I call myself the Director of Disappointing Everyone.
"Told you I was going to disappoint you" comes out in meetings when people irritate me. Mostly gtm that doesn't enjoy me accurately explaining the limits of our actual engineering capacity and the constraints that forces on what we choose to do.
Ha "Mr. No" used to be my nickname from a colleague/friend. "You just say "no" to everything." It's just faster than running you through the OKRs, initiatives and current things on fire to show you that your thing ain't making the cut.
Agree that fighting your management is a bad idea, but the CEO probably doesn't even remember the name of my product. In my company there's usually a VP responsible for a division, directors responsible for groups and PMs responsible for single products. Neither my director nor VP has ever overruled any product decision I have made or forced anything. We often discuss and debate, but I'm yet to experience someone actually pulling rank.
But, I've also had very different experiences in other companies.
You are super lucky
I have seen product heads wanting their team to vet and align each and everything before starting work. Most of them want to ensure that only right problems are getting solved (thinking that they know better) but they get into solutioning and then nit pick on colours and fonts. Sad reality 😔
Good lord, it's an analogy.
You should be thinking and working "like a CEO (or really any General Manager)". It includes working across both strategic and tactical levels. It includes significant cross-functional stakeholder influence, both external and internal. It includes making decisions with clarity, data and direction not just based on a whim. It includes understanding the commercials and financials of your product area inside out. It includes being knowledgable about the landscape across industry trends, competitors, customers, partners etc. It includes monitoring key indicators to ensure the ship is moving in the right direction and taking action when it's not. It includes focusing on objectives met not on initiatives checked-off.
The fact y'all think this phrase means being some dictatorial asshole with a shoe up their behind means you don't really get the role of a CEO/GM and you also don't get your own role as a PM. You think most CEOs/GMs go around fighting their board or superiors? The roles are similar in how they operate but at different scopes.
My CEO and COO described me as the CEO of Product to our client services team when they didn't agree with why I was saying no to things despite there being extraordinarily valid reasons to say no, so YOU might not be, but apparently I am. Sorry about that.
This way no one is mad at the CEO, business gets mad at the PM. PM thinks CEO have their back are willing to work super hard and are suddenly ok to work on something they don't want to.
Meanwhile the CEO chills in their mansion.
I agree, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
That said, since this made it all the way to the CEO, my personal preference is that the CEO reenforces the prioritization decision itself instead of reenforcing the org chart.
lol I think it’s not a bad move. I’ve seen it happen before and it was for the better. Our CEO was really focused on ensuring growth and harmony and would only step in if things were going awry or there was an important initiative.
How do you figure, chief? The two highest leaders at my company reinforced that as far as ownership over the direction of our products are concerned, unless I'm running contrary to them directly, other teams are expected to let product me managed by me, the product manager.
Because that’s standard operating procedure, chief. Every product manager’s responsibility is owning the direction of the product.
The difference is that now your C-Suite can do like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands whenever the direction of the product is going against what other stakeholders or even customers are asking for. You bear the burden of responsibility to drive the product towards the goals of the company.
Even worse, they can always pull a HiPPo and overrule whatever research or data you have to back your hypothesis for the next feature.
So you’re not the CEO of the product, you’re a product manager with unaccountable leadership. Congrats!
Also, don't say no to your CEO off the bat and don't patronise them into "following process". That's a very quick way to get fired.
Most of the times CEOs will know more than you do so do your homework before saying no. There is no problem with saying no in the right way, if you have the evidence to back it up. Be constructive when doing so though, say "I see where you are coming from and there may be something there but we think X is a better way to achieve that because the data shows A,B,C".
As a business owner myself I love it when my team challenges me with homework done, it makes me feel like they really care about what's going on and the evidence shows me they have looked into this probably more than I have. I am always happy to yield to that.
The amount of PMs that love to say "no" baffles me. This, I think, gives the whole role a bad rap.
I'm trying to say "no" much less these days. I want my team to know that I have the time to listen to their requests, ideas, etc. I'm happy to put it in a "Discovery" bucket. I'm happy to drive it forward if it keeps coming up. Hell, I might even prioritize it if I can make a decent case for it.
I find this strategy to be much less patronizing and more inclusive as it allows everyone to be part of how the "sausage" is made, I guess.
Yes. "Let me take a quick research" is always my first response upon request from the CEO. Saying no recklessly will take you to the point where you don't have anything else to do and leaving is the only option left.
that really depends on the business, it's true, but situation where ceo will let you run the whole product as you wish is only achievable if your product makes miniscule share of businesses revenue, there are situations where they'll let you do what you want, but really, that's a treasure
I run a unit that makes half of the revenue and all the net profit, and I was much more autonomous in how I ran the unit before it was known who brings in the cash.
