Optimized for Nobody
The Product Decisions that Quietly Break Growth
Guest post by Brent Harrison, Growth Recalibrated
A VP of Product at a $12M B2B company makes three defensible calls in a single quarter. She expands the ICP to capture an adjacent segment the sales team has been requesting. She accelerates a feature to close a strategic enterprise deal. She shifts roadmap priority toward infrastructure after a competitor’s feature launch. The board agrees with each decision individually. Twelve months later, growth is harder to explain and the roadmap debates are exhausting.
No single call was wrong. But the pattern they formed was.
Ibrahim Bashir has written about how Amazon layers product choices to compound value over time - good decisions building on each other with the logic of compound interest. The Power of Layering Product Choices is a useful frame, because its inverse is also true.. Individual good decisions, made under pressure from different directions, can compound into a product that’s optimized for nobody in particular.
This isn’t technical debt. It’s something harder to see: strategic drift. The product stops reflecting a clear growth thesis and starts reflecting the last six months of inbound pressure instead.
Why the Drift Happens
Three forces tend to drive it, and none of them look like mistakes in the moment.
Sales pressure. A significant deal needs a feature. It gets built. The customer type that deal represents gets another one in the next cycle. The Ideal Customer Profile (ICP) quietly shifts toward them without a deliberate decision to go there. By the time the pattern is visible, the roadmap has already followed.
Competitive response. A competitor ships something. The team responds. Roadmap priority shifts to close the gap. But the customer who benefits most from that response isn’t always the core segment - it’s often a different buyer at a different stage. The team moves fast and the signal about who they’re actually building for gets muddier.
Market optionality. An adjacent segment looks large. Expanding toward it feels like a strategic move. And sometimes it is. But each expansion dilutes the signal about what’s working in the core. When the expansion doesn’t convert as cleanly, the response is often more features, which compounds the original problem rather than resolving it.
The thread connecting all three is that no single decision triggers a reassessment of the whole. Each one is evaluated on its own merits, approved, and shipped. The pattern only becomes visible in the aggregate.
What It Looks Like in Practice
By the time strategic drift is obvious, it’s already expensive. But there are earlier signals worth watching.
Deal cycles lengthen even as win rates hold. The product is closing, but it’s working harder for each customer - which usually means different value propositions are attractive to different buyers, yet none of them are fully served.
Feature usage starts to fragment across customer segments. The core customers are using one part of the product, the newer segments are using another, and the roadmap is somehow trying to serve both.
Roadmap debates become harder to resolve. The reason is usually that there’s no longer a clear center of gravity to adjudicate from. Everyone has a reasonable argument. Collectively, there is no shared thesis.
What Changes When Leaders Get This Right
The product leader’s job at this stage isn’t just to build a great product. It’s to ensure that the accumulation of product decisions is reinforcing a coherent growth thesis, not quietly undermining one.
That requires a few specific shifts in how decisions get made:
Name the center of gravity and protect it. The most effective product leaders I’ve seen in growth-stage companies have a stated growth thesis: who is the core customer, what job are they solving, and what does success look like for them specifically? Every significant roadmap decision gets evaluated against it. Not just “is this a good feature?” But “does this customer type represent where our best growth is actually coming from?” When that question is asked consistently, any pattern of accommodation decisions shows up quickly.
Treat ICP creep as a product signal, not just a Go-To-Market (GTM) one. When sales starts consistently closing deals outside the core segment, that’s not only a pipeline observation - it’s a product signal. If the roadmap is responding to those deals without a deliberate choice to shift direction, the product is drifting before the strategy has decided it should. The discipline is noticing the drift at the product decision level, before it becomes a structural realignment problem.
Separate the accommodation from the strategic bet . . . and label it clearly. When a feature gets built to close a deal, that can be the right call. The failure mode isn’t building it. It’s letting it quietly shape the roadmap narrative going forward. Labeling it explicitly, e.g. “this is a one-time accommodation, not a signal about where we’re heading,” sounds simple, but most teams skip it. Accommodations become strategy by default when they don’t get labeled.
Build a coherence question into quarterly reviews. Not just: what did we ship? But: across the last 90 days of product decisions, what customer type did we optimize for and does that match where our strongest growth is actually coming from? The disconnect surfaces almost immediately when you ask it directly. Most teams don’t ask it.
The Part Most Teams Skip
The decisions that quietly break growth don’t look like mistakes. They look like good judgment under pressure. A capable, responsive team doing their job.
The difference between a product team that compounds value - the way Ibrahim describes it - and one that compounds drift often comes down to a single discipline: whether the coherence question gets asked before decisions accumulate, or only in the post-mortem after they have.
My recent post on why pushing harder stops working at this stage of growth covers the downstream version of this problem - what it looks like when the system loses coherence and execution stops compounding value. But the upstream version, the one worth catching earlier, is here: the pattern of individually defensible product decisions that nobody thought to evaluate as a whole.
Brent Harrison writes Growth Recalibrated, a weekly diagnostic for founders and product leaders navigating growth inflection points. Brent has built products and growth engines across venture-backed startups and global companies including Apple, Expedia, GoDaddy, and Netscape. He started his career as a Smokejumper, parachuting into wildfires in Canada’s Yukon Territory.
As always, I’d love to hear from readers about chaining product decisions - please chime in via comments👇 or join the chat via the Substack app.
And if you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing / upgrading.