John Cutler: Why Shifting to Outcomes Often Goes Wrong

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler delves into the common pitfalls businesses encounter when attempting to transition from a focus on outputs to a focus on outcomes. While the intention behind this shift is often positive, Cutler highlights numerous ways teams miss the mark, leading to frustration and inefficacy.

Cutler begins by outlining the core issue: a misunderstanding or misapplication of what ‘outcomes’ truly entail in a business context. He points out that many teams struggle with the fundamental definition and measurement of success.

“Here are ten ways teams often go wrong with the shift from outputs to outcomes. Their intentions are good…but they miss the point.”

Differentiating Leading vs. Lagging Outcomes

One of the primary mistakes, according to Cutler, is the failure to distinguish between leading and lagging indicators of success. Teams often chase outcomes that are too far in the future to be influenced or measured effectively in the short term, or conversely, they focus solely on immediate gains without appreciating the foundational work needed for long-term success.

As John Cutler notes, this can lead to a situation where teams are working towards goals they have little control over or are neglecting the strategic, qualitative efforts that underpin sustainable results.

The Myth of Perfect Metrics

Another significant hurdle identified by Cutler is the pursuit of perfect metrics. He argues that metrics should be viewed as hypotheses to be tested, rather than absolute truths requiring exhaustive upfront validation.

“They aim for perfection when it comes to metrics, instead of realizing that metrics themselves are hypotheses that need to be tested. You don’t need perfect metrics to start.”

This obsession with perfection can paralyze progress, preventing teams from shipping products or initiatives. Cutler emphasizes that taking action and learning is more valuable than endless deliberation over ideal measurement frameworks. In his view, “You can’t make shots you don’t take.”

The Danger of Performative Outcome-Centricity

Cutler also cautions against the performative aspect of outcome-centricity. He observes that the spirit of experimentation can be lost, and the focus on ‘claiming outcomes’ can become a box-ticking exercise rather than a genuine driver of learning and improvement.

According to John Cutler, this can manifest as “retrospective rationalization,” where teams retroactively frame their work as outcomes to gain credit, rather than engaging in genuine discovery and adaptation. This ties into another point: prioritizing easily measurable outcomes over potentially more impactful ideas that are harder to quantify.

Broader Systemic Challenges

The challenges extend beyond individual team behaviors. Cutler highlights how outcome-centricity often gets applied unevenly across an organization. Stuff closer to the customer or revenue receives more attention, while areas further down the value chain remain stuck in a feature-factory mode. He also points out the lack of alignment between different departments, such as Engineering, Product, and Design, who may pursue their own definitions of outcomes instead of collaborating on what truly matters for the business.

Furthermore, Cutler critiques the tendency for outcomes to become clustered around reporting periods like the end of the quarter, leading to cherry-picking good news and a distorted view of progress. He argues that true outcome-centricity involves embracing the entire journey, including setbacks and reversals, not just the highlight reel.

“‘Outcome-centricity’ becomes more evangelism than efficacy. It becomes more about the ‘principle’ of outcomes, or demonstrating that you’ve made the shift, than what product often actually feels like: a drumbeat of discovery, trying things, shipping, learning, and lots of setbacks.”

Ultimately, John Cutler suggests that the shift to outcomes requires a deeper understanding of strategy, experimentation, and genuine learning, rather than a superficial adoption of new terminology or metrics. He implies that without this deeper engagement, the transition risks becoming a distraction rather than a driver of meaningful business improvement.