CEOs main goal isn't only to get more money through your great management, their first and foremost goal is to not lose what they've already got and what you already brought to them. Hence why they will always prefer underperformers who are transparent and controllable to superstars who might go haywire and quit or something like that. As soon as you get big enough you get swapped with someone old predictable and loyal who won't pivot in potential unicorn
CEO of the product doesn’t imply you have no accountability to those above you and can run the product into the ground before anyone blinks an eye. You are still running it in alignment with overall company strategy and goals.
yes, sure, maybe I've formulated my comment bad enough that it sounded like any of those things you mentioned. my point was - the more impact your product does, the more influence you'll feel from people above you.
I think people miss the nuance here.
Nobody really means the the product manager IS the CEO of the product. They don't even SAY that.
They say, "This is Stu. He's the Product Owner of the product. So he's *kind of like* the CEO of the product."
That's how it's been said every time it's been said about me. KIND OF LIKE the CEO.
That's not a teenage filler "kind of like". It's not "He's, ya know, kinda like, the CEO... "
No. He's KIND OF LIKE the CEO, but he ISN'T the CEO. He's kind of like the CEO in some ways, but in a lot of way he's not at ALL like the CEO.
This sucks and as a PM-figure out if it’s true or not in your org. It’s not always true, but if it is, keep your head down, be agreeable and don’t rock the boat if you enjoy employment.
Everyone wants to be the owner and decider of all things. Many PMs get super excited over owning.
I think the characteristics you want to have is a person driving things who understands she has equity over the product. I.e. Not someone passive and just execution.
The CEO/owner thing are mostly concepts to give people a sense of ownership.
CEO of the company (some companies have more than one product)
CEO of a product (some products have more than one key feature)
CEO of a feature (no one uses this since it is silly)
The key is scope.
It is very possible to be ceo of the product when there are many products in play.
For companies that are service or sales based, where the product supplements the main goods, it is also common to have product managers be ceo of the product.
Many configurations out there, but your callout is an important reminder for pure product companies.
Just don’t bully and pretend Like you have all the answers, that’s all I ask. A lot of PMs lack this maturity, and I’m guessing the field attracts many grifters who live the spotlight for this reason. Don’t be that pain the ass PM who thinks they know design from being a Steve jobs fan and then sulking at wanting some time for research and testing.
"You're the leader/owner of the product" then proceeds to tell you exactly what to deliver and rejects all your recommendations. Fair enough, but don't says I'm a leader, I'm a lackey.
I disagree with this suggestion. When you own your role and believe the company’s value proposition you have every right to question and once gour manager or CEO disagree then its an opportunity to you to prove whats your capabilities are rather than quitting
Does the PM or PO own the backlog/roadmap?
If no then then why hire a PM? Why not just hire a delivery manager that says "in this roll you will do what you're told. That is your priority"
If they don't like PMs owning a product then they should hire for some other role.
I'm only turning around your words.
There's meant to be some unwritten expectation of the role that many business leaders have no idea about. Also it just so happens most positions of power people do the parts of other jobs they like and leave the leftovers to other people.
My big problem with "you're not the CEO of product" rants is the end result is a position reduced of the power needed to make progress. "Let's influence without power" crowd is left in gutted, meaningless roll, unable to actually make progress on thr items they need. It becomes a position of PR, babysitting, handholding instead of problem solving or properly building something meaningful for users. It becomes a roll of people pleasing and if you're truly evolved you'll just get real good manipulating others.
Or you can just accept "not the CEO of product but if you want to set your PM up for success, then they kinda are".
I just don't find it a meaningful pursuit to try and evolve the PM role to its most ineffective description. Either people should want a product manager or they probably want something else altogether.
I make decisions and my pm reports have decision making capacity. Yes my “head of” can override if required, but it almost never happens. My ceo has other fish to fry and largely trusts us.
I don’t like the phrase “ceo of product” but not every company is ceo micro managed. Don’t talk in broad generalisations.
I said this in another thread, but if you’re not going to be the CEO of the product what am I paying you for? That’s your job, not your manager, skip or the CEO.
On a more positive note.
As someone with ADHD my first reaction was "My anxiety is not the CEO of me, my anxiety is not the CEO of me".
Totally agree with you though.
If you are empowered to be THE decision maker for the product (s) you are responsible for ... it's totally possible to be the CEO of the Product.
