1/n it involves knowing what X is. And if you need X, there's a good chance you don't know what X really is ...
2/n
It means that you need to be able to figure out if the person really did X. Very few people operate in a vacuum. To ascribe X to one person is a dangerous slope.
3/n
It means that you are somehow able to predict whether the person can do X in your culture/situation. That is a huge stretch.
You are looking for someone who has done X ... in a similar context. Much harder
4/n
aha! you can figure this out by "talking to lots of people"
...but this follows the well-worn trap where especially privileged people assume that by merely talking to people, they can be good at something (like finding someone who has done X)
5/n
it assumes that you'll continue to need X!
So what happens when your context changes? Do you really want one-trick-pony team members who just do X?
6/n
you are writing off people who *could* do X (but haven't had the opportunity)
or finding people who are really good at saying they can do X (but aren't all that great)
... all to say that assuming we can magically find "people who have done it before" ... is a common trap
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been reading a lot of great threads about the difference between "idealized" product management & "real world" product management.
as someone who contributes a fair amount of content, and interacts w/ a wide cross-section of teams, it has really gotten me thinking
1/n
2/n
It goes w/o saying, but one problem we have here is communicating about "the real world" is exceedingly hard! Even in books. It takes...words.
Much easier? 1) Generalized, high-level, good-sounding advice 2) Angst 3) Pragmatism ("apply in context","be curious")
3/n
One of my big challenges w/social media is that -- and I have the data to prove this -- the more angsty, pragmatic, or generalized the advice...the more it is consumed.
What actual, specific, behaviors would we observe if someone was good at product thinking?
Specific enough that someone without a lot of tacit knowledge would be able to say “that’s happening”.
some off hand
1/n
Better Proxies for Value. We'd observe them challenge a "success metric" and ask if there was a better proxy for actual value exchange. Fewer overt vanity metrics (or at a minimum, leading indicators mapped to trailing indicators)
2/n
Consider multiple options. We'd observe them weighing a range of options to achieve the same effect (vs. simply prioritizing a list). "Well... some potential experiments might include..."
2) are attempts to frame lots of experience (e.g. based on the messy world I've seen, there are three categories of X)
And 3) pure teaching frameworks.
(1/n)
One is not better/worse, but they are different.
1. has been "tested" in context. That context is important
2. very much depends on the "observer", the collector of experiences. In some ways these are theoretical constructs.
3. needs the learning context outlined
(2/n)
Some of the most popular/helpful product blogposts of all time fit into the #2 cat. @reforge is incredible at this. They get product leaders together, and together write a post that presents a new model!
1) SME (e.g. healthcare, EMR)
and/or 2) deep persona expertise (e.g. nurses in large hospitals)
and/or 3) strong skills in a key PM skill area (e.g. analytics)
How about certifications (1/n)
IMHO, certifications can help in one of two situations:
1. A company with no product chops using something like "CSPO" to fill tons of newly opened positions because of an "agile transformation"
2. A signal you're serious...
#2 is interesting ... (2/n)
"As an SDR, I started to see how important it was to nail the product. I started to read everything I could. I took free courses. I paid for a product manager course"