Product and Project Mindsets need structural props to deliver transformation together!

 Transformation deliverables were on time but not much used thereafter, is as familiar as this transformation program seems to be in continuous experimentation node with shifting go-love dates!  In most likelihood the transformation lead for the first case is successful Project Manager turned transformation manager, and in latter case its a passionate Product Manager wearing that crown.

Unfolding this quadrium would require bit digging into the mindset of Project Manager and Product Manager. Let us see what a good day looks like for the two species!

A good day in life of a Project Manager, would include weekly review of milestone schedule and risk list without red flags, contractors’ quality assessment coming green and material procurements staying within budget.

A good day in life of a product manager, would include chance meeting with potential customer, who proposed some enhancements that are doable, although with some additional effort and cost, but promises to raise the attractiveness of the proposed solution. 

Let us look at other variances in perspective 

Dimension Product Mindset Project Mindst

	Dimension	Product Mindset	Project Mindset
1	Definition of done	Good enough to learn from and usable by few	Fully specified, tested and signed off
2	Time orientation	Continuous — there is always a next version	Terminal — closure and handover as the final objective
3	Relationship with Failure	Failure is data — a valuable Experiment	Failure is cost — a loss that should have been prevented
4	Relationship with the consumer	Consumers are co-designers with continuous feedback loop throughout	Consumers are surveyed at the start and best left alone during delivery; closed system
5	Relationship with Competitors	Watched continuously; the fight isabout ideas and their appeal	Largely irrelevant except as rivals for scarce resources — land, talent, capital
6	Culture and governance language	Organic; iteration celebrated; ambiguity tolerated; leadership language is exploratory	Mechanistic; milestones celebrated; ambiguity managed; leadership language is directive

 

The unifying thread across all six dimensions is the open and divergent view vs closed and convergent system view of the goal at hand. And both the mindsets have delivered excellent outcomes, when the task required playing on their strengths.

 

Transformation leadership requires meshing-up with both mindsets

Smart Management have conventionally leveraged the power of both the mindsets by segregating and sequencing their ownership through structural boundaries, in terms of ideation and incubation team and projects department, with accountabilities, being overseen at the highest level of Management.   

This approach doesn’t work when aim is to undertake transformation journey with clearly scheduledvalue realizing milestones, that are must for continuing of the program.

Market opportunities come with small time window and require shorter turnaround cycles from conception of an idea to its full roll-out on predefined launch date leaving little time for traditional hand-offs. 

The POD approach requires team to hold full accountability from problem identification to outcome delivery, requiring both the exploratory and execution capabilities in equal measure.

Not many organizations are fortunate in the beginning of the transformation program to have internal leader, who is able to balance both the mindsets and has sufficient sagacity and agency to be able to use relevant mindset as required during the transformation journey.  Importing experienced transformation leader from outside has its own limitations and may not be viable option in all cases. 

So for the Architect of the Transformation program what seems to be emerging viable option is Two in a box model. Let the deputy leader compliment the Program lead with strength in alternate mindset, to ensure that both the transformation journey is ensured and the destination stays relevant in the fast-changing world, characterized by continuously changing expectations, technological evolution and competitive activism.   

Ironically assuming putting two in a box shall work automatically like two pilots flying an aircraft is often the mistake.  Soon it looks like two accomplished chefs being asked to share a kitchen during rush hours.   Unless kitchen is designed to accommodate both, friction is inevitable.  

Three structural props to make two-in-a-box deliver

Here comes the importance of three structural props that would help kitchen deliver desirable dishes on time to its customers. .

1. Shared definition of success with clear skin in the game:  Both needs to define success as happy customers that keep coming back on time and help achieve desired profit and revenue growth. While this would require continuous eye on the menu served, it also means that serving is delivered efficiently, so as to be able to serve the greatest number of customers using resources and assets efficiently.   Great customer experiences and operational discipline must coexist for them to be paid out of profit and sustain enterprise in the long run. 

 

2. Strong governance around scope change and impact visibility:  Not every idea needs to be experimented and nor wait till idea becomes mainstream to be incorporated. Having pre-agreed structure to evaluate any idea for its appeal and trade-off in terms of time, cost including sunk cost, risks, existing partner and procurement commitments brings in the transparency and heart burns during the debated advocacy for or against the change.  It helps to have standard reference mechanism to do reality check and break deadlocks.  It also helps to have some agreed band of minimum and maximum changes and track actuals to be within that band.