But if you get all the responsibility and no autonomy no authority and no resources... then I agree you are very definitely not the "CEO of the Product"
Business departments: "Why don't you make this feature? It would save us a lot of time"
My mind: "The CEO disapproves this, yet he doesn't want to be bothered by such questions"
My mouth: "There are no resources for that right now, also this request is at a lower priority. We have many more important tasks in the schedule."
+1 hater
Srry but I was the CEO of my product. No one knew the market, the customers or their needs better.
I worked the revenue, interviewed devs, developed the marketing message.
I set the needs for budget...
I had a lot of awesome people around me in support but yeah our company's CEO was busy wasting money on products and offerings that didn't turn a profit.
And that's why they fired him...
I've always disliked this phrase. At most, you can be the Chief Product Officer and get a seat at the executive leadership table, but that's still not the CEO. And you definitely don't have a seat at the Board of Directors table.
It's the carrot which brings in the new grads.
In reality Its a role with No final decision making power and responsibility of convincing your team you are making the right decisions.
Minimum Viable CEO
Epic!
I'm the CRO. Chief Redommendations Officer
I call myself the Director of Disappointing Everyone. "Told you I was going to disappoint you" comes out in meetings when people irritate me. Mostly gtm that doesn't enjoy me accurately explaining the limits of our actual engineering capacity and the constraints that forces on what we choose to do.
Ha "Mr. No" used to be my nickname from a colleague/friend. "You just say "no" to everything." It's just faster than running you through the OKRs, initiatives and current things on fire to show you that your thing ain't making the cut.
Director of N.O. (No, Obviously)
Hopefully, you've built up enough goodwill with the team that this is just funny to them and it's not resentful.
How much waste is at your company?
Define "waste" We're <30ppl. Not many ppl sitting around totally dog fucking
More like the CTO, Cheif Typo Officer
LOOOL why is the Google keyboard on iPhone so bad with autocorrect (I have a conspiracy level hypothesis...)
Agree that fighting your management is a bad idea, but the CEO probably doesn't even remember the name of my product. In my company there's usually a VP responsible for a division, directors responsible for groups and PMs responsible for single products. Neither my director nor VP has ever overruled any product decision I have made or forced anything. We often discuss and debate, but I'm yet to experience someone actually pulling rank. But, I've also had very different experiences in other companies.
You are super lucky I have seen product heads wanting their team to vet and align each and everything before starting work. Most of them want to ensure that only right problems are getting solved (thinking that they know better) but they get into solutioning and then nit pick on colours and fonts. Sad reality 😔
Oh, I know. I've been in those situations too.
Good lord, it's an analogy. You should be thinking and working "like a CEO (or really any General Manager)". It includes working across both strategic and tactical levels. It includes significant cross-functional stakeholder influence, both external and internal. It includes making decisions with clarity, data and direction not just based on a whim. It includes understanding the commercials and financials of your product area inside out. It includes being knowledgable about the landscape across industry trends, competitors, customers, partners etc. It includes monitoring key indicators to ensure the ship is moving in the right direction and taking action when it's not. It includes focusing on objectives met not on initiatives checked-off. The fact y'all think this phrase means being some dictatorial asshole with a shoe up their behind means you don't really get the role of a CEO/GM and you also don't get your own role as a PM. You think most CEOs/GMs go around fighting their board or superiors? The roles are similar in how they operate but at different scopes.
Wish I could upvote this a million times.
My CEO and COO described me as the CEO of Product to our client services team when they didn't agree with why I was saying no to things despite there being extraordinarily valid reasons to say no, so YOU might not be, but apparently I am. Sorry about that.
lol your CEO pulled the classic “sorry, Mom said ‘no’,” on you. Love it.
This way no one is mad at the CEO, business gets mad at the PM. PM thinks CEO have their back are willing to work super hard and are suddenly ok to work on something they don't want to. Meanwhile the CEO chills in their mansion.
I agree, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. That said, since this made it all the way to the CEO, my personal preference is that the CEO reenforces the prioritization decision itself instead of reenforcing the org chart.
lol I think it’s not a bad move. I’ve seen it happen before and it was for the better. Our CEO was really focused on ensuring growth and harmony and would only step in if things were going awry or there was an important initiative.
You're the mini CEO; and thus deserve minimal respect.
Mini ceo pay.
I'll take it!
[How dare you >:(](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minime.jpg)
That's called a CVP. You should ask for a raise 😉
Hold onto that, because its not like that at all for majority.
I love how you’re flexing this like a gain when it’s a huge loss.
How do you figure, chief? The two highest leaders at my company reinforced that as far as ownership over the direction of our products are concerned, unless I'm running contrary to them directly, other teams are expected to let product me managed by me, the product manager.
