Three Levels of Product Work
Align impact, execution, and optics before debating the details
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 99%
The Three Levels of Product Work model explains product activity through impact, execution, and optics. Impact concerns the result for customers, the business, or the brand. Execution concerns what it takes to get the work done and reach the next milestone. Optics concerns making others aware of the team's impact and execution. Conflict arises when people default to different levels without naming the mismatch, such as a PM defending a workable launch plan while a CEO questions the customer impact. None of the levels is universally correct. Early-stage teams may need to emphasize execution after choosing a sound hypothesis, while a platform team recovering from reliability problems may need better internal optics with dependent teams. The model gives teams neutral vocabulary to choose the right emphasis, switch levels deliberately, and prevent visibility work from becoming an end in itself.
Origin
Doshi developed the model after repeatedly seeing capable, well-intentioned people litigate product-review details while reasoning from different default levels. Naming impact, execution, and optics explained the conflict and also revealed what organizations reward through hiring, firing, promotion, and praise.
Core principles
- 01Smart people can disagree because they are reasoning at different levels
- 02Impact asks what changes for customers, the business, or the brand
- 03Execution asks how to reach the next milestone
- 04Optics creates awareness of impact and execution
- 05The right default level depends on context
- 06Optics should support work rather than replace it
How to run it
- 1
Name the active levels
Ask whether each person is currently optimizing for impact, execution, or optics. State the mismatch explicitly before continuing the detailed debate.
Pro tip Use the labels as neutral vocabulary rather than as criticism.
Watch out Calling someone 'too execution focused' without naming your own level reproduces the same conflict.
- 2
Clarify the intended impact
Define what should improve for customers, the business, the product, or the brand. This prevents feasibility arguments from quietly replacing the purpose of the work.
Pro tip Ask what harm a compromise could create beyond the current milestone.
Watch out Impact language without a credible hypothesis can become aspiration detached from delivery.
- 3
Surface the execution reality
Identify the constraints, dependencies, sequence, and tradeoffs required to deliver. Explain them as inputs to the impact decision, not as automatic reasons the impact concern is invalid.
Pro tip Translate a constraint into the impact it creates so leaders can make an informed tradeoff.
Watch out A rational execution explanation does not answer an impact-level objection by itself.
- 4
Set the needed optics
Choose how the team will create awareness, energy, feedback, and trust around the work. Keep status updates and communication proportional to the coordination need.
Pro tip Increase optics when dependent teams lack visibility into reliability or delivery work.
Watch out When praise and promotion center on updates rather than outcomes, optics can displace the work.
- 5
Choose the contextual emphasis
Agree which level should dominate now and when that emphasis should change. Then revisit the disputed decision from that shared level.
Pro tip Make the choice explicit for a defined phase rather than declaring a permanent organizational preference.
Watch out No team can neglect the other two levels indefinitely.
In the wild
A PM explains why customer support will be weak at launch: the support team lacks funding now but will add people next quarter. The execution reasoning is coherent, yet the CEO remains concerned about customer experience and brand impact. Naming the mismatch lets the team decide whether the launch compromise is acceptable instead of repeating the same arguments.
→ The disagreement moves from execution minutiae to an explicit impact tradeoff.
After forming a reasonable hypothesis about what will win, an early-stage team may not see meaningful impact within a week, month, or even quarter. Doshi recommends explicitly operating mainly at the execution level while converting those insights into a product.
→ The team avoids mistaking delayed impact evidence for a reason to stop delivering against its hypothesis.
A platform team has availability problems that disrupt dependent teams. Besides fixing reliability, it deliberately improves communication channels and status updates so affected teams understand what is happening and can coordinate around it.
→ Better optics supports execution and trust without becoming the objective itself.
Common mistakes
Treating one level as universally superior
Impact is not always the correct immediate emphasis. The team's stage, reliability, dependencies, and current goal determine the right balance.
Answering impact concerns with execution facts
Constraints can explain why a compromise exists, but they do not resolve what that compromise does to customers or the brand.
Rewarding optics as if it were impact
Celebrating polished updates more consistently than launches or results signals that awareness matters more than accomplishment.
Is it for you?
Best for
Product teams, leaders, and founders navigating reviews, prioritization, cross-functional conflict, or cultural incentives.
Not ideal for
Simple individual tasks where impact, execution, and internal awareness are already obvious and uncontested.
From the episode
Shreyas Doshi on pre-mortems, the LNO framework, the three levels of product work, why most execution problems are strategy problems, and ROI vs. opportunity cost thinking