gtm-operating-cadence by github/awesome-copilot
npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --skill gtm-operating-cadence适用于30人的会议结构在100人时会失效。适用于100人的在300人时会失效。失败模式总是相同的:太多人参加太多会议,却做出太少决策。
触发条件:
适用场景:
模式:
不同的会议服务于不同的目的。将它们混为一谈会导致低效(花费太多时间)或混乱(决策不清晰)。根据功能、频率和决策权限来区分会议。
第一级:每日站会(15分钟,仅限团队)
第二级:每周职能回顾(60分钟,职能领导层)
每个职能都有自己的每周节奏:
格式:指标回顾(10分钟)→ 成功/阻碍(15分钟)→ 一次深度探讨(30分钟)→ 下周优先事项(5分钟)
反模式:试图在会议上解决所有问题。挑选1-2个,其余的委托给后续跟进。
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
在成长型公司中最重要的协调机制。
反模式:防御性语气。全员会议应该直截了当,而不是粉饰。反模式:指标不一致。如果你改变了仪表板,团队就无法跟踪进展。
第四级:双周领导层协调会(90分钟)
这是解决跨职能阻碍的地方。如果各职能独立运作,这个会议就没有发挥作用。
第五级:季度战略规划(半天到一整天)
反模式:太多"趣味活动",缺乏实质内容。反模式:没有明确的决策产出。
规模调整:
使此模式有效的规则:
每次会议必须产生决策,否则就取消。状态更新是异步的。如果你在开会而没有人做决策,就离开。
模式:
月度报告在问题发生30天后才发现。到那时,糟糕的一个月已成定局。每周报告在第二周发现问题,你仍然可以挽救这个月。
格式(每周结构相同):
周次:[日期]
北极星:[指标]
本周:[数值] | 上周:[数值] | 变化:[+/-] [↑↓]
背景:[一句话——为什么这个趋势很重要]
职能指标:
产品: 7日留存率:34% | 上周:33% | +1% ↑
功能采用率:18% | 上周:16% | +2% ↑
背景:入职改进显示出效果
市场与销售: 销售管道:820万美元 | 上周:780万美元 | +40万美元 ↑
新概念验证:3 | 上周:2
背景:合作伙伴管道增加了交易
健康度: 团队士气:7.2/10(从7.5下降)
背景:组织重组导致不确定性
纪律规则:
升级规则:
如果一个指标连续两周为红色且行动计划相同,则升级——行动计划无效。
指标数量:
选择8-12个总数。如果一个指标变动时不会改变你的行为,就删除它。拥有40个指标的仪表板是装饰品,而不是决策工具。
常见错误:
虚荣指标看起来很好,但不能预测业务结果。没有采用背景的总下载量。没有支持指标的CEO头条新闻。
模式:
没有季度规划,公司就会漂移。每个职能局部优化。销售追逐目标客户画像之外的交易。产品为单一客户构建功能。营销开展与销售管道无关的活动。
为期3周的规划周期:
第1周:回顾 + 数据收集
第2周:优先级设定(领导层半天会议)
第3周:OKR分解 + 资源分配
季度承诺格式:
2026年第二季度路线图
北极星:[我们优化的目标]
支柱1:产品(25%团队精力)
计划:[名称]
问题:[我们要解决的问题]
成功:[具体指标]
负责人:[姓名]
时间线:[何时]
支柱2:市场与销售(50%团队精力)
计划:[名称]
...
支柱3:人员(10%精力)
计划:[名称]
...
支柱4:技术债务(15%精力)
计划:[名称]
...
