Moving beyond the “job to be done”

How Behzod Sirjani “bends the rules” in research (& in life) to chart new territory

In work and life, we're often taught to follow the rules and "fill in the blank" to succeed. But if you look at the "letters on the board" you will see that the opportunity to arrange them in a way to create your own path is there—you just have to take it.

In our conversation with Behzod Sirjani, one thing is clear: those who know the rules well enough to bend them, with care, get ahead. Behzod previously led research initiatives at Slack and Facebook and now builds effective research practices for early stage companies like Figma, Dropbox, and Mozilla to name a few.

Keep reading to learn how to truly go above and beyond, apply rigorous curiosity, and leverage AI to reshape your approach to decision making.

Conversation Outline

1. The fine line between breaking vs. bending the rules to add value.

2. Asking the right questions to make better decisions. 

3. How AI is evolving the landscape of research and strategy.

Behzod, you talk a lot about this idea that rules are meant to be bent, maybe even broken. On the surface it sounds like a really contrarian idea. But knowing you, it's not at all.

Tell me more about this philosophy and how you've been able to use it to your advantage.

I think rules reflect how people think the world should work. But I feel like many rules, maybe all rules, are somewhat arbitrary. What matters is why the rule came about, why it exists, and who it privileges or protects. Facebook was a good training ground for this idea. When I was there, we grew from around 3,000 to 30,000 employees in four years, which meant everything broke all the time. No system scaled that well, so we had to constantly rethink things. Rules and best practices were regularly examined.

But the principles that were rewarded were people taking initiative and exploring beyond the stated guidelines. 

For example, I was involved in redesigning Facebook’s “Design Camp.” This was the first two weeks of onboarding that everyone in design, research, and content strategy went through at the company. I held a regular session on “How Facebook Communicates” which helped people understand how we used Messenger, Groups, and email and drew connections to tools people used at other companies. I also moderated an AMA with a rotating group of people at the end of the second week so that new employees could get answers to their most burning questions. On the surface, someone like me — someone less than 2 years into their first “real” job — had no business getting 2 hours of everyone’s time. But I cared enough about helping people communicate and setting them up for success, that I was the person who ended up doing this.

Similarly, when I was on the Facebook Ads research team, we realized a lot of work wasn't making it to leadership, so I volunteered to start aggregating and writing monthly reports for them. I also sat near the ads leadership team and the conference room they did product reviews. Over time, they knew me as the person who wrote the report and had visibility into various things going on, so I became a node in the research network and was invited to sit in on their regular product reviews. Being there allowed me to connect dots and help other teams get ahead of things because I had early insights.

Even though I wasn’t “supposed” to be in those spaces, I created value by connecting information and helping others. It taught me to look for opportunities beyond my job description. None of this was in the “rules,” but it was the most valuable thing I could do for the company. 

My friend Stew always reminds me, "you have to play the game that's on the field." There’s the theoretical game, and then there’s what’s in front of us. The idea that rules are meant to be bent means making the best decision based on the situation, often deviating from the theoretical.

Something that I’ve realized as I put this idea into practice is how it doesn’t just change my thinking, but it changes how the work feels. I grew up playing a lot of games—card games, board games, Magic: the Gathering—and the more I’m asking myself “what are my moves here?” the more work feels like play. Most of my work isn’t obvious or linear, it’s creative problem solving with different game pieces every day. Instead of fighting that, I lean into it.

What advice would you give to someone earlier or mid-career who wants to “bend the rules” effectively? How can they find the balance between demonstrating value and going too far?

The difference between bending the rules and breaking the rules is ego. Bending the rules means pursuing opportunities that serve the company and the work, while breaking the rules often means doing what’s best for oneself.

In my current work, there's been a shift from being hired for specific activities early in my career to driving outcomes as a leader. Now, I'm often “hired to care” —to help companies navigate their challenges. This requires setting aside my ego and focusing entirely on what’s most important for the business. Especially in startups, it's about helping them survive and thrive.

Often, this means recognizing that existing processes may no longer be relevant. For instance, at Figma, I was brought in to help scale the research practice. To understand how the research team could be most impactful, I interviewed 10% of the company, involving people from product management to customer support. This broad approach was crucial for identifying conflicts and information flow.

People trust me because I focus on high-leverage, important tasks, even those that aren't immediately obvious. For example, in a current project, I'm distinguishing between capital “I” Innovation and lowercase “i” innovation. To do this, I’m talking to leaders from various industries outside of the company. No one asked me to do this, but it’s essential for understanding how to help the company innovate effectively.

Bending the rules is about seeing beyond the immediate and finding ways to add value to the company, often in unexpected ways.

What's changed about being an operator over the last four or five years? What new challenges are today’s founders facing? What are they asking you to help them figure it out?

