"And I can put up with the most common criticism of this kind of role, which is that is one step removed from the execution. You often have to be OK with someone else acting on your ideas."
This was fascinating to me. I started my career in an execution-removed role (consulting) and actively chose to travel towards execution and building (product). However, as I grow into leadership roles, I'm asked to uplevel by moving from Building to Understand and Sell. I find myself reluctant to let go of being a builder to focus on strategy. Do you think that might reflect an immaturity in my mental framework (ie. does seniority always require moving away from building directly), or do you think there's a balance to be found there?
I’m sure there is a balance to be found. I know many senior people that remain builders at heart (though not many that avoid also doing a lot of selling)
I am curious how to connect the dots between this framework and the framework on when best to join a startup. Is this too far-reaching (or not) to conclude that a sustainable startup is one that can afford to / recognizes the need to have all these 3 pillars (Build, Sell, Understand)?
Many startups don’t invest in growth / strategy / strategic finance / etc. until series C (which coincidentally often the best time to join a startup based on your other article). It is the early stage when the focus is primarily on build and sell.
Immediately after I posted this comment, I realized that the founder(s) often play the Understand role early on. To your points, the nature of the startup determines how broad / how big the Understanding functions need to be.
The framework resonates, but I found the conclusion surprising, albeit heartening because I enjoy the ‘Understand’ part. As AI tools built on top of data warehouses democratize access to insights, I wonder if that renders Understanding functions obsolete and those functions merge with others.
I think the clear trend is toward more time spent on the “understand” job. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that functions that are focused on this job will grow. It could be that other functions incorporate more and more of it.
To echo all the positive feedback I’ve read in the comments - I really loved this. Super simple to understand and resonated
As someone who has started a company recently, I was interested to read about the “founder” role and the impact of all 3. But no worries for not writing a little blurb
My one takeaway on that note is build + sell + understand = vision. Which is ultimately what the founder does
Anyway, curious to hear more of your thoughts on the founder role since it’s a generalist and, as you mentioned all roles eventually go into, sells
Another great mental model from you, Dan - thank you!
Initially I wanted to ask the same question as @Michelle Pham, i.e., when the "understand" roles might be spotted / hired in the company. My understanding is that it's either founding team or post-product-market-fit phase.
Also, I'm curious about your take on learning "understand" part - what would you recommend to do to sharpen skills in this area?
I think the the "understand" job, and especially the hardest part of it which is synthesizing a simple and actionable answer, is mostly about reps. You have to gather context and see what works to tune your internal LLM.
Dan, loved your point about needing 'reps' to develop the Understand function - especially the part about synthesizing insights into actionable answers.
The challenge: How do you get those reps when your current role doesn't provide them?
I'm doing mostly 'Build' work but drawn to strategic analysis. Want to develop toward Strategy & Analytics roles like yours, but facing the classic paradox - need experience to get the role, need the role to get experience.
Any specific strategies for creating strategic work within tactical roles? Or is the side project/public analysis route more effective for building those synthesis skills you mentioned?
One excellent way to get reps is to write. Clear writing is clear thinking. I’ve personally found it hard to get reps on this via side projects which tend to be very tactical.
I love the way that you’ve broken it down into 3. The way this is written makes it easy for me to understand and be able to pinpoint in my head which people play which role within my job.
I wrote a piece yesterday about my industry changing and it links well to this. Who plays which role in which…
I love this framework, Dan. It captures well the broad categories of work (career paths) within business. I also appreciate the point that eventually we all have to sell. It's a struggle many builders experience.
Really enjoyed this breakdown! I totally get and appreciate the three fundamental jobs you described, but I often think of them in just two big groups: "figure things out" and "make it happen."
For me, "figure things out" means things like understanding the users, shaping the strategy, and designing the right solution. "Make it happen" is more about execution... building, shipping, and selling.
Of course, there’s some overlap between the two, and your three roles show that in a clearer way. Your post helped me connect your model with how I usually think. Thanks for sharing!
I agree you can break it down into those two things. For me, if you do that the framework provides less explanatory power for people thinking about what they want to do.
"And I can put up with the most common criticism of this kind of role, which is that is one step removed from the execution. You often have to be OK with someone else acting on your ideas."
This was fascinating to me. I started my career in an execution-removed role (consulting) and actively chose to travel towards execution and building (product). However, as I grow into leadership roles, I'm asked to uplevel by moving from Building to Understand and Sell. I find myself reluctant to let go of being a builder to focus on strategy. Do you think that might reflect an immaturity in my mental framework (ie. does seniority always require moving away from building directly), or do you think there's a balance to be found there?