"不做"清单:
对于你添加的每一个优先事项,确定一件你要停止的事情。如果你不能说出你不做什么,你的优先事项就太多了。
常见错误:
季度规划产生一份30页没人阅读的文档。产出应该是:一页纸上的3-5个优先事项,每个都有负责人和指标。仅此而已。
模式:
在20人时,CEO实时做出每一个决定。很快。在100人时,决策需要协调。很慢。在300人时,决策需要协调、批准和记录。极其缓慢。
解决方法不是开更多会议,而是明确的决策权。
决策权限矩阵:
| 决策 | 决策者 | 时间线 | 升级路径 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 公司战略 | CEO | 1周 | 战略性问题上报董事会 |
| 功能优先级 | 产品负责人 | 1周 | 如果超过3个工程周则上报CEO |
| 客户支持问题 | 客户成功经理 | 立即 | 如果升级则上报客户成功负责人 |
| 营销活动 | 营销负责人 | 2周 | 如果预算超过1万美元则上报首席营销官 |
| 招聘 | 职能负责人 | 2周 | 如果职位未获批准则上报CEO |
| 新合作伙伴关系 | CEO | 2周 | 战略性问题上报董事会 |
| 供应商选择 | 职能负责人 | 1周 | 如果年费用超过5万美元则上报CEO |
问题:
成长型公司开始将可逆的、低风险的决策当作不可逆的、高风险的处理。一切都需要批准。一切都需要开会。一切都需要共识。
解决方法:
类型1(不可逆,高风险): 定价模型、市场进入、主要合作伙伴关系 → CEO/领导层在一次会议中经过辩论后决定。时间线:最多1-2周。
类型2(可逆,低风险): 活动创意、功能优先级、单个招聘 → 职能负责人决定,通知,迭代。时间线:当天或第二天。
用70%的信息做决策,而不是100%。 速度在每个阶段都是竞争优势。
常见错误:
共识文化伪装成协作。"让我们让每个人都达成一致"通常意味着"没有人想决定"。指定决策者。让他们决定。继续前进。
模式:
同步会议无法扩展。默认异步,必要时升级为同步。
异步优先(无需开会):
同步时机:
文档纪律:
记录每一个决策:决定了什么?为什么?谁决定的?何时生效?谁需要知道?
存储在可搜索的格式中(维基、共享驱动器)。新员工入职更快。过去的决定不会被重新争论。
常见错误:
"快速同步"会议逐渐消耗每周10小时。在Slack上过度沟通(短暂、嘈杂),而在持久格式(文档、电子邮件)上沟通不足。重要的内容应该在6个月后仍可搜索。
模式:
在成长型公司中最高效的沟通工具。撰写需要5-10分钟。每个人都会阅读。它设定背景、庆祝胜利、明确优先事项并建立共同理解。
格式(周日晚上或周一早上发送):
1. 本周重点(1段): 本周的优先事项是什么?团队应该关注什么?
2. 北极星进展(1-2个要点): 关键指标进展如何?趋势上升/下降/持平?这为什么重要?
3. 本周胜利(3-5个要点): 发布了什么?客户/合作伙伴胜利?大局影响?
4. 正在解决的阻碍(1-2个要点): 我们本周要解决什么阻碍?谁需要知道?
5. 请求(1个要点,可选): 团队需要什么帮助?推荐、反馈、客户介绍?
规则:
每周同一天发送。一致性体现了运营纪律。如果你跳过一次,团队会注意到——并开始怀疑你有什么没告诉他们。
常见错误:
太长(团队不读)、太详细(留给职能会议)、只有好消息(团队失去信任)、不一致(团队停止阅读)。
模式:
提高速度最强大的工具不是层级——而是明确的角色清晰度。当某人确切知道他们拥有什么且不能推卸时,决策发生得更快。
如何执行:
测试:
你能说出负责这个结果的唯一一个人吗?不是"团队"——是一个人。如果你不能,这个计划就会漂移。
常见错误:
将项目分配给多人("每个人都负责" = 没人负责)。衡量活动而不是影响。支出率上升,但每个计划没有明确的投资回报率跟踪。
公司规模 <30?
├─ 是 → 仅需第2-3级(每周职能会议 + 全员会议)
└─ 否 → 继续...
│
30-100人?
├─ 是 → 所有5个级别
└─ 否 → 所有5级 + 越级审查 + 职能子节奏
它产生决策吗?
├─ 否 → 可以异步进行吗?
│ ├─ 是 → 改为异步,取消会议
│ └─ 否 → 用决策议程重新设计
└─ 是 → 合适的人在会议室吗?