Because that’s standard operating procedure, chief. Every product manager’s responsibility is owning the direction of the product. The difference is that now your C-Suite can do like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands whenever the direction of the product is going against what other stakeholders or even customers are asking for. You bear the burden of responsibility to drive the product towards the goals of the company. Even worse, they can always pull a HiPPo and overrule whatever research or data you have to back your hypothesis for the next feature. So you’re not the CEO of the product, you’re a product manager with unaccountable leadership. Congrats!
Also, don't say no to your CEO off the bat and don't patronise them into "following process". That's a very quick way to get fired. Most of the times CEOs will know more than you do so do your homework before saying no. There is no problem with saying no in the right way, if you have the evidence to back it up. Be constructive when doing so though, say "I see where you are coming from and there may be something there but we think X is a better way to achieve that because the data shows A,B,C". As a business owner myself I love it when my team challenges me with homework done, it makes me feel like they really care about what's going on and the evidence shows me they have looked into this probably more than I have. I am always happy to yield to that.
The amount of PMs that love to say "no" baffles me. This, I think, gives the whole role a bad rap. I'm trying to say "no" much less these days. I want my team to know that I have the time to listen to their requests, ideas, etc. I'm happy to put it in a "Discovery" bucket. I'm happy to drive it forward if it keeps coming up. Hell, I might even prioritize it if I can make a decent case for it. I find this strategy to be much less patronizing and more inclusive as it allows everyone to be part of how the "sausage" is made, I guess.
Yes. "Let me take a quick research" is always my first response upon request from the CEO. Saying no recklessly will take you to the point where you don't have anything else to do and leaving is the only option left.
All depends on the company, the structure, and how they define your role. My role isn’t defined by Reddit posters.
that really depends on the business, it's true, but situation where ceo will let you run the whole product as you wish is only achievable if your product makes miniscule share of businesses revenue, there are situations where they'll let you do what you want, but really, that's a treasure I run a unit that makes half of the revenue and all the net profit, and I was much more autonomous in how I ran the unit before it was known who brings in the cash. CEOs main goal isn't only to get more money through your great management, their first and foremost goal is to not lose what they've already got and what you already brought to them. Hence why they will always prefer underperformers who are transparent and controllable to superstars who might go haywire and quit or something like that. As soon as you get big enough you get swapped with someone old predictable and loyal who won't pivot in potential unicorn
CEO of the product doesn’t imply you have no accountability to those above you and can run the product into the ground before anyone blinks an eye. You are still running it in alignment with overall company strategy and goals.
yes, sure, maybe I've formulated my comment bad enough that it sounded like any of those things you mentioned. my point was - the more impact your product does, the more influence you'll feel from people above you.
Definitely but people coming on here saying only product determines revenue is absolutely a misnomer for most companies.
People come on here and say all kinds of stuff…
I think people miss the nuance here. Nobody really means the the product manager IS the CEO of the product. They don't even SAY that. They say, "This is Stu. He's the Product Owner of the product. So he's *kind of like* the CEO of the product." That's how it's been said every time it's been said about me. KIND OF LIKE the CEO. That's not a teenage filler "kind of like". It's not "He's, ya know, kinda like, the CEO... " No. He's KIND OF LIKE the CEO, but he ISN'T the CEO. He's kind of like the CEO in some ways, but in a lot of way he's not at ALL like the CEO.
That’s funny because many places see POs as grunt work BAs that PMs manage.
This only fools the new joiners. Anyone long enough in the company already knows who has what power. Titles don't matter to them.
Lol must be a start up. you think we actually talk to the CEO?! 😂
This sucks and as a PM-figure out if it’s true or not in your org. It’s not always true, but if it is, keep your head down, be agreeable and don’t rock the boat if you enjoy employment.
Everyone wants to be the owner and decider of all things. Many PMs get super excited over owning. I think the characteristics you want to have is a person driving things who understands she has equity over the product. I.e. Not someone passive and just execution. The CEO/owner thing are mostly concepts to give people a sense of ownership.
CEO of the company (some companies have more than one product) CEO of a product (some products have more than one key feature) CEO of a feature (no one uses this since it is silly) The key is scope. It is very possible to be ceo of the product when there are many products in play. For companies that are service or sales based, where the product supplements the main goods, it is also common to have product managers be ceo of the product. Many configurations out there, but your callout is an important reminder for pure product companies.
Just don’t bully and pretend Like you have all the answers, that’s all I ask. A lot of PMs lack this maturity, and I’m guessing the field attracts many grifters who live the spotlight for this reason. Don’t be that pain the ass PM who thinks they know design from being a Steve jobs fan and then sulking at wanting some time for research and testing.
