3 ms·

The historical reasons for sales-driven and product-led was due to internal politics. As noted in the article, these are internally focused, as most employees w

The historical reasons for sales-driven and product-led was due to internal politics. As noted in the article, these are internally focused, as most employees work “in” the business and not “on” the business. I would recommend using different wording than the article, as Market-Focused will lead to focus on competitors. This is again leads to focus on the wrong party, not the right party and the reason why the organization should exist and consume resources including people’s/employees’ time. Mission-driven in both for-profit and non-profit context works very well to focus the team on the right party (customer, patients, citizens, large enterprises in insurance, the local environment, etc. “target population”) as the organization scales to provide value to the target population. A shared mission to ensure the fulfillment of the primary reason for the existence will ensure the team focuses on delivery of value to the right party, target population. However, the mission needs to provide enough value to justify its existence, and with three parts: (1) large value proposition, (2) large target population and (3) large unmet need, then you have a justification for the continued existence of the organization and the resources it consumes.

jka 5y ago
Agree broadly with what you're saying; having a common mission is a good way to align on goals within a company and also with customers and community. It's debatable, but the phrase "target population" seems potentially non-ideal from a cultural perspective. To me that has some negative connotations, implying that the recipients might not be aware/participating/accepting. It feels like companies should want to support and encourage their audience, as opposed to pushing things onto them. Perhaps a minor point, but I think that if you develop a large organizational culture which begins to repeat various phrases or terms, then those words and the way they are perceived become significant (in proportion to the company's influence).
- rancar2 5y ago
  I fully agree that “target population” isn’t the best wording. If you have a suggestion of another phrase in English that would be readily understood without further definition, please do share as I would love to find a better phrase than target population. I typically use just “target” but I was avoiding being ambiguous while attempting to be brief. Again, “target” also carries a lot of cultural baggage for its military associations. To go a bit deeper, underneath my comment is method of accomplishing a mission through organizational/program design, where a mission consists of: verb. target. outcome. measurement. * To maintain brevity in the above format, the “need” and the “how” may be implied in the mission statement but are typically not well covered by the above suggested mission statement format, but should be codified in a logical model of the programs/executable units of work. Examples of missions: 1. Living Goods = save. african kids’. lives. reducing child mortality. 2. One Arce Fund = get. african families. out of extreme poverty. increasing income. 3. Island Conservation = save. island species. from extinction. recovering species populations living. Definitions: 1.Verb = The measurable action of the program taking place on the target to achieve the outcome. 2. Target = The person/place/thing that is the served by the program. 3. Outcome = The measurable benefit that is expected for the target. 4. Measurement = The primary set of data being collected as an indication that the outcome is being achieved. Edit: formatting adjustments
  - atat7024 5y ago
    Market we're aiming to serve. But these distinctions are just additional nuances to choose from in the same vein as the original debate.
    - jka 5y ago
      Yep - and "support" is another possibility.
    - rancar2 5y ago
      Thanks for the suggestion. Markets can be qualified and quantified in very different ways across different domains of knowledge. The general interpretation is a system, but a complex system is hard to measure a program’s or organization’s impact on it without investing more money in data tracking, which is beyond the scope of most all organizations outside of governments. I do eventually see that within governmental level datasets will be able to quantify outcomes, but we are still a ways off that point in time.
      - svilen_dobrev 5y ago
        yeah, "served people/population/society-segment" sounds better

jka 5y ago

Agree broadly with what you're saying; having a common mission is a good way to align on goals within a company and also with customers and community. It's debatable, but the phrase "target population" seems potentially non-ideal from a cultural perspective. To me that has some negative connotations, implying that the recipients might not be aware/participating/accepting. It feels like companies should want to support and encourage their audience, as opposed to pushing things onto them. Perhaps a minor point, but I think that if you develop a large organizational culture which begins to repeat various phrases or terms, then those words and the way they are perceived become significant (in proportion to the company's influence).

rancar2 5y ago
I fully agree that “target population” isn’t the best wording. If you have a suggestion of another phrase in English that would be readily understood without further definition, please do share as I would love to find a better phrase than target population. I typically use just “target” but I was avoiding being ambiguous while attempting to be brief. Again, “target” also carries a lot of cultural baggage for its military associations. To go a bit deeper, underneath my comment is method of accomplishing a mission through organizational/program design, where a mission consists of: verb. target. outcome. measurement. * To maintain brevity in the above format, the “need” and the “how” may be implied in the mission statement but are typically not well covered by the above suggested mission statement format, but should be codified in a logical model of the programs/executable units of work. Examples of missions: 1. Living Goods = save. african kids’. lives. reducing child mortality. 2. One Arce Fund = get. african families. out of extreme poverty. increasing income. 3. Island Conservation = save. island species. from extinction. recovering species populations living. Definitions: 1.Verb = The measurable action of the program taking place on the target to achieve the outcome. 2. Target = The person/place/thing that is the served by the program. 3. Outcome = The measurable benefit that is expected for the target. 4. Measurement = The primary set of data being collected as an indication that the outcome is being achieved. Edit: formatting adjustments
- atat7024 5y ago
  Market we're aiming to serve. But these distinctions are just additional nuances to choose from in the same vein as the original debate.
  - jka 5y ago
    Yep - and "support" is another possibility.
  - rancar2 5y ago
    Thanks for the suggestion. Markets can be qualified and quantified in very different ways across different domains of knowledge. The general interpretation is a system, but a complex system is hard to measure a program’s or organization’s impact on it without investing more money in data tracking, which is beyond the scope of most all organizations outside of governments. I do eventually see that within governmental level datasets will be able to quantify outcomes, but we are still a ways off that point in time.
    - svilen_dobrev 5y ago
      yeah, "served people/population/society-segment" sounds better