├─ 否 → 修正参会者名单(少即是多)
└─ 是 → 保留它
1. 随着增长增加会议 替换它们。在200人时,CEO参加的会议应该比50人时更少。
2. 状态更新会议 如果它能用邮件完成,就应该用邮件。会议是用来做决策的。
3. 每个季度更改指标 一致性有助于趋势识别。每次使用相同的仪表板。
4. 共识文化 指定决策者。让他们决定。通知其他人。
5. 所有信息都在Slack上 短暂、嘈杂、不可搜索。重要决策放在文档中。
6. 季度规划产生30页文档 一页纸上的3-5个优先事项。这就是产出。
会议架构: 每日站会(15分钟)→ 每周职能会议(60分钟)→ 每周全员会议(60分钟)→ 双周领导层会议(90分钟)→ 季度规划(半天)
每周指标仪表板: 8-12个指标,每周格式相同,红绿灯颜色,每个指标一句话背景,每个红色项目有负责人 + 行动 + 截止日期
季度规划周期: 第1周:回顾 + 数据 → 第2周:优先级设定(最多3-5个) → 第3周:OKR分解 + 资源分配
决策权限: 类型1(不可逆):CEO/领导层,1-2周 → 类型2(可逆):职能负责人,当天
CEO每周更新: 本周重点 → 北极星进展 → 胜利 → 阻碍 → 请求
信息流: 每日:Slack胜利/客户声音 → 每周:CEO邮件 + 职能更新 → 每月:全员会议 + 越级会议 → 每季度:规划分享 + 演示
基于从20人到1000+员工规模公司的运营节奏设计,包括在3倍人员增长中幸存下来的五级会议架构、比月度回顾早3周发现管道问题的每周报告格式,以及在多家公司中完善的CEO每周更新格式。不是理论——是通过超高速增长构建运营系统并传授给下一个团队的经验模式。
每周安装量
152
代码库
GitHub星标数
26.7K
首次出现
5天前
安全审计
安装于
gemini-cli138
codex138
opencode138
cursor137
warp135
kimi-cli135
The meeting structure that worked at 30 people collapses at 100. What worked at 100 collapses at 300. The failure mode is always the same: too many people in too many meetings making too few decisions.
Triggers:
Context:
The Pattern:
Different meetings serve different purposes. Conflating them creates either inefficiency (too much time) or confusion (unclear decisions). Separate meetings by function, frequency, and decision authority.
Level 1: Daily Standup (15 min, teams only)
Level 2: Weekly Functional Reviews (60 min, function leadership)
Each function gets its own weekly rhythm:
Format: Metric recap (10 min) → Wins/blockers (15 min) → One deep-dive (30 min) → Next week priorities (5 min)
Anti-pattern: Trying to solve every problem in the meeting. Pick 1-2, delegate the rest to follow-ups.
Level 3: Weekly All-Hands (60 min, whole company)
The single most important alignment mechanism at a scaling company.
Anti-pattern: Defensive tone. All-hands should be straightforward, not spin. Anti-pattern: Inconsistent metrics. If you change the dashboard, the team can't track progress.
Level 4: Bi-Weekly Leadership Alignment (90 min)
This is where cross-functional blockers get resolved. If functions operate independently, this meeting isn't working.
Level 5: Quarterly Strategic Planning (half-day to full-day)
Anti-pattern: Too much "fun activity," not enough substance. Anti-pattern: No clear decisions coming out.
Scaling Adjustments:
The Rule That Makes This Work:
Every meeting must produce decisions or be cancelled. Status updates are async. If you're in a meeting and nobody is making a decision, leave.
The Pattern:
Monthly reporting catches problems 30 days late. By then, a bad month is baked. Weekly reporting catches problems in week 2, when you can still save the month.
