Abolish product managers
Product managers do not have functional expertise. Their job is not to code — engineers do that. It’s not to design user flows — designers do that. It’s not to interview users — researchers do that. It’s not to create brands — marketeers do that. It’s not to decide where to invest or how to price — finance managers do that. Granted, PMs should understand the basics of all these; but they’re not expected to be experts.
So what do PMs do? They lead teams. They are the de facto (if not de jure) team leads and points of contact for their area. Every team, in every company, in every industry, needs a leader. What’s strange about tech companies is that they’ve created a specific function/discipline for these leadership roles (some traditional companies also have a ‘general management’ function, but that’s usually at senior levels). There are two issues with this approach: first, it makes it harder to hire, because most companies do not really do a good job at defining the PM’s responsibilities, and therefore the skills the PM will need; and second, it makes it harder for people in other disciplines to become multi-functional leaders, even if they’d be good at it.
Here’s an alternative model that I’d consider if I were designing a tech org from scratch: I wouldn’t have a designated PM role. I’d have multi-functional teams that would include at least one of the following:
engineer(s): the people who build the stuff; one acts as the tech lead or engineering manager, and is responsible for breaking down the work of the squad into discrete chunks
designer: the person who designs the stuff engineers build
data scientist: the person who runs complex analyses and designs and evaluates experiments
business analyst/finance manager: the person who quantifies the squad’s impact, and helps prioritise among different ideas
There are additional functions that can either be embedded in the squad, or serve as central functions serving multiple squads -- these include user researchers, marketers, project managers, copy-writers, and others.
When people first join the company, they perform their functional role; after a year or two, those who are interested in it and who display leadership qualities can start assuming leadership roles - first, leading the work on specific projects/workstreams, and later assuming team lead roles. But crucially, until they reach senior management level, people remain in their function, and perform their functional and leadership role concurrently.
(One challenge to this is, if you’re not hiring people specifically to be leaders, how do you know that any of the people you hire will be good at it? I respond in two ways: the first is that few companies do a good job at screening for leadership anyway - at least, in my model, you’ll hire people who know how to do stuff. The second is, do it the P&G way: screen everyone for leadership potential.)
I think this model does away with ambiguity, ensures emerging leaders have deep expertise in at least one functional area, and gives everyone the option of becoming a cross-functional leader, thus expanding the pool of potential senior managers.
Obviously, abolishing product management as a function removes the need for a Chief Product Officer. That’s a good thing: having a CPO blurs roles and responsibilities at the executive level: whose role is to ensure high-quality tech delivery, the CPO’s or the CTO’s? Whose job is to ensure all company assets (including its user flows) are consistent and in line with its brand, the CPO’s or the CPO’s? Whose role is it to define the commercial strategy and pricing, the CPO’s or the CFO’s? Keep things simple. Avoid having a product function.