The Daily Dichotomies of Product Leadership
The Daily Dichotomies of Product Leadership
Practice holding opposing views to make you a stronger leader.
Product leaders are empowered to take on a lot of responsibility for the feature, function or domain area assigned to them. Yet, it is far more common for Product Leaders to doubt their own capabilities and decision-making skills.
Some reasons discussed previously include:
PM skills are usually developed on the job — PMs may not have prior experience in solving similar problems in the past
PMs are often expected to have all the answers — they are accountable and responsible for getting the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ correct
PMs fill gaps in their shortcomings, to meet a perceived level of quality, but end up feeling like a fraud in the process.
As a result, product leaders often find themselves being pulled in so many different directions, often feeling as if they could have been in the same position if they did not make any decision at all!
Here are some common juxtaposing positions I’ve often found myself in during my Product leadership career, and some tips that may help you navigate them.
1. Unwavering Vision vs. Pivoting Agility
A strong product leader understands the difference between Product Strategy, Vision and Roadmap.
However, product leaders must also know when to be flexible in their plans. Significant externalities (e.g., the global financial crisis of 2008, and the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020), have asked leaders to completely overhaul their business models and underlying product strategies to survive.
So, how does one know which parts of their vision and strategy should never change, and which parts should change to adapt to shorter term priorities to ensure longer-term viability?
The answer lies in how well your vision was crafted, and whether it aligns with what Simon Sinek explores to as your “just cause”, a cause for which you would never budge from, one where you would willingly sacrifice personal interest and short-term gains to advance it.
By focussing on the just cause, a leader can create longer-term defensible and sustainable competitive advantage, anchoring your strategy around some key questions:
If you didn’t act now to change your plans?
What would your “risk of not acting” be?
Are you able to justify decisions through data, and why certain initiatives have already been chosen?
Why this? Why now?
What outcomes or business goal does <upcoming initiatives> drive?
If you cannot reconcile with the reasons why you ended up solving a problem, and can’t adjust your solutions to meet your users needs, it may mean you are solving the wrong problem altogether.
2. Speed vs. Quality
PMs continuously receive feature requests to add to their backlog. Upon receiving them, PMs must evaluate and evidence to validate the problem and solution, and sense check their strategic aims before accepting. That, or use a “positive no” when rejecting requests.
Tactfully Rejecting Feature Requests
Master the art of communicating a “positive no”productcoalition.com
When accepting a feature request, the PM usually takes a ‘minimum viable product’ (MVP) approach, as per the commonly used Lean Startup approach, coined by Eric Ries. Yet, while an MVP has been communicated to stakeholders during product reviews, stakeholders often expect a higher level of quality, delivering above and beyond the minimum level expectation.
PMs must find a way to invest an appropriate the most efficient amount of time on a solution, ultimately making trade-offs to choose whether their solution is Good, Cheap or Fast (but not all at once!).
What I’ve found useful in my career is to prioritise quality at the utmost, but never compromise on the speed to get there. For those complaining about dates: you can always negotiate. You can negotiate with stakeholders, and with clients, so long as you remain truthful, transparent and collaborative.
There are always ways to negotiate the time needed to deliver features and commitments, especially in businesses with strong B2B accounts expecting specific value from features delivered. If you have a B2C product: even better —you can launch your experiments via A/B testing in your own time!
Simply start with a MVP, and be open and collaborative with your customers to fix problems as they arise, providing transparent updates along the way.
3. Trust vs. Steer
Product leaders need to demonstrate a level