The Format (Same Structure Every Week):
WEEK OF [DATE]
North Star: [Metric]
This Week: [Value] | Last Week: [Value] | Change: [+/-] [↑↓]
Context: [One sentence — why this trend matters]
Functional Metrics:
Product: 7-Day Retention: 34% | Last: 33% | +1% ↑
Feature Adoption: 18% | Last: 16% | +2% ↑
Context: Onboarding improvements showing impact
GTM: Pipeline: $8.2M | Last: $7.8M | +$400K ↑
New POCs: 3 | Last: 2
Context: Partner pipeline adding deals
Health: Team Morale: 7.2/10 (down from 7.5)
Context: Org restructure causing uncertainty
The Discipline Rules:
The Escalation Rule:
If a metric is RED two weeks in a row with the same action plan, escalate — the action plan isn't working.
How Many Metrics:
Pick 8-12 total. If a metric doesn't change your behavior when it moves, remove it. Dashboards with 40 metrics are decoration, not decision tools.
Common Mistake:
Vanity metrics that look good but don't predict business outcomes. Total downloads without adoption context. CEO headlines without supporting metrics.
The Pattern:
Without quarterly planning, companies drift. Each function optimizes locally. Sales chases deals outside ICP. Product builds features for one customer. Marketing runs campaigns that don't connect to pipeline.
The 3-Week Planning Cycle:
Week 1: Retrospective + Data Gathering
Week 2: Priority Setting (Leadership Half-Day)
Week 3: OKR Cascade + Resource Allocation
The Quarterly Commitment Format:
Q2 2026 Roadmap
North Star: [What we're optimizing for]
Pillar 1: Product (25% team effort)
Initiative: [Name]
Problem: [What we're solving]
Success: [Specific metric]
Owner: [Name]
Timeline: [When]
Pillar 2: GTM (50% team effort)
Initiative: [Name]
...
Pillar 3: People (10% effort)
Initiative: [Name]
...
Pillar 4: Tech Debt (15% effort)
Initiative: [Name]
...
The "Not Doing" List:
For every priority you add, identify one thing you're stopping. If you can't name what you're not doing, you have too many priorities.
Common Mistake:
Quarterly planning that produces a 30-page doc nobody reads. The output should be: 3-5 priorities on one page, each with owner and metric. That's it.
The Pattern:
At 20 people, the CEO makes every decision in real-time. Fast. At 100 people, decisions require alignment. Slow. At 300, decisions require alignment, approval, and documentation. Glacial.
The fix isn't more meetings. It's clear decision rights.
Decision Authority Matrix:
| Decision | Who Decides | Timeline | Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company strategy | CEO | 1 week | Board if strategic |
| Feature priority | Product lead | 1 week | CEO if >3 eng weeks |
| Customer support issue | CSM | Immediately | CS lead if escalated |
| Marketing campaign | Marketing lead | 2 weeks | CMO if >$10K budget |
| Hiring | Function leader | 2 weeks | CEO if role not approved |
| New partnership | CEO | 2 weeks | Board if strategic |
| Vendor selection | Function leader | 1 week | CEO if >$50K/year |
The Problem:
Scaling companies start treating reversible, low-stakes decisions like irreversible, high-stakes ones. Everything needs approval. Everything needs a meeting. Everything needs consensus.
The Fix:
Type 1 (Irreversible, high-stakes): Pricing model, market entry, major partnership → CEO/leadership decides with debate in one meeting. Timeline: 1-2 weeks max.
Type 2 (Reversible, low-stakes): Campaign creative, feature prioritization, single hire → Function owner decides, informs, iterates. Timeline: same day or next day.
Make decisions with 70% information, not 100%. Speed is a competitive advantage at every stage.
Common Mistake:
Consensus culture masquerading as collaboration. "Let's get everyone aligned" often means "nobody wants to decide." Name the decider. Let them decide. Move on.
The Pattern:
Synchronous meetings don't scale. Default to async, escalate to sync.
Async First (No Meeting Needed):
Sync When:
Documentation Discipline:
Every decision documented: What was decided? Why? Who decided? When does it take effect? Who needs to know?
Store in searchable format (wiki, shared drive). New hires onboard faster. Past decisions don't get relitigated.
Common Mistake:
"Quick sync" meetings that grow to consume 10 hours per week. Over-communicating in Slack (ephemeral, noisy) and under-communicating in persistent formats (docs, emails). The important stuff should be searchable 6 months later.
