We Might Be Wrong, But We Are Not Confused
Make being wrong cheap and being confused unacceptable, in both thought and execution.
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 95%
Tomer Cohen's most-repeated operating mantra as CPO of LinkedIn. It separates correctness (which nobody can guarantee) from clarity (which every leader can enforce). The framework has two halves that must both hold: clarity of thought (a nuanced problem statement plus opinions with teeth) and clarity of execution (resourcing that actually matches the stated priority). Teams that hedge in multiple directions can only be saved by luck.
Origin
Cohen credits the seed to a startup founder he met years earlier whose company was on the brink of failure: after committing to a final path forward, the founder noticed people still hedging in other directions, and realized that unless everyone pulled in the same direction there was no chance of success. The 'disagreeing or misunderstanding' probe inside it came from a mentor of Cohen's after he moved to the US from Israel in 2008.
Core principles
- 01Being wrong is fine; being confused is not. Alpha-type organizations get attached to being right, which creates lingering and hedging.
- 02Clarity of thought and clarity of execution are equally important, and most orgs only do the first.
- 03The problem statement must be nuanced, not headline-level. 'We want to launch a video product' is not a problem statement.
- 04The best principles have teeth: a stated willingness to trade something off, not a platitude everyone already agrees with.
- 05A decision that does not show up in resourcing and top-talent allocation was never actually made.
- 06If you were never clear about what you were trying to accomplish, you cannot learn anything from the outcome.
How to run it
- 1
Spend disproportionate time on the nuanced problem statement
Before any solution talk, force the team to articulate exactly which problem, for which audience, with which unique criteria. Not 'we want to launch a video product' but exactly what type of video, for whom, and what is nuanced about it. The test: you can see the mountain peak, the base camp, and the road, not just a vague mountain.
Pro tip Cohen's check is that once the problem is truly seen, you can imagine the mountain in detail — peak, base camp, route.
- 2
Demand opinions with teeth on the solution
Push each owner for their actual, potentially controversial opinion, grounded in first principles. Reject principles that cost nothing. A principle only counts if it names a sacrifice or trade-off the owner is willing to make.
Pro tip The question that separates a real principle from a platitude: 'what are you willing to trade off to make that happen, and why those vectors?'
Watch out 'We should build a simple product' is useless. Nobody wants to build a complicated product.
- 3
Run the disagree-or-misunderstand probe
When someone says 'I don't fully understand' or 'I'm not clear on this,' stop and ask directly: are you disagreeing or misunderstanding? If misunderstanding, spend the time until each side can articulate the other's point of view in their own words. If disagreeing, stop arguing the surface and argue the actual disagreement.
Pro tip Politeness cultures mask disagreement as misunderstanding; naming the difference recovers hours of wasted debate.
Watch out Skipping this probe means teams argue about the wrong layer indefinitely.
- 4
Make the call and pull in one direction
Commit to a single path. Pulling together does not guarantee success, but hedging guarantees that only luck can save you. Make it explicitly safe to be wrong so the org will commit instead of protecting its record.
Watch out The failure mode is a decision on paper while individuals quietly keep working their preferred alternative.
- 5
Audit execution against the stated priority
Take the declared top priority and check it against reality: where are the engineers, and where is the top talent? If most engineers are on a migration, the migration IS the number one priority regardless of what the strategy deck says. Re-resource until the priority is manifested, or change the stated priority to match the truth.
Pro tip Ask specifically about top talent placement — top talent parked on non-priority moonshots is the clearest tell that the decision never landed.
Watch out Many organizations reach a decision and simply never act on it. This is the most common and most invisible failure.
- 6
End every meeting with the clarity test
Nobody should leave a meeting unsure what the problem discussed was or what the next steps are. Treat any such exit as wasted building time and correct it on the spot.
In the wild
A startup founder Cohen met had one attempt left. He picked a path forward, then noticed his team still hedging in other directions and trying out ideas they personally thought could work. He realized that unless everyone pulled through in the same direction they had no chance.
→ Cohen adopted the insight as an operating principle: in a confused system, only luck can save you. The mantra became so ingrained at LinkedIn that he says he does not need to say it anymore.
A leader tells Cohen their number one priority is a specific initiative. Cohen points out that most of their engineers are working on a migration. The leader says 'yeah, we have to finish that.' Cohen's reply: then say the migration is your number one priority.
→ The resourcing audit exposes that the stated priority was never a real priority, and forces either re-resourcing or honest re-labelling.
Common mistakes
Optimizing to be right instead of to be clear
Alpha-type contributors get attached to not being wrong, so they hedge, protect their ideas, and slow the system. Cohen deliberately gets attached to clarity and focus instead, which is why colleagues describe the mantra as liberating.
Bringing half-baked non-opinions to the table
Showing up with no real point of view makes a Socratic conversation impossible. You cannot have a product conversation with someone whose position you cannot identify.
Treating the decision as the finish line
The decision is worthless until it is manifested in headcount, top-talent placement, and roadmaps. Deciding and not acting is described by Cohen as one of the shocking things large orgs routinely do.
Is it for you?
Best for
Product and engineering leaders running multi-team organizations where debates linger, decisions get re-litigated, and stated priorities never match where the engineers actually are.
Not ideal for
Pure research or discovery contexts where the correct move is deliberately holding multiple live hypotheses and hedging is a feature, not a bug.
From the transcript
“I might be wrong but not confused”
“it kind of comes down to two main parts one is Clarity of thought and Clarity of execution and they're both equally important”
“the best principles have teeth”
“who doesn't want to build a simple product”
“just push back are you disagreeing or misunderstanding”
“you have to like make sure that what you're sharing as a priority is actually manifested in your resourcing”
“many organizations actually reach a decision they don't act on it”
From the episode
How LinkedIn became interesting: The inside story
Tomer Cohen (CPO at LinkedIn)