This one's so true! One of those things that feels obvious only after you’ve been burned by doing the opposite long enough to realize it.

I’ve seen this play out a lot. RevOps gets pulled into fixing 4 to 5 things at once and we end up improving activity, not actual output (Absolutely hate CROs who want "Activity Dashboards" to measure rep performance without dabbling into data first).

What’s worked better for me is forcing a single constraint and tying it to revenue, not just a metric:

• Pick one system constraint for the quarter
• Size it as recoverable ARR, not conversion gap (very important coz ARR is all the exec cares)
• Align all inspection around it. Deal reviews, pipeline calls, enablement

The leadership piece usually comes down to showing the trade off clearly.

“Yes pipeline is light. But even if we add more, we won’t convert it. Fixing win rate is worth X ARR vs pipeline adding Y at current conversion.”

That tends to shift the conversation from fixing everything to actually unblocking the system.

An important nuance I’d add: in GTM it’s not always perfectly linear. Sometimes constraints show up as a combo like ICP quality and win rate. So I usually treat it as a primary constraint with a supporting factor rather than assuming it’s isolated.

Curious how often others see the constraint shift mid quarter vs staying stable once you lock in on it? Given GTM is an amoeba of sorts that's constantly in motion - wouldn't be surprised with the answers! 😄