The LNO Framework
Most prioritization tells you which tasks to do. Shreyas Doshi's LNO framework answers a different and badly neglected question: how much effort does each task deserve? It is the antidote to the perfectionist instinct that treats every task as worthy of your A-game. That instinct sounds admirable, and it is actually how PMs burn out while their highest-leverage work goes half-done.
Doshi's insight is that effort should be allocated by a task's leverage, not by its presence on your list or by how visible it is. He sorts tasks into three types:
Leverage (L): Output value is many times the effort you put in. The product strategy memo, the hire, the framing of a hard problem, the customer insight that redirects the roadmap. Pour your best energy here, and over-invest, because the returns are super-linear. Neutral (N): Output value is roughly proportional to effort. Most routine PM work: a standard spec, a typical review. Do it competently and move on, because more polish does not pay. Overhead (O): Output value stays low no matter how much you put in. Expense reports, status formatting, scheduling, admin. The correct strategy is to satisfice: do the minimum acceptable, automate, or delegate. Effort here is nearly wasted.
| Type | Effort → value | The move |
|---|---|---|
| Leverage | Super-linear | Over-invest; bring your A-game |
| Neutral | Linear | Do it well, stop there |
| Overhead | Flat / low | Minimum viable; automate or delegate |
#Why this is the framework I correct people with most
The most common and most expensive mistake I see is applying uniform high effort across every task: gold-plating the Overhead and Neutral work while the one Leverage task gets your tired leftover hours. LNO reframes quality itself. Excellence is not doing everything excellently. It is matching effort to leverage. A B-minus on Overhead so you can deliver an A-plus on Leverage is not laziness, it is judgment, and internalizing that is one of the bigger force-multipliers in the job.
#How it fits with everything else
LNO operates on a different axis than the what frameworks, so it stacks cleanly with them. Once Impact-Likelihood or RICE has told you what to do, LNO tells you how hard to grind on each piece. It is the natural partner to Eisenhower too: Eisenhower decides whether a task survives at all, and LNO decides the effort it earns if it does. It also rhymes with Doshi's own three levels of product work, where Leverage tasks are usually Impact-level work and a lot of Overhead is Optics you can satisfice without guilt.
Two cautions. First, classification is judgment, not a formula, and people systematically misclassify the visible as Leverage because it gets noticed. Visibility is not leverage. Second, classifications are not permanent: a task that is Overhead for a Staff PM may be Leverage for an APM still building the skill. Re-sort by your current leverage, honestly. The framework is only as good as the cold eye you bring to the sort.
#Continue Reading
- The Three Levels of Product Work is Doshi's companion model, where Leverage maps to Impact-level work.
- The Eisenhower Matrix decides whether to touch a task, while LNO decides how hard.
- Prioritization Frameworks is the what layer that LNO's how much layer sits on top of.
- Outcomes Over Outputs for why over-investing in low-leverage output is busywork in disguise.
- The Frameworks Toolkit for the full index of tools and when each earns its place.