 

3. Templatized Program Health Dashboard that reveals truth without assigning blame:   The idea is to deliver status reality within the realm of desired psychological safety and reputational security. Rightly desired dashboard makes the areas of concern and implications of option evident and help deliver bad-news-early.   Designing the right dashboard would include mix of regular indicators around schedule, budget but also process and outcome indicators like Scope volatility, decision turnaround time, technical debt accumulation, early adoption results, team attrition and overall sentiments, and vender responsiveness 

Presence of these three props provides the conducive environment for the kitchen to stay functional and keep performing.

The Real Responsibility of the Transformation Sponsor

For architects of transformation programmes, designing these three structural props correctly initially is a must but greater rigour is in monitoring adherence to them through the journey.  The greatest risk often emerges once the two leaders become comfortable working together. As trust grows, formal guardrails are frequently bypassed in favour of informal arrangements.  That is precisely when risk begins to accumulate.

These structural props are most required in times of conflict, and when things are getting out of contrail and accountability discussions tend to become figure pointing bouts. Once diluted, their ability to resolve tension and maintain balance becomes severely weakened.

That is why the programme sponsor's most important responsibility is to preserve the integrity of these three structural props, while allowing two leaders with fundamentally different mindsets to continue delivering the right outcomes at the right pace.

In the end, successful transformation is not about choosing between the Product mindset and the Project mindset. It is about creating a system in which both can thrive together. The art lies not in selecting the better chef, but in designing the kitchen in a way that it keeps serving desirable dishes, profitably.

When Transformation Outlives Its Relevance …. It deserves a Graceful Sunset for the success of the next one

 

Organisations are generally good at starting transformations. They know how to launch programs, announce aspirations, appoint sponsors, create steering committees, engage partners, design roadmaps, allocate budgets, and communicate with bold intent. 

The language of beginnings is familiar: digital-first, future-ready, agile, resilient, customer-centric, AI-enabled, globally competitive, sustainable, simplified, transformed.

But organizations are far less comfortable dealing with another equally important and frequently emerging question:

What to do when a transformation no longer deserves to continue?

Not because the original ambition was wrong. Not because the people involved failed. Not even because the transformation produced no value.  But because the assumptions that shaped the chosen path have changed.

And this question is becoming increasingly urgent.

The rise of AI is redrawing the economics of work. Supply chains are being redesigned around resilience, redundancy, and regionalization. Geopolitical tensions are influencing technology choices. Organizations are revisiting questions of self-reliance, sovereignty, data localization, vendor dependence, and strategic autonomy. Business models that appeared compelling a few years ago are being re-examined in light of new risks and possibilities.

In such an environment, many ongoing transformation programs may not be wrong in their purpose but outdated in their design.  They may not be able to withstand the honest question: 

If we were not already doing this, would we start this program today?

And relevance decay is the new risk that traditionalprogram governance structures are not designed to handle. 

This powerful question moves the discussion away from sunk cost and toward current relevance. It separates loyalty to the original ambition from attachment to the original vehicle. It allows leaders to ask whether a program should be accelerated, repositioned, merged, paused, or consciously closed. 

Any honest assessment of transformation portfolio will throw-up some programs that deserve closure before they consume more attention and resources. 

How Leadership manage these closure candidates matters a lot!

The convenient response!

Organizations often choose a softer path.  They do not cancel the program.

They simply reduce its feed.

Budgets reduce. Reviews become infrequent. Resources move elsewhere. Leadership attention shifts to the next priority. Teams sense the loss of sponsorship before anyone formally acknowledges it.

So the program is not officially cancelled. It is simply deprived of oxygen.

This quiet starvation feels convenient because it avoids a hard conversation. But it carries a deeper cost, because when leaders do not explain what has ended, people construct their own explanations — and those are rarely as generous as leadership would have intended. 

The program is never formally closed, so its lessons are never formally captured. It simply fades, taking its learning and its goodwill with it.

The emotional residue matters more than many leaders realise.

Employees lose trust in future announcements; teams become reluctant to emotionally commit again, middle managers learn that priorities are temporary, and future programs inherit accumulated skepticism.

The next transformation program does not start with hope. It starts with memory.

Why Leaders Choose Silence?

The answer is rarely lack of intelligence.  It is usually a combination of psychology, politics, identity, and organizational discomfort.

Grace framework recognizes five structural forces push leaders toward slow starvation rather than explicit closure.

1. Sunk cost entrenchment: The program has consumed capital, goodwill, and political credit. Acknowledging failure means writing off those costs publicly. The instinct is to keep the program nominally alive while quietly withdrawing resources, preserving the fiction that something may yet be salvaged.

2. The accountability vacuum: Transformation programs have clear ownership of delivery. Almost no organisation assigns  explicit ownership of termination. When the closure decision belongs to no one specifically, it belongs to no one at all. Theprogram enters a state of distributed neglect.