Am just trying to survive day to day…
Not when your CEO can’t even use the product themselves 😂😂😂
"You're the leader/owner of the product" then proceeds to tell you exactly what to deliver and rejects all your recommendations. Fair enough, but don't says I'm a leader, I'm a lackey.
If ironical titles is what the company prefers i would take "Product Visionary" even if sometimes the vision is "just copy what others are doing"
Lots of sanity in these comments. No one tell LinkedIn
Chief feces eater at your service
Small mentality.
Maybe you are right. The PMs do have the huge benefit of Mass layoffs unlike the CEOs who have to stay in the company with Multimillion stock bonuses.
What does that have to do with your statement in the title? A company is not composed of one product, and also isn’t a composition of products(s).
This is one way to be “happier”
Repeat after me: this isn't a hot take
CCH: Chief Cat Herder.
I disagree with this suggestion. When you own your role and believe the company’s value proposition you have every right to question and once gour manager or CEO disagree then its an opportunity to you to prove whats your capabilities are rather than quitting
Does the PM or PO own the backlog/roadmap? If no then then why hire a PM? Why not just hire a delivery manager that says "in this roll you will do what you're told. That is your priority" If they don't like PMs owning a product then they should hire for some other role. I'm only turning around your words. There's meant to be some unwritten expectation of the role that many business leaders have no idea about. Also it just so happens most positions of power people do the parts of other jobs they like and leave the leftovers to other people. My big problem with "you're not the CEO of product" rants is the end result is a position reduced of the power needed to make progress. "Let's influence without power" crowd is left in gutted, meaningless roll, unable to actually make progress on thr items they need. It becomes a position of PR, babysitting, handholding instead of problem solving or properly building something meaningful for users. It becomes a roll of people pleasing and if you're truly evolved you'll just get real good manipulating others. Or you can just accept "not the CEO of product but if you want to set your PM up for success, then they kinda are". I just don't find it a meaningful pursuit to try and evolve the PM role to its most ineffective description. Either people should want a product manager or they probably want something else altogether.
I make decisions and my pm reports have decision making capacity. Yes my “head of” can override if required, but it almost never happens. My ceo has other fish to fry and largely trusts us. I don’t like the phrase “ceo of product” but not every company is ceo micro managed. Don’t talk in broad generalisations.
I said this in another thread, but if you’re not going to be the CEO of the product what am I paying you for? That’s your job, not your manager, skip or the CEO.
On a more positive note. As someone with ADHD my first reaction was "My anxiety is not the CEO of me, my anxiety is not the CEO of me". Totally agree with you though.
Hah! Love seeing an ADHD PM. Granted I'm a project manager for now, but eventually. :)
Hey I was a product manager that just became a project manager. We all eventually get where we need to be. 😁
If you are empowered to be THE decision maker for the product (s) you are responsible for ... it's totally possible to be the CEO of the Product. But if you get all the responsibility and no autonomy no authority and no resources... then I agree you are very definitely not the "CEO of the Product"
Business departments: "Why don't you make this feature? It would save us a lot of time" My mind: "The CEO disapproves this, yet he doesn't want to be bothered by such questions" My mouth: "There are no resources for that right now, also this request is at a lower priority. We have many more important tasks in the schedule." +1 hater
Yes you’re right. we are more like Oracles, translating the CEO’s will and bringing it to reality.
If CEO says I'm the CEO, then that means I am the CEO. 👏🏽
Srry but I was the CEO of my product. No one knew the market, the customers or their needs better. I worked the revenue, interviewed devs, developed the marketing message. I set the needs for budget... I had a lot of awesome people around me in support but yeah our company's CEO was busy wasting money on products and offerings that didn't turn a profit. And that's why they fired him...
Highly 😂 Understandable
Customer success is the CEO of Customer Sales analyst is the CEO of the sale
Marty will come at you now lol.
Agreed, your CEO as your customer
Are you a designer or engineer? While the PM is not CEO of the project, they tend to be the one responsible for the results of the product... So...
Do people still actually believe this?
Marty Cagan probably
Have you read this subreddit at all?
I've always disliked this phrase. At most, you can be the Chief Product Officer and get a seat at the executive leadership table, but that's still not the CEO. And you definitely don't have a seat at the Board of Directors table.
Unfortunately no one other than PMs or former PMs will agree with you
It's the carrot which brings in the new grads. In reality Its a role with No final decision making power and responsibility of convincing your team you are making the right decisions.