I work with a lot of product leaders and product managers that have direct access to CEOs, founders, or other leaders that are much more senior than them.
I enjoy when a senior exec is "asking for corners" because it gives me insight into their thinking. Sometimes, the ask seems off-track but often there is more going on that we can't see right away. And it's the deeper conversations that have helped me connect the dots.
The idea is to unpack the ask, their thinking to be able to assess whether it makes sense and figure out whether and how to approach.
As much as we should evaluate trade-offs or push back, sometimes it's about making it happen (as long as the asks aren't an ongoing patten).
Thought this was a good metaphor at first, but ultimately not sure. There are some big differences. Stringer is clearly the more adept of the two at running the evolved business. He's also pretty good at running the original one frankly, though one could argue Avon is much more capable of getting it off the ground. The current (new) business is so different from the old one that Avon doesn't understand it. He can maybe see the numbers are good, but he can't put enough together to feel like he has control. Controlling the corners might be necessary to the greater business, but this decision doesn't seem to manifest from that. It seems to come from a desire for control on terms he can understand.
I think the metaphor that's trying to be made is that what feels like micromanaging from the CEO is sometimes actual vision. Vision that the leader has that even the #2 doesn't. Is this the case in The Wire? It's not at all clear that Avon's business is the better business.
"You are going to run into founders, CEOs, execs that want their “corners”, or seemingly irrational markets, product, features, etc.. And it’s going to be your job to make those things happen. As a former product leader, I think every CEO or founder should be trusted when they ask for a corner."
This may well be true, but I don't think The Wire backs it up.
I didn't choose the analogy because Avon was right, but because of how the interaction worked with Stringer and Avon and their roles. Many corners in business are not right, and that's kind of irrelevant as an executive or startup employee. It's more about how to respond to them regardless of their accuracy, which is usually not very knowable.
If you want to geek out on The Wire lore, it turns out both were wrong. Stringer was trying to ascend legitimate business ranks too quickly, and started having circles run around him by politicians and businessmen alike. He was a bit of an Icarus flying too high too quickly. Stringer thought by being a middleman / marketplace he could have best of both worlds: hands off the dirty streets, but still use tools from the streets to influence more of the legitimate business / political world. And by ignoring the corners you actually ignore a low end disrupter in Marlo who you can never control by being a middleman. Got pressure from above and below him in the business stack over time.
Avon only understood vertical integration and that force and power is the way to make money. But re-exerting that force at the corner level short term leads to a painful war / loss of profits even if it could stamp out a disrupter like Marlo. And he doesn't understand that even the corner game has changed in his absence. The rules he grew up with no longer are followed by competitors. There is a kernel of a good instinct there, but wrongfully applied.
Thanks for the clarification. I have to say it lines up better (in my head anyway), but might lessen the lesson. It starts to angle towards, “do what the leader says.” Genuinely think that’s better advice than it sometimes comes off.
Digging into The Wire as case study is fun.
Agree on your Stringer take, his approach has its weaknesses and the writers make him pay for them. The business absolutely runs itself into pressure from top and bottom, but I think the lesson is that whichever strategy/plan you choose you need to commit. Maybe staying on the street was better, but splitting focus by doing both made both less viable. As Stringer slowly tries to take on the big boys, he’s taking on risk, but that’s the way you break into it. His plan lost, but it also got sandbagged by his team effectively compromising on the vision midway.
Avon’s approach is horizontal imo. Grab a corner, grab more corners. There is spread “up” into manufacturing, but scaling is repeating the skill you’re good at and doing more of the existing business. Stringer’s business is not vertical either, at least not in the conventional sense. To the extent that tech companies get into lobbying or start funding campaigns to keep drivers contractors, and generally find a lot of market share and make product decisions on what territory their lawyers can create/defend, there is some manner of verticality. But maybe Stringer’s business at this stage is better defined as simply real estate, which is more like a new business than an extension.