The Pattern:
The single highest-leverage communication tool at a scaling company. 5-10 minutes to write. Everyone reads it. It sets context, celebrates wins, names priorities, and creates shared understanding.
Format (Sent Sunday Night or Monday Morning):
1. Week Focus (1 paragraph): What's the priority this week? What should the team be focused on?
2. North Star Progress (1-2 bullets): Where are we on the key metric? Trend up/down/flat? Why does this matter?
3. Wins This Week (3-5 bullets): What shipped? Customer/partner wins? Big picture implication?
4. Blockers Getting Resolved (1-2 bullets): What are we unblocking this week? Who needs to know?
5. Ask (1 bullet, optional): What help does the team need? Referrals, feedback, customer introductions?
The Rule:
Same day every week. Consistency signals operational discipline. If you skip a week, the team notices — and starts wondering what you're not telling them.
Common Mistake:
Too long (team doesn't read), too detailed (save that for function meetings), only good news (team loses trust), inconsistent (team stops reading).
The Pattern:
The most powerful tool for speed isn't hierarchy — it's explicit role clarity. When someone knows exactly what they own and can't delegate it away, decisions happen faster.
How to Execute:
The Test:
Can you name the single person who owns this outcome? Not "the team" — a person. If you can't, the initiative will drift.
Common Mistake:
Assigning projects to multiple people ("everyone owns it" = nobody owns it). Measuring activity instead of impact. Burn rate going up without clear ROI tracking per initiative.
Company size <30?
├─ Yes → Levels 2-3 only (weekly functional + all-hands)
└─ No → Continue...
│
30-100 people?
├─ Yes → All 5 levels
└─ No → All 5 + skip-level reviews + function sub-cadences
Does it produce decisions?
├─ No → Can it be async?
│ ├─ Yes → Make it async, cancel the meeting
│ └─ No → Redesign with decision agenda
└─ Yes → Are the right people in the room?
├─ No → Fix attendee list (fewer > more)
└─ Yes → Keep it
1. Adding meetings as you grow Replace them. At 200 people, the CEO should be in fewer meetings than at 50.
2. Status update meetings If it can be an email, it should be an email. Meetings are for decisions.
3. Changing metrics every quarter Consistency enables trend identification. Same dashboard, every time.
4. Consensus culture Name the decider. Let them decide. Inform everyone else.
5. All information in Slack Ephemeral, noisy, unsearchable. Important decisions go in docs.
6. Quarterly planning that produces 30-page docs 3-5 priorities on one page. That's the output.
Meeting architecture: Daily standup (15 min) → Weekly functional (60 min) → Weekly all-hands (60 min) → Bi-weekly leadership (90 min) → Quarterly planning (half-day)
Weekly metric dashboard: 8-12 metrics, same format every week, traffic light colors, one context sentence per metric, owner + action + deadline for every RED
Quarterly planning cycle: Week 1: Retro + data → Week 2: Priority setting (3-5 max) → Week 3: OKR cascade + resources
Decision authority: Type 1 (irreversible): CEO/leadership, 1-2 weeks → Type 2 (reversible): Function owner, same day
CEO weekly update: Week focus → North star progress → Wins → Blockers → Ask
Information flow: Daily: Slack wins/customer-voice → Weekly: CEO email + function updates → Monthly: All-hands + skip-levels → Quarterly: Planning share + demos
Based on operating cadence design across companies scaling from 20 to 1,000+ employees, including the five-level meeting architecture that survived 3x headcount growth, the weekly reporting format that caught pipeline problems 3 weeks earlier than monthly reviews, and the CEO weekly update format refined across multiple companies. Not theory — patterns from building operating systems through hypergrowth and teaching them to the next team.
Weekly Installs
152
Repository
GitHub Stars
26.7K
First Seen
5 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
gemini-cli138
codex138
opencode138
cursor137
warp135
kimi-cli135
BMAD工作流编排与SSD结构化系统设计 - 多代理AI开发流程自动化
10,600 周安装