An ode to “Coach Carroll”
Some of you readers may know that I have been a diehard Seattle Seahawks fan for a long time. When I say that, I mean that I became a fan of the team more than a decade ago when they were still mostly subpar and under-the-radar in the NFL. Fast forward to modern times…and recently, the Seahawks made a hard decision to move on from Pete Carroll after a successful 14-year tenure with the organization. Pete Carroll was by far the most respected, accomplished and impactful head coach in Seahawks franchise history. During his time in charge of the organization, he helped to transform the culture of the Seahawks from scrappy underdogs and afterthoughts in the league to an elite organization with one of the most sustained successful track records in the league, and Super Bowl champions.
In case you didn’t know - Pete Carroll ended his time with the team at the ripe old age of 72 years old (although, you may not be able to tell!). His career as a coach has spanned more than 5 decades across professional and college level football. And, despite many ebbs & flows, his Hall of Fame legacy has been cemented as the only head coach in modern times to take both a college football and NFL team to their pinnacles of success - a national championship and a Super Bowl win respectively. His players consistently see him as one of the best motivators and influential coaches in their experiences. By all accounts, he was a special leader.
One of the benefits of longevity in a career is that it gives you a chance to refine your values, leadership philosophy, and principles through multiple reps and ups & downs. In Coach Carroll’s case, his philosophy has converged around a core principle of “always competing”. But the way he describes competition is a bit different from what you might expect from the head coach of a professional sports team. His expression of “always competing” is:
Striving relentlessly to achieve sustained excellence in any and all facets of life.
Adopting a consistent “championship mindset” to your work - whether it be film study, a workout, a practice session, a regular game, or the Super Bowl.
Notably, Pete Carroll’s idea of competition is intrinsic in nature. It is primarily about competing against yourself to become the best you can be, in all pursuits, over the long run.
Intrinsic competition, in product building
Curiously, I have rarely seen this concept of intrinsic competition being actively discussed in many product organizations. Occasionally, you might come across a gentle nod towards the concept of “disrupting oneself” - but it's rare to see it seen as a core principle of the entire organization. Instead, competition is most often perceived as purely an external force. This perspective leads PMs and product leaders to either overemphasize the importance of seeking competitive intelligence to shape their strategies or, conversely, to ignore potentially insightful external cues altogether.
Alternatively, if we were to truly embrace the concept of intrinsic competition in product development, it might unveil a different perspective into how we approach and build products. In my opinion, this would manifest through three key, guiding tenets -
1. Knowing yourself
For product organizations, you must be very opinionated and explicit about what is unique about:
Your users, their needs & motivations
Your insight into the market and how it will evolve over time
Your assertion of what a winning product must look like, and
Your approach to building and delivering said product.
The key here is to be very specific about the distinctive nature of the game you want to play - as opposed to trying to win someone else's game. Or as Peter Thiel advocates in "Zero to One" - seeking your own vast gate vs. going through the tiny doors others are rushing through.
The flip side of knowing yourself is being intellectually honest & self-critical about the risks, compromises & trade-offs of your unique strategy. In football, this is referred to as “self-scouting” - the process of pinpointing, mitigating and adapting the tendencies of your schemes to prevent future opponents from taking advantage of them. In product work, I similarly recommend teams begin their strategy work with a candid situational assessment or ‘diagnosis’ of their current strategies and results - both good & bad - to channel this type of critical thinking. Self-scouting our product work can help us preemptively disrupt ourselves in the short-term, in favor of building something more compelling in the future.
2. Optimizing primarily for sustained, long-term success
Product building can come in many flavors, but the best products that we most consider to be "winning" are ones that create enduring value and compound impact over time. Longevity and sustainability is inherent to the principle of “always competing”.
In a previous post, I shared my view that strategizing, solving for, and balancing multiple time horizons is one of the three primary attributes of the PM role. To optimize for sustained success, you need a strong POV on how your strategies will deliver long-term impact in ways that really matter over the long-run (think: LTV, net retention, customer satisfaction, margin expansion…). Equally important is having a strong POV if and when the tempting short-term opportunities ahead of you might serve as impediments or distractions from achieving that long-term, sustained success.
3. Bringing a “championship mindset” to your organization
The last tenet is to prioritize excellence in the craft and processes of your product organization - all in pursuit of superior outcomes. Rather than selectively choosing when to bring your best work and people to the table - it is about expecting consistent excellence in all pursuits, whether it be another practice session or the Super Bowl.
Too often, product organizations tend to prioritize speed over velocity, action over deliberation, and the volume of delivery over quality. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck, and every organization has unique needs to balance - but a culture of excellence cannot be perceived as circumstantial or contigent. Rather, consistent excellence should entail aspects like:
When you move fast to ship a MVP - you already have a target quality bar you are aspiring towards as you iterate forward. You don’t stop at a v1.
When you design a system, an architecture or an experience - you ask & answer “what does great look like?” before you go too far. And before you navigate the inevitable tradeoffs and constraints you will face.
When you need to make a rapid, impactful product decision - you are already guided by thoughtful operating principles that have been envisioned & debated beforehand.
You operate with a strong outcome-orientation about your users - whether it be in your approach to sales & marketing, how you support them around your product, or how you collaborate and talk internally.
You instill a culture of reflection, iteration & continuous improvement through your organization.
I hope you can all envision how the tenets of (1) clarifying what is unique & distinct about your product strategy, (2) optimizing primarily for the long-term, and (3) striving for continuous excellence throughout your organization, can collectively represent a powerful formula for sustained “winning”. If the idea of intrinsic competition resonates with you, please do share your thoughts in the comments!
Footnote
Much of has been written recently about the competitive battle underway between OpenAI and Google in the context of AI advancements. At this point - particularly in light of the recent launches of Sora and Gemini 1.5 respectively - my perspective from the outside looking in is that OpenAI seems to be intrinsically competing more so than battling Google.