8 common mistakes in setting outcomes for product teams

A summary from a conversation between Teresa Torres and Hope Gurion about mistakes in setting desired outcomes.

Product discovery coaches Teresa Torres and Hope Gurion have seen many teams and leaders make mistakes when setting outcomes for their product teams. In this article, I will summarize their conversation about the top 8 mistakes product teams make, adding a few points here and there about how to avoid them.

Mistake #1: Disguising outputs as outcomes

One common mistake is setting outcomes that are just outputs in disguise. For example, saying the outcome is to “deliver an Android app” is simply a yes or no question of whether the app was delivered. This is taking an output and pretending it is an outcome.

To avoid this mistake, focus on setting outcomes based on customer behavior. These could include things like “increasing the percentage of users who add items to their shopping cart” or “reducing the number of users who abandon their cart at checkout.” These outcomes are tied to specific actions that customers take and provide more information on the product's impact.

Mistake #2: Not connecting product outcomes to business value

Another mistake is setting outcomes unrelated to the company’s strategy or business model. This makes it difficult for teams to understand and communicate their impact. As a leader, it’s your responsibility to provide strategic context and ensure that your teams understand the company’s strategy and business model.

Connect your outcomes to the company’s overall goals to avoid this mistake. For example, at one company, I was working on an outcome to reduce customer support tickets for a given feature, which was a proxy for improving customer retention, our business outcome.

Mistake #3: Delegating outcomes outside of the team's control

It’s also common for teams to be given outcomes outside their control span. This might happen when executives set business outcomes and expect product teams to deliver them. Examples of this might include “grow revenue” or “increase market share.” However, these outcomes are often too broad for a product team to impact directly.

To avoid this mistake, make sure to set product outcomes that are within a team’s span of control. This could include “increase the number of users who sign up for a free trial” or “increase the % of users who adopt a given feature in their first 7 days.” These outcomes are tied to specific actions within the product and are more feasible for a team to influence.

Mistake #4: Hyper-focusing on a traction metric

At the other end of the spectrum, some teams might set too narrow of a metric as the outcome. An example of this might be “increase the percentage of users who view the performance report.” While this might be within the team’s influence, it doesn’t give them enough latitude to explore or connect the opportunity space to the company’s business outcomes.

To avoid this mistake, test your traction metric to ensure it is relevant to customer needs. Ask yourself if it is possible to have a happy customer who never uses the feature. If the answer is yes, then the metric might not be a good outcome to focus on. Instead, consider setting outcomes that are tied to the value experienced by customers.

Mistake #5: Creating too many dependencies across teams

Teams can be challenged when their outcomes require coordination with other teams, particularly if those other teams have different outcomes or priorities.

To avoid this mistake, it’s important to set outcomes that a team can influence without much help from outside the team. But there are instances when a multi-team outcome is necessary. What then? Ensure that all teams required to achieve the outcome have the same desired outcome. Nothing is more frustrating than needing another team, but the team is not very helpful because they have different goals.

Mistake #6: Measuring actions instead of the value of those actions

Often, teams focus on measuring actions rather than their value to the customer. This can lead to a product that is not as effective or valuable as it could be. For example, at a real estate marketplace where I worked, we inferred the success of people looking for an apartment by measuring whether they applied to one or more apartments. But, clearly, the value we offered was not in the application but in getting the perfect flat. We were pushing for an increase in the number of applications per seeker, but the real-estate owners were annoyed by the flood of incoming low-quality leads. At the same time, seekers were frustrated because they didn't get a reply from the flooded owners.

To avoid this mistake, consider focusing on outcomes that measure the value to the customer, even if those outcomes are not immediately measurable. As you learn more about how to impact the outcome, you can work on finding ways to measure it. Vinted, the used clothes marketplace, does this quite well: once the seller marks the item as sold, they have to select if they sold it through Vinted and, finally, pick from a list of people who messaged them who they have sold it to.

Mistake #7: Setting sentiment outcomes without any further direction

Focusing solely on sentiment metrics like customer satisfaction or NPS can be challenging for teams, as it is difficult to please everyone all the time, and these metrics are not directional.

To avoid this mistake, if a satisfaction metric is absolutely necessary, I prefer to narrow it down. For example, “increase new users satisfaction in their first 7 days” or “increase satisfaction with feature X”. But, even those could be translated into value metrics, instead of sentiment metrics. For example, “increase the number of new users who create a playlist and add 10 songs to it in their first 7 days” or “increase avg. song play time.” This is better because sentiment metrics are somewhat lagging, too.

Mistake #8: Setting outcomes without considering accountability

When setting team outcomes, it’s important to consider the accountability model that will be used to track progress toward those outcomes. If you give teams outcomes but then measure their success on their output, they will forget the outcome and just go back into feature-factory mode. That’s obvious, but one less obvious thing is that only focusing on outcome goal achievement (performance) won't work either.

If failure is not an option, you can bet goals will be set conservatively (sandbagging), as will the opportunities and solutions explored. Oddly, by focusing on performance (e.g., goal achievement), teams tend to deliver fewer results than if they focus on progress towards the outcome.

To avoid this mistake, consider using accountability models that encourage a learning mindset and focus on progress and reflection. How did we make progress towards the outcome? What did we learn? What are we going to do differently next time? If the team is moving in the right direction and learning more about how to get to the goal, that will ultimately bring the results they need.

Please subscribe and smash the “like” button if you found this article useful. If you know anyone who could benefit from it, share it with them or on your social media. This is a big help!