3. Personal reputational exposure: The sponsor of a program is personally associated with its ambition.Terminating it on their watch risks being read as an admission of poor judgment. The game-theory outcome is coalition silence: each member privately knows the program is failing, but none will move first.

4. The new initiative provides cover: When a new priority emerges, it is convenient to let the old program die by distraction rather than decision. Resources migrate. No one formally closes what no one formally abandons. The program becomes vestigial.

5. The program as organisational symbol: Some programs acquire symbolic weight entirely separate from their instrumental value. Terminating them feels — and is sometimes experienced by others — as an act of cultural destruction. Closing it disrupts a narrative without offering a replacement.

A graceful sunset is possible 

Organizations that handle closure well tend to focus on the following three areas: 

1. Emphasize that the WHY survives, while HOW expires: 

If leaders have been doing “Why sharing” of the program well, explaining closure becomes easy. Much of the difficulty around closure comes from a confusion between the program and the purpose. Organizations assume that stopping the initiative means abandoning the ambition. Usually it does not.

Business may still need speed, the customer may still need a better experience, the enterprise may still need resilience. What has changed is the path.

A transformation is a means, not an end — and one of the quieter disciplines of transformation leadership is ensuring that people are committed to the purpose, not imprisoned by the program.

2. Acknowledge learning and separate it from embarrassment

Graceful closure should document and commit to memory: What the Program Leaves Behind.  A program may fail as an implementation vehicle but succeed as a learning vehicle.

A technology program leaves platforms, data, architecture decisions, and vendor relationships — its closure needs asset harvesting. A process program leaves routines, controls, and managerial habits — it needs learning consolidation. A talent program leaves expectations, trust, and emotional investment — it needs careful redeployment and honest communication. A culture program leaves beliefs, language, and identity — it needs the preservation of meaning.

The residue differs, by the program, bum us answer the question: 

What must survive this closure?

Framed that way, closure stops being an act of subtractionand becomes an act of stewardship — deciding deliberately what to carry forward rather than lettingeverything dissolve by neglect.

3. Honour contributors: Stand the People Test 

There is one signal that reveals, more honestly than any town hall or strategy deck, how an organization truly treats transformation outcomes: what happens to the people associated with a discontinued program.

If a program closes and the people who carried it are quietly sidelined, if sponsors are embarrassed andcontributors are left to explain the outcome defensively, the organization has taught its most capable people a precise and lasting lesson: transformation risk is career risk, and the next difficult initiative is not worth volunteering for. 

But if contribution is acknowledged, talent is redeployed with respect, and learning is visibly valued, the message is the opposite — that difficult transformation work is honored here, even when the path changes.

Those who carried a discontinued program become the organisations memory. They become either its future champions or its future cynics, and they shape the corridor conversations and the emotional climate around every initiative that follows. 

A graceful sunset is not complete until the peopledimension has been handled with dignity. Organizationsthat erase contributors create fear.  Organizations that honour contributors create resilience.

Transformations Closure design respects Context

Formal closure does not require theatrical communication.  It requires thoughtful communication.  The goal is not to dramatize the ending. Nor is it to hide it behind vague language.

As mature leaders, closure management execution must be calibrated to the specific context in which the organisation operates. A graceful sunset in a family-owned business requires different emphasis from one in a publicly listed conglomerate. 

A closure by a new CEO carries different permissions and risks from one executed by the CEO who launched the program. An Asian-origin firm requires cultural coding that a Western firm does not. Most importantly, the state of business decides the level of accommodation for such public acknowledgement of closure.

In an age shaped by AI disruption, geopolitical uncertainty, supply-chain redesign, sovereign technology choices, and accelerated business model shifts, more transformations will outlive the assumptions that created them.

Organizations must learn how to close one chapter without damaging belief in the next.

A graceful sunset is not surrender.  It is stewardship.

And perhaps that is what sustaining relevance ultimately requires:

Not only the courage to begin transformation, but also the wisdom to end, redirect, and renew it without leaving scars that the future must carry.

What is state of your mental Health? A self-check toolkit.

 While we go for regular physical health check-ups, even if otherwise ok, we seldom do mental health checkup! Authors cum practitioners  like Alain De Botton, Dan Arley, Adam Grant, Jordan B Petterson and Browen Berne, do share some insights which can often be collated as barometer for self-checking the state of ones’ mental health. I wander what would a self-check mental health barometer looks like!  

Shy of asking Chatgpt or google, here is my list:

1 Are you able to consciously edit various thoughts emerging in your mind, to select the empowering ones and discard the debilitating ones?  It does not entertain thoughts that reminds us of our unworthiness or fuel the feelings of regret, remorse, resent or conceit.               

