Defensible, but not good
An idea can seem reasonable on the surface, but still not be the right decision. Ask yourself, “This is defensible. But is it good?”
👋 Hey, it’s Wes. Welcome to my bi-weekly newsletter on managing up, leading teams, and standing out as a high performer. To level up faster, check out my intensive 2-day course on Executive Communication & Influence.
Read time: 3 minutes
There is a difference between work that seems useful vs work that’s actually useful.
Your work can be:
Defensible
Meet all stated requirements
Look fine at first glance
Be wrapped in professional polish
...and yet still fundamentally miss the mark on adding actual value.
It’s a natural human tendency to optimize for “not getting into trouble” rather than “figuring out the truth.” Even environments that pride themselves on rejecting mediocrity can fall into this trap of surface-level adequacy.
I care a lot about quality, which is a tough topic that often feels subjective. But one question I’ve started asking myself and my clients who care about quality is:
“This is defensible. But is it good?”
***
Do we need to see a spike in abandonment rates to make our product flow better?
Do we need to wait until customers riot before we improve our service?
Do we need to wait until users start deleting our app en masse to make things better?
Many of us wait for dramatic, obvious clues that things are going south, assuming anything before that is fine.
I believe it provides a false sense of security to wait for obvious signs that something is wrong before you wonder if something is wrong.
“Our product sucks, but our metrics aren’t tanking, so it’s probably fine.”
One of my coaching clients is a COO. Their team keeps using the excuse of wanting more data before making an improvement to the product.
They say, “The unsubscribe rate of X email is in line with the average. We don’t need to improve our emails.”
Folks, we can use our eyes here.
The emails are confusing, ugly, and adds no value. We don’t need to gather data to tell us this. We are allowed to use our judgment. We MUST use our judgment.”
They are a small startup, they are not in a position to A/B test everything in order to make decisions. They have to use their creativity and taste.
Another client has gotten feedback for not being vocal enough and not having enough of a perspective. He’s a talented engineering manager, and his response was, “I feel like if the idea is decent, I’m good to go with it.”
If you work with decently competent people, there are many ideas that are decent. Is “decent” good enough? It depends on the situation, and of course you shouldn’t try to maximize everything.
But many times, “decent” doesn’t meet the bar for allocating finite budget and finite headcount on an initiative. If you only get a limited number of bets per quarter, you should have conviction that this is the bet you want to make.
There are many ideas that are okay. It doesn’t mean you should drop what you’re doing and do those ideas.
You can run around doing busy work, following “processes,” and doing defensible stuff like setting up customer calls, but still not make real progress.
It requires intellectual honesty to make sure you’d stand behind the decision you’re making. Don’t hide behind doing things that are defensible, but don’t actually move the needle.
Further reading
✨ Course update: New September 2026 cohort
Last week, we wrapped up another amazing cohort. The latest student reviews are rolling in. Here’s what your fellow operators are saying:
“This course was very valuable to me. I wish I had taken this course sooner. As an experienced designer, I am very comfortable with explaining the rationale behind decisions, but I struggled with the dynamics of communicating ideas to different stakeholders at different altitudes. This course was exactly what I needed to sharpen my skills. Thank you so much.”
- Taís Lessa, UX Design Lead @ Wikipedia
“The course was extremely well thought out, felt applicable in my every day work, and provided clear actionable tips I can use immediately. Highly recommend and would love to do another course with Wes again.”
- Grace Dawson Beatty, Head of Product Marketing @ Plaid
“This was a GREAT course. I don’t know where else I would have gotten such quality content, packaged well, and taught by a world-class person that’s been-there-done-that. The hardest part isn’t attended this class (which you should ABSOLUTELY do) but incrementally applying the tips, tricks, and tactics learned. Thanks, Wes!”
- Chris Viglietta, Workshop Instructor @ Clay
“The value from this course was evident the moment I returned to work. I feel like I can see under the hood of all my incoming and outgoing Slack messages now.”
- Evan Hart, Motion Designer @ Figma
“Dense, actionable, well-structured, and paced to keep you engaged. Even if you think you’re quite good at written (and spoken) communication, you’ll leave with fresh insights and stronger skills. I joined as a long-time subscriber to Wes Kao’s newsletter, and I’m glad I did. I still learned a ton of new stuff!”
- Kalina Tyrkiel-Szymańska, Senior Content Designer @ Zendesk
If you’re interested in joining, the upcoming September cohort already has students from Amazon, Capital One, Figma, Perplexity, GitHub, Netflix, OpenAI, etc.
→ Reserve your spot in the September cohort
Connect with Wes
Is this your first time here? Subscribe
Follow me on LinkedIn for more insights
Learn more about 1:1 coaching to sharpen your executive presence
✨ Intensive course: Improve your ability to sell your ideas, manage up, gain buy-in, and increase your impact in a 2-day workshop. Over 2,000+ tech operators have taken this course, and every cohort has sold out. → Save your spot
The version of this I see in career coaching is people staying in jobs that are defensible. No one can argue with the title, the salary, the stability. And yet something has been wrong for two years. The question "this is defensible, but is it good?" applies to a lot more than work quality.
EditMe stayed defensible for years - steady $5-a-month customers, a PC Magazine award, just enough to keep the lights on. It never once forced the harder question: whether the wiki-in-a-box category was worth building in at all.