I think the biggest change is the sense that the party is kind of over. Back in 2019 and 2020, we were in a Gatsby-esque era where money flowed freely, and many companies sold "nice-to-have" products to each other. Now, the biggest challenge for founders and operators is focusing their teams on the highest leverage activities to make the most progress efficiently. This shift can be tough, especially if the company's DNA isn't geared for it.

Good companies and founders have always been judicious. I’ve seen this firsthand working for Mark Zuckerberg and Stewart Butterfield, who excel at weighing opportunities against their costs. But now, everyone has to be ruthlessly prioritizing, saying no to good ideas that aren't essential.

Hiring is also incredibly difficult right now. There are many talented people looking for work, and when helping companies hire, I've seen a 100x increase in applicants for each role. This makes the hiring process even more critical and challenging.

Spending has been cut back, and companies are only choosing essential tools, trying to do more with less in terms of both people and financial resources. There’s also an open question about how AI will change work, adding another layer of complexity.

Founders who have gone through painful layoffs are now more conservative, preferring to keep team sizes small and work harder rather than risk over-hiring again. We’re in a different era compared to a few years ago, and this mental shift is significant for many people.

People often see research as a one-size-fits-all. But as you know, research involves using the right tools and techniques for each situation.

Can you unpack the difference between asking people what they want versus observing their behavior to understand their dreams and aspirations? When does it make sense to lean in one direction versus the other? 

One of the biggest mistakes people make about research is thinking it's just about learning rather than making decisions. My favorite metaphor for decision-making in a company is like Wheel of Fortune, where you have an unsolved puzzle. Different people contribute different letters, and some are still missing. To move forward confidently, you need to identify and uncover more letters.

This might involve customer conversations, running experiments, or internal design exercises. I like this metaphor because it simplifies explaining to teams: if you’re trying to make a decision and don’t feel confident yet, identify what you need to hear or observe from specific groups to gain that confidence.

This approach helps clarify whether you should talk to people or observe their behavior, who those people should be, and what you need to see. It focuses the conversation on feasible and worthwhile actions within the decision-making timeframe. 

Humans are often poor self-narrators, so it’s crucial to understand the why and how behind their statements and actions. Whether asking people what they want or observing their behavior, the key is uncovering underlying motivations. These insights help fill in the missing letters on your decision-making board.

Tell me more about the art of asking good questions. What are its components? How do you figure out where to look? How does one go about getting what they need to make a good decision?

I think about this a lot. In our social circles, it's different to ask a question versus doing this in a startup context. I'm still figuring out the components of a good question, but what has always felt true for me, whether working with a newspaper, talking to a friend, or doing my job professionally, is that a good question invites a good answer.

Sometimes, you're trying to open up space and identify disagreement or divergence. Other times, you're trying to close space and focus on things. Our mutual friend Tom Critchlow jokes that my job often involves turning over rocks and asking, "What is this?" These are divergent, space-opening questions where I want different answers from different people in the room so we can discuss them.

Other times, with roadmaps and prioritization, I need more closed-ended, space-closing questions like, "Is A more important than B?" Here, I want a yes or no answer to move on.

In an interview context, good questions not only invite good answers but also move the story forward. Customer interviews are like stories with characters, environments, actions, obstacles, and objectives. My questions need to advance that story.

Sometimes, this means exploring interesting side quests when something unexpected comes up. Other times, it means keeping the conversation on track to meet our goals. The challenge for new interviewers is balancing being present in the moment while also guiding the journey. And it's a difficult but essential skill to ensure we reach our destination on time.

How, if at all, does this translate to prompt engineering?

When you’re talking to a piece of technology, trying to learn something or create a visualization, how does the art of asking good questions translate?

There are definitely similarities. When I was in grad school, I taught technical writing in the College of Engineering, and one of my favorite activities was having people write out instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The levels of nuance and detail varied greatly. Then, I had them hand the instructions to someone else who would explicitly follow them to complete the task.

This exercise highlighted how much implicit or embedded context exists in instructions and how much shared social or cultural context we take for granted. Similarly, asking good questions and prompt engineering require the right context and framing. If I ask you a question without the proper context or if we haven't built a shared understanding, the answer I get might not be very helpful. You might give the right answer, but it won't make sense to me, or you might not know how to answer at all.

In prompt engineering, you need to provide specific, well-framed instructions to get the desired output. In interviews, you need to develop rapport and understand who you are speaking with to ask pointed, important questions. Without this, the answers can lack context and be less useful.

I feel like I've become a better interviewer through my experience with prompt engineering, and probably a better prompt engineer because of my interviewing skills. The two inform and enhance each other.

It's also about understanding that context is the difference between good and bad strategy, or good and bad advice. I can take someone else's strategy, but if it's applied in the wrong context, it's useless to the company. 

