Why I’m Excited for the Future of Work
and what i think it will look like, based on my building experience
I think the future (that’s already here, but not evenly distributed) of (software) work can be summarized by the emergent ‘builder’ role.
given: no matter the role, you work in a position that’s incentivized to learn, grow, and be a part of a community of like-minded individuals to yourself
What makes the ‘builder’ role so great?
1) it’s the future (most optimal) individual working style (for max outcomes)
The builder role puts the ultimate goal of any individual/team at the core of a single position: to get shit done. Product teams are supposed to build, so a builder does just that: builds. By putting the overall goal core to the responsibility of a role, it rewards ownership. If not you, who? The individual is incentivized to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Nowadays, in my ways, that means being “AI-native” — AI being foundational to do the work you do; not being able to do your work (to the extent, speed, or quality) without AI — because AI has already become the best available tool to do many tasks. Working this way allows people with curiosity, agency, and care (you gotta give a shit) to do more, move faster. And why not? If you’re an individual with all those traits, there’s nothing more exciting than being able to do the all the million things you wish you could do. Previously distinct roles collapse into one, and the one works across more, lanes vanish. (note: individual A will still be stronger at thing X than individual B, but individual A can do thing X much better than they could pre-AI).
Another great benefit of this working style is that the people who make the decisions, do the work. Those who work on the product, are closest to it and it’s successes and faults, make the decision regarding the product. This is so big. There’s so much context lost when decisions are made from multiple levels higher. (warning: being deep in the product can lose sight of the big picture - super important for those builders to keep both the small details and big picture in mind at once, notably hard to do). The undoubted advantage of this model (the FDE model in many similarities) is that the people who also understand the customer they are building for the most, also build the product. This shortens the feedback loop from learned insight to shipped insight. It’s the product creator, as some may say.
2) it begets the future (most optimal) team structure (for extraordinary results)
If one person can do more working this way than in the past, a team of 20 can do more working this way than a team of 20 in the past. Why have a team of 20 when everyone knows a smaller team of 5 moves faster? The faster you act, the faster you learn. The faster you learn, the faster you (should) course-correct and ultimately succeed.
It’s important to remember that the extra-ordinary comes from the individual; consensus by committee converges on the average (technically the option just slightly better than the average, but no one remembers that either). In today’s world, the average will never win in the longterm. The average only exists for today; technology, people, culture, trends move too fast. There’s no cover piece written on the average. Outliers build the world into what we know it today because nothing would ever change if the average decisions were always made. So, the smaller the teams, the better chances you have to go forth with something fantastic and truly different.
When you’ve got a slim chance of hitting the jackpot, all you can do is take more shots. Moving fast + moving different = better odds at the rare return. That’s what the teams of the future can do in this new structure.
3) personally, this is my ideal
If you lit up at the “people with curiosity, agency, and care can do more”, than you know what I mean. I’ve always done my best work when I’ve had the most ownership. And conversely, struggled to get through the work when I’ve had the least - even if it was a matter I was genuinely curious and cared about. What more responsibility could you have then “get it done”? I’ve always been hell bent on finding the more efficient way to do something; optimal this, optimal that. It doesn’t matter if it’s done that way “just because” — just because you said that I’m actually going to do it differently now. I’ve got low-bar for patience. If something needs to be done, do it. If not you, who? The big picture matters in why you’re doing something, but operating at a high level of abstraction leaves me with crumbled fists because let’s just do it ourselves. I want to be deep in the details because everything’s ideal and theoretical high above, and that gets boring because you can tend to find a reason for x or y. Nothing will ever replace doing the work. Execution differentiates.