I’m sure there is a balance to be found. I know many senior people that remain builders at heart (though not many that avoid also doing a lot of selling)
I am curious how to connect the dots between this framework and the framework on when best to join a startup. Is this too far-reaching (or not) to conclude that a sustainable startup is one that can afford to / recognizes the need to have all these 3 pillars (Build, Sell, Understand)?
Many startups don’t invest in growth / strategy / strategic finance / etc. until series C (which coincidentally often the best time to join a startup based on your other article). It is the early stage when the focus is primarily on build and sell.
It's an interesting thought I hadn't reflected on. Off the cuff:
- The early stage the company is the higher % of what everyone is working on is Building
- Pure "Understand" functions emerge later
- The nature of the company determines a lot about the mix they need
Immediately after I posted this comment, I realized that the founder(s) often play the Understand role early on. To your points, the nature of the startup determines how broad / how big the Understanding functions need to be.
Certainly agree on the founder role!
Your framework provides helpful structure with strategy & planning, beyond the topic of career exploration.
Thanks for a great write-up Dan!
so glad to hear it is useful! Thanks for the note!
The framework resonates, but I found the conclusion surprising, albeit heartening because I enjoy the ‘Understand’ part. As AI tools built on top of data warehouses democratize access to insights, I wonder if that renders Understanding functions obsolete and those functions merge with others.
I think the clear trend is toward more time spent on the “understand” job. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that functions that are focused on this job will grow. It could be that other functions incorporate more and more of it.
To echo all the positive feedback I’ve read in the comments - I really loved this. Super simple to understand and resonated
As someone who has started a company recently, I was interested to read about the “founder” role and the impact of all 3. But no worries for not writing a little blurb
My one takeaway on that note is build + sell + understand = vision. Which is ultimately what the founder does
Anyway, curious to hear more of your thoughts on the founder role since it’s a generalist and, as you mentioned all roles eventually go into, sells
Thanks again for the great post 💪
So glad to hear it resonated! Agree - there is probably a whole piece someone could write on connecting this to the role of the founder.
Another great mental model from you, Dan - thank you!
Initially I wanted to ask the same question as @Michelle Pham, i.e., when the "understand" roles might be spotted / hired in the company. My understanding is that it's either founding team or post-product-market-fit phase.
Also, I'm curious about your take on learning "understand" part - what would you recommend to do to sharpen skills in this area?
I think the the "understand" job, and especially the hardest part of it which is synthesizing a simple and actionable answer, is mostly about reps. You have to gather context and see what works to tune your internal LLM.
Dan, loved your point about needing 'reps' to develop the Understand function - especially the part about synthesizing insights into actionable answers.
The challenge: How do you get those reps when your current role doesn't provide them?
I'm doing mostly 'Build' work but drawn to strategic analysis. Want to develop toward Strategy & Analytics roles like yours, but facing the classic paradox - need experience to get the role, need the role to get experience.
Any specific strategies for creating strategic work within tactical roles? Or is the side project/public analysis route more effective for building those synthesis skills you mentioned?
One excellent way to get reps is to write. Clear writing is clear thinking. I’ve personally found it hard to get reps on this via side projects which tend to be very tactical.
Loved this essay, thanks for sharing it. The “build or sell” question always felt a bit black and white to me
Agree - that was the piece that bothered me about this framework
Hi Dan.
I love the way that you’ve broken it down into 3. The way this is written makes it easy for me to understand and be able to pinpoint in my head which people play which role within my job.
I wrote a piece yesterday about my industry changing and it links well to this. Who plays which role in which…
Thanks for sharing this.
Thanks for the kind words and I'm so glad to hear it is useful!
I love this framework, Dan. It captures well the broad categories of work (career paths) within business. I also appreciate the point that eventually we all have to sell. It's a struggle many builders experience.
This makes so much sense and I wish I have read this 3-4 years ago!
I always thought it's best to be either "build or sell" and I struggled in choosing
as my core talent and passion are in the "understand" bucket (research, analysis & strategy).
After reading this article, I found that the ideal spot for me is "understand + something".
VC, PMM, PM & Bizops were actually my top career options when I was graduating.
Thanks so much Don, all of your articles are very insightful but this is an eye opener!
I went through a version similar journey. Glad to hear it resonates!
Really enjoyed this breakdown! I totally get and appreciate the three fundamental jobs you described, but I often think of them in just two big groups: "figure things out" and "make it happen."
For me, "figure things out" means things like understanding the users, shaping the strategy, and designing the right solution. "Make it happen" is more about execution... building, shipping, and selling.
Of course, there’s some overlap between the two, and your three roles show that in a clearer way. Your post helped me connect your model with how I usually think. Thanks for sharing!
I agree you can break it down into those two things. For me, if you do that the framework provides less explanatory power for people thinking about what they want to do.