I enjoy when a senior exec is "asking for corners" because it gives me insight into their thinking. Sometimes, the ask seems off-track but often there is more going on that we can't see right away. And it's the deeper conversations that have helped me connect the dots.
The idea is to unpack the ask, their thinking to be able to assess whether it makes sense and figure out whether and how to approach.
As much as we should evaluate trade-offs or push back, sometimes it's about making it happen (as long as the asks aren't an ongoing patten).
Thought this was a good metaphor at first, but ultimately not sure. There are some big differences. Stringer is clearly the more adept of the two at running the evolved business. He's also pretty good at running the original one frankly, though one could argue Avon is much more capable of getting it off the ground. The current (new) business is so different from the old one that Avon doesn't understand it. He can maybe see the numbers are good, but he can't put enough together to feel like he has control. Controlling the corners might be necessary to the greater business, but this decision doesn't seem to manifest from that. It seems to come from a desire for control on terms he can understand.
I think the metaphor that's trying to be made is that what feels like micromanaging from the CEO is sometimes actual vision. Vision that the leader has that even the #2 doesn't. Is this the case in The Wire? It's not at all clear that Avon's business is the better business.
"You are going to run into founders, CEOs, execs that want their “corners”, or seemingly irrational markets, product, features, etc.. And it’s going to be your job to make those things happen. As a former product leader, I think every CEO or founder should be trusted when they ask for a corner."
This may well be true, but I don't think The Wire backs it up.
I didn't choose the analogy because Avon was right, but because of how the interaction worked with Stringer and Avon and their roles. Many corners in business are not right, and that's kind of irrelevant as an executive or startup employee. It's more about how to respond to them regardless of their accuracy, which is usually not very knowable.
If you want to geek out on The Wire lore, it turns out both were wrong. Stringer was trying to ascend legitimate business ranks too quickly, and started having circles run around him by politicians and businessmen alike. He was a bit of an Icarus flying too high too quickly. Stringer thought by being a middleman / marketplace he could have best of both worlds: hands off the dirty streets, but still use tools from the streets to influence more of the legitimate business / political world. And by ignoring the corners you actually ignore a low end disrupter in Marlo who you can never control by being a middleman. Got pressure from above and below him in the business stack over time.
Avon only understood vertical integration and that force and power is the way to make money. But re-exerting that force at the corner level short term leads to a painful war / loss of profits even if it could stamp out a disrupter like Marlo. And he doesn't understand that even the corner game has changed in his absence. The rules he grew up with no longer are followed by competitors. There is a kernel of a good instinct there, but wrongfully applied.
Thanks for the clarification. I have to say it lines up better (in my head anyway), but might lessen the lesson. It starts to angle towards, “do what the leader says.” Genuinely think that’s better advice than it sometimes comes off.
Digging into The Wire as case study is fun.
Agree on your Stringer take, his approach has its weaknesses and the writers make him pay for them. The business absolutely runs itself into pressure from top and bottom, but I think the lesson is that whichever strategy/plan you choose you need to commit. Maybe staying on the street was better, but splitting focus by doing both made both less viable. As Stringer slowly tries to take on the big boys, he’s taking on risk, but that’s the way you break into it. His plan lost, but it also got sandbagged by his team effectively compromising on the vision midway.
Avon’s approach is horizontal imo. Grab a corner, grab more corners. There is spread “up” into manufacturing, but scaling is repeating the skill you’re good at and doing more of the existing business. Stringer’s business is not vertical either, at least not in the conventional sense. To the extent that tech companies get into lobbying or start funding campaigns to keep drivers contractors, and generally find a lot of market share and make product decisions on what territory their lawyers can create/defend, there is some manner of verticality. But maybe Stringer’s business at this stage is better defined as simply real estate, which is more like a new business than an extension.
Great post. Great advice. The Wire is always applicable.
Sometimes things just gotta play hard!