What's your Company's
|
Dear Reader,
Happy New Year! I hope you had a good time off during the holidays with a chance to reflect and recharge. I'm still recovering from over-caffeinization through The Barn's Christmas Coffee Selection and am so happy to be back to writing this newsletter. Onto this week's essay.
The reason the adoption of new product operating models moves slowly in your company or fails completely isn't that you have the wrong model. It's the missing willingness to move from seeking certainty to reducing uncertainty.
In the everyday life of product teams, this shows up as something I call appetite for risk.
Appetite for risk is an organization's actual willingness—not stated willingness—to accept the costs of moving faster.
Here's what's going on behind it and how to deal with it.
Even if practices like evidence-based decision-making aim to reduce risk, they don't aim to eliminate it. And that's the trade-off you have to get comfortable with: For more modern ways of working in product, that also deliver results for customers and the bottom line faster, you have to trade certainty for responsiveness.
Increasing the speed of decision-making about implementing a new idea comes from proxy data through qualitative and quantitative experiments. Can the company handle never knowing for certain if this is the right idea?
Getting significant results from a split test faster means exposing more users to that variant—including the risk that it converts worse than what you have today. So the trade-off for faster insights is potentially exposing a larger group of customers to a worse converting experience.
When your company backs off from these trade-offs, they might still call it experimentation, but actions don't match.
What's going on behind this lack of willingness to make the tradeoff can best be explained by this quote:
If your C-level is bonused on hitting dates, revenue predictability, and avoiding public missteps, they will back off when experimentation costs appear. Every time.
Appetite for risk isn't about loading your plate at the buffet. It's about what you can actually digest. Most companies pile on "experiment more" and "move faster" without the stomach for what that requires.
Teams sense this. They learn to look like they're experimenting without ever placing a real bet.
Your company might think it wants you to experiment, but can it align the way C-level is incentivized with it? Can they structure teams accordingly? Can they agree on the degree of autonomy and the level of intervention for product teams?
Before you ask teams to move faster, answer this: Are we rewarded for learning velocity or execution certainty? Your answer determines whether experimentation is real or theater.
And if you're a part of an organization that wants to move faster, but you have doubts about the alignment with your capabilities, make the trade-offs clearly visible to stakeholders upfront:
Before starting, name the uncertainty you're accepting: 'We're deciding on 6 interviews, not 12. Survey data is directional, not significant. If we need more certainty, here's what it costs in time.' Then ask for resistance, not agreement. Because, after all, your job is not to make everyone happy.
The question isn't whether your company says it wants to experiment. It's whether it can stomach what experimentation actually costs.
Thank you for Practicing Product,
Tim
I'm excited to bring my beloved in-person workshops back to Berlin in two weeks. There are a few tickets left, and you can choose between 1-day workshops on Product Strategy, Product OKRs, or Product Discovery, or opt for the full 3-day experience for you or your team.
| LEARN MORE |
(reach out for custom team quotes)
As a Product Management Coach, I guide Product Teams to measure the real progress of their evidence-informed decisions.
I focus on better practices to connect the dots of Product Strategy, Product OKRs, and Product Discovery.
1 tip & 3 resources per week to improve your Strategy, OKRs, and Discovery practices in less than 5 minutes. Explore my new book on realprogressbook.com
Product Practice #396 MECE: Double the Usefulnessof Your Metrics Trees PUBLISHED Feb 19, 2026 READ ON HERBIG.CO Dear Reader, Many resources say your metrics trees need to be "MECE." But how do you do it? MECE stands for: Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive In the context of metrics trees, this means mapping the individual drivers of an overarching goal in a way that allows us to identify and improve domain-specific levers through selective focus, while creating holistic...
Product Practice #395 How it feels being Interviewed by AI PUBLISHED Feb 13, 2026 READ ON HERBIG.CO Dear Reader, Last week, I invited you to join an AI-led concept test of a side project idea. Here's what participants share with me about their experience: "It was like getting interviewed by someone who is doing this one of the first times." "I felt free to say what I wanted without 'hurting' the interviewers. I felt listened (as the AI was repeating my points). But sometimes the conversation...
Product Practice #394 Can an AI Interviewer doYour Concept Testing? PUBLISHED Feb 6, 2026 READ ON HERBIG.CO Dear Reader, What happens when you let an AI do the concept testing of design variations? I used Reforge's AI Concept testing* to find that out. As a prototype, I chose an app idea that lets you document taste notes from brewing specialty coffee. And I need your help exploring how AI-led interviews feel for participants (and improving the app design ☕️). I mostly went with their...