2 Are you able to retain the general trust in goodness of humanity and reconcile with selfish acts at the individual level?

3 Can you resist the temptation of comparisons to others, either to feel good or bad?

4  Recognize the unreasonableness of cheerfulness as the only desirable end-state state, and any other as sub-optimal?  “Worldy” people are likely to be less happy than they seem. 

Albrecht Durer (1493)

5 Realise that every explanation that looks plausible may not be real, and that randomness could as well be the real reason?  Not every unsuccessful man is so, because of laziness or stupidity.

6 Able to compartmentalize thoughts and emotions and maintain sense of proportionality of response to the situation.

7 Able to recognize fear as state of being and mange it through recognition and additional dose of curiosity. 

8 In quest of seeking more, not to undermine what is already there.  Recognize that Every situation has the possibility of being worst! Can you express gratitude to crashed pillow that ensures good night sleep.   

9  Once in a while you remind oneself of transience nature of being, and its insignificant presence at cosmic level.

10  Are you comfortable with laying boundaries in relationships and can utter warm sounding but definitiveno, without affecting prevailing level of affection 

11 Appreciate the role of genes, parenting, and early childhood experiences in shaping us, but not hold to these convenient factors to defend your learnt helplessness or laziness.

How much you score and what is the ranking criteria- I cant say- but may be there is some realization where to focus to strengthen our mind!

Beyond Rationality and Authority: Influencing tricks that Work

The quest for techniques that enable one to influence others to do what one wants (especially when there is no formal authority or unquestionable rationale backing the expectations) is near universal.
Several researchers from behavioral sciences, experienced management professionals and successful executives have discovered or realized few tricks that seem to work. These tricks have proven effective in different contexts: increasing sales, garnering support for social cause, or driving transformation agenda within an enterprise. 

Let us consider the most common five tricks:

1. Anything Limited has unlimited appeal : Limited editions/designs, trial period, discount window etc. accelerate decision making and often to desired outcome. The potential loss of perceived missed opportunity seems to enhance appeal. Fear of Loss provokes action more often then scope of potential gain. Deadline tactics restricts procrastination game– another natural tendency with most of us. Make it scarce, it will be perceived valuable.
2. Associate inferior comparative to get chosen : The easiest way to look slim, without dieting, is to select a fatter friend. It is all about being relatively better. On a school 25 th year reunion, if you choose the silent character near the bar than the one in the centre of the room tasting wine to all, that will make you feel good about your accomplishments and go home feeling good about life spent so far. So to sell something that has no off-take, it may be worthwhile to consider introducing an inferior option than a better one - experiments seems to suggest so!
3. Unleash the irresistible allurement of FREE : Zero cost upsets all calculations and comparisons and fail all economic rationale decision making. We seem comfortable to pick-up trash if it is for free (recall pencils and pads you brought along from last conference you attended) but will do sufficient due diligence if it costs even one cent or may choose a costlier option, even if we have to pay extra. We can accept any quality of tea as long as it is free, but will walk to nearest Coffee Shop if canteen charges even Rs 2 for it. There is no downside associated with something that is for free and so there are not much performance expectations either. But loosening purse strings comes with lot more due diligence, no matter how meager is the amount.
4. Leverage power of passion, commitment and guilt if you can not pay enough: We live in two worlds simultaneously- one run by market rules and another driven by social norms. Position the request in right world to get compliance. When attending party thrown by too affluent, gifting bouquet is safe, for flowers are priceless and best wishes are too valuable! Provoke emotions of being responsible citizens that care for the city, to get lakes cleaned up through voluntary kar seva, if you can not afford to pay everyone sufficient for their labor. Ask doctors for free service to the poor but not discount on their consultation charges - off-course they will like to pay back to society that has given them so much.
5. It is all about “give to get” : Treat reciprocation as given, for the receiving parties can not sit idle till it has returned the favour you have done to them- even in cases where the favour was thrusted on them in unsolicited manner. We have all seen sudden endorsement on social website for us from someone we barely know, and beware this comes with hidden expectation for reciprocation. Worst is the exchange of concessions; if you seek concession for being late to the meeting, rest assure other party would expect you to gloss over their minor mistakes related to quality aberrations.

Now that these tricks have been pointed out, I am sure on reflection, you may be able to appreciate their wide spread application in our daily personnel and professional lives. You may also be using some of them, may be intuitively then in a designed fashion!

Share interesting instances, where you have seen these tricks being applied, and what are the effective counter-strategies. I will also be happy to hear from you any other tricks that you realize work well in enhancing compliance power,

Lets Reflect!

( Readers serious about enhancing their influencing power are suggested to read: Influence- The Psychology of Persuasion by Dr Robert B Cialdini )