need to transfer it's vision and mission, so lead us to redefine the NSM.
And yes, it's really hard to to just relay on only one metrics to align all team and functions's goals, because there is alway has Goodhart’s Law - 'People optimize for the metric, rather than the value it's supposed to represent. They game the system.'
Maybe it's time for me to stop define the NSM, but more emphasis the new vision and mission we are forwarding ?
I like that approach of focusing more on the mission and vision. A key question is: how are we aligning people towards what we want to accomplish. Metrics do that - but they can be less flexible and less instructive than a well articulated strategy. I like to think about a metric as evidence that we are making progress towards a goal, not the goal itself.
Interesting take. Linear is one of the companies I admire that also rejects the overly analytical approach to measuring progress.
One thought this triggered: is a North Star strategy not open to interpretation? I guess one of the benefits (although I certainly agree with the flaws you’ve mentioned) of a NSM is there is no room for interpretation.
Did you find that coming up as an issue at tinder?
Absolutely, a strategic approach has more room for interpretation than a metrics based approach. I see this as a feature, not a bug. Too often, leaders want to program an organization like a computer - give it incontrovertible instructions and hit the "play" button. But, human adaptability is the greatest strength of a company when it is harnessed well. We saw this during the pandemic - companies that gave guided autonomy to their employees were able to quickly adapt. We are seeing it now with AI. Some companies are moving fast to embrace the opportunity and others are moving way too slowly.
Of course, leaving things open to interpretation requires more trust - but leaders who don't trust their team have a bigger problem than what metric to focus on.
Feature not a bug, hadn’t thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense!
Thanks for sharing! Was just in a meeting yesterday trying to align at we hit this exact wall -
"There are other circumstances where a single metric won't work well:
Products with multiple different modes of usage
Products with user cohorts that have very different needs
Companies with a portfolio of products"
Chris, I've been in this situation many times! It's helpful to identify the handful of segments that have very different ways of getting value from your product (i.e., creators vs. consumers on TikTok parents vs. kids for an educational product, etc.)
Yeah - even in B2B SaaS - there's a set of metrics for the prosumer users and the admins of the software. Those kinds of users have extremely different needs at times. Then we've got 3-4 different offerings, each with those pivots... it was clear that a north star didn't make sense.
I love the NSM when it is obvious, and hate it when nothing adds up:) then I simply gave myself permission to not use it when it doesn’t fit or suffice.
But even more I like your reminder that a metric is a sign of something - not a thing itself. Numbers suck you in too fast and you lose sight of what they represent - motives, problems, lives.
Alex, you summed it up really well -- when the NSM is self-evident, then it can be very powerful to name it and align around it. Clayton Christensen talks about the perils of focusing only on metrics: "In organizations, once you articulate how success will be measured, everybody tries to game the system so that they are measured in the best possible way." Losing sight of what the metric is exactly measuring disconnects teams from those motivations and challenges that drive customers to act.
When I was leading a product analytics tool, I referred to Amplitude's NSM framework, and honestly I'm not too sure how they made it, because it is extremely hard to unify all the possible analytics use cases under one metric.
I really love the concept of the North Star strategy, but I have to admit that it would have been extremely hard for me to "sell" it because of the leadership orientation towards outcomes and their operationalization. I think that it would have required me more leadership experience and influence :(
I've had similar experience. I understand why leadership likes the metrics-based approach. Per Danny's comment, its less open to interpretation - it feels more clear and more certain. But, I think leaders are often fooling themselves into a false sense of security. Its much more scaleable and resilient to build a team's understanding around the "Why?" (i.e., the underlying strategy) than to have them blindingly deliver against a metric.
I absolutely agree. But lack influencing skills I guess.
I'm sure that's not the case. Its really hard to influence a leadership team to change how they see the business and what they value.