If I know what you're trying to achieve and at what stage you are, that information is crucial for making decisions. It goes back to the letters on the board analogy. You can say we probably need vowels, but if all the vowels are already on the board, we don't need any more vowels.

Having the right context allows for more accurate and effective decision-making.

More than that, it’s also about knowing how far you can push the context. One of the things I always emphasize, especially when helping people with interviewing, is protecting the business. How do we ensure we're respecting the privacy and ethics of the people we're talking to, and how do we keep the business safe by adhering to legal requirements around PII, GDPR, and CCPA?

You have to operate within the specific context. For example, helping a financial services company looks very different from helping a software productivity company aimed at a general audience. The rules, regulations, and standards are different, and understanding these nuances is crucial.

How do you think AI is going to change the research function? 

Great question. Emmett Shine’s “Creativity in the Age of AI” presentation comes to mind on this topic. Speaking of, I loved how Emmett anchored the conversation with the quote, often attributed to Bill Gates, about how “we overestimate what we can do in a year but underestimate what we can do in ten.” It's so true and really highlights how things change over time.

I've seen a lot of these changes firsthand in my career. For starters, when I first started doing research, I had to transcribe conversations myself. Now, we have tools like Otter and Fathom that do this automatically, which is amazing. These tools handle many routine tasks, allowing us to focus on more valuable activities.

For instance, transcription tools provide a map of the conversation, highlighting interesting parts, so I can spend more time analyzing and less time on manual tasks. This ties into Charlota’s concept of focusing on high-leverage activities.

There are also innovations in survey tools like Outset and Maze, which can ask follow-up questions based on initial responses. This mimics the natural follow-up you'd have in an interview, providing richer data without needing to manually engage with every respondent.

However, there's a risk of getting overwhelmed by data. With tools like Monterey aggregating customer feedback from multiple sources, it can be easy to drown in information. This might lead to undervaluing traditional research methods like ethnography and qualitative studies. Despite the abundance of data, understanding the deeper "how" and "why" behind behaviors is key.

One concern I have is the conflation of different types of research. I wish we talked about research as "rigorous curiosity." Everyone is naturally curious, but research is about applying that curiosity in structured, intentional ways. It's not just talking to customers or running usability studies—it's about exploring and understanding to make better decisions.

In the startup world, especially, the quality of decisions is often based on intuitive understanding and quick iterations, not lengthy academic studies. Early-stage companies need to make informed decisions quickly, based on relevant context.

Research should be about getting letters on the board, understanding that the needed letters might change as decisions evolve. This approach opens up more space for creative exploration and avoids an overly academic or rigid view of what research should be.

Business leaders seem to want you in the room for big decisions. If you were giving advice to someone looking to have a bigger impact beyond the job they were hired for (i.e. Just research), what advice would you give them to help them get there?

A healthy dose of imposter syndrome and self-awareness can actually be really helpful. Realize you have enough skills to be useful, but so does everyone else. This mindset has been helpful for me and ties into our discussion about the rules. Companies hire you to make them more successful by delivering value to their customers through your function, whether it’s product design, engineering, or research.

The best advice I'd give someone now, especially in 2024, is to focus on what matters for the business and identify the difference between your job as it's written and what is actually needed. Throughout my career, I've never been attached to titles. My focus has been on working with people I respect on things that matter, learning, and contributing.

Whether it's doing research, managing social media for a documentary, or my current work—structuring interviews, creating board decks, and strategizing—I aim to be as helpful as possible based on what the people in front of me need. Caring about them and helping them succeed is key.

For example, right now, I'm working with three different companies and reporting into three very different roles. I work closely with the CTO at one company, the CFO at another, and the SVP of Innovation at a third. In all three cases, my job is to help them be successful and achieve their goals. The day-to-day tasks vary, but my focus is on understanding what they need and doing whatever I can to help them achieve it efficiently and successfully.

In a research context, I realized that my role is to use my skills to support the people I work with, whether it's redesigning a menu, fixing a bug, or strategizing. The less ego you have in your work and the more you focus on collectively achieving an outcome, the more successful you'll be. Titles and roles don't matter as much as showing up and being helpful. If you do nothing else but show up and be helpful, you'll be wildly successful in your career.

About Behzod Sirjani 

Behzod is a consultant and advisor. He currently runs Yet Another Studio, where he partners with early stage companies to build effective research practices, working with everyone from two person teams up through companies like Figma, Dropbox, and Mozilla. He is also a program partner at Reforge, where he built both “User Insights for Product Decisions” and “Effective Customer Conversations,” a venture partner at El Cap, and an advisor for TCV’s Velocity Fund. In past lives, he led research operations at Slack and was a user researcher at Facebook.

You can find Behzod on Twitter or LinkedIn.