Quality products begin with detail-obsessed leaders

It often feels like modern business is stuck in a loop. An idea is successful, there is a push to scale it as far and quickly as possible, and it’s optimised to within an inch of its life - but normally only in the name of profit. Usually this results in a lower quality product, less satisfied customers, and a world where it seems like we’re all being squeezed for every possible penny.

But is there a better way? I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between abstraction and quality this week. Because there are businesses out there that employ thousands, reach millions, and deliver high-quality, boundary-pushing products and services. What are they doing differently?

Once an organisation reaches a certain scale, it’s impossible for leadership to maintain visibility of what’s going on everywhere, so there’s an entire science centred around designing and collecting all sorts of metrics. But metrics are only indicators of what’s really happening. They provide an abstract view.

For that reason, metrics don’t always reflect the reality on the ground. For example, a metric for the number of widgets made this week misses all sorts of context. Were they manufactured to a good quality? How long did each take?¹ Were employees working at a pace that allows for attention to detail and protects their wellbeing, or were they working unsustainably quickly?

The financial skew

Metrics commonly shared with a company’s senior leadership are also often disproportionately money-centric. Over time, this can degrade the quality of the product or service, because decisions are made for financial optimisation.

If developer interviews are to be believed, one such example can be seen in Electronic Arts’ recent release of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, a disappointing chapter in a series that began in 2009 and spans four games. Each iteration further watered down the original formula in search of a larger audience and more sales, as former lead writer David Gaider explained to GamesRadar:

“The nerds were in the cave. You made an RPG and the nerds in the cave would always show up for an RPG, because it was an RPG… You didn’t have to try and appeal to them. You had to worry about the people who weren’t in the cave, which was the audience we actually wanted, which was much larger.”

EA’s leadership zoomed out too far, prioritising reach over the game design existing fans enjoyed. To make more revenue, the product needed to leave its niche and appeal to a broader audience. And in trying to widen its appeal, the quality of the product was degraded to a point where it attracted just 1.5 million players in two months - only half of what was expected, and paling in comparison to its 2014 predecessor Inquisition’s 12 million lifetime sales.²

This isn’t an isolated case. You encounter financial optimisation at the cost of quality (affectionately known as enshittification) on a daily basis. It’s in the chocolate bar that’s become smaller and noticeably less tasty. The customer service line with a long wait time because there are too few agents. And the previously amazing website that has injected too many ads to be usable.

Detail obsession at scale

But businesses are generally only getting larger. Even successful small businesses are commonly absorbed by larger conglomerates. So what does this mean for large organisations and their leaders? Are they doomed to failure once their departments become too big to maintain total oversight?

I don’t think so - scale doesn’t have to mean detachment. In fact, many of the most admired business leaders and creatives in history are famous for being obsessive about detail, even when their organisations were utilising massive teams to craft products that would sell in the millions:

• Steve Jobs was known for his close oversight of Apple’s product design, to the point where he demanded that the original Macintosh’s internals were laid out beautifully - not just the exterior case
• In his work with SpaceX, Elon Musk applies a “first principles” approach, asking engineers to challenge their assumptions and requirements and often finding unorthodox solutions to problems his teams face
• Since founding his own studio, famously cinematic video game creator Hideo Kojima³ has personally edited every trailer for the Death Stranding games, meticulously choosing everything from shots to soundtracks

The computer components, rocket engine skirts, and game trailers aren’t important here - and yet they are. These are business leaders who could have been detached from their output, monitoring financials and tracking project progress through dashboards and meetings - but instead they’re on the ground, directly influencing the most important details of their products.

Businesses can still produce useful, beautiful things that push boundaries and make our world a better place, but the quality of the organisation’s output - and its long-term sustainability - depends on the willingness of those at the top to resist abstraction and stay close to the work.

Notes and references

1. You might assume you could divide the number of widgets made by the number of hours in a week for an average, but without more granular tracking you’d still severely underestimate production time if employees were working overtime to crank them out on schedule.

2. Note the distinction between players and sales here. In my opinion, “players” is a rather deceptive metric because it’s unclear what exactly constitutes a player. Does somebody who downloaded the game on Game Pass and played it for 15 minutes count?

3. I’m fascinated with the man and his creative process. This week I read his interview with Edge magazine, and now I’m on the edge of my seat for the release of Death Stranding 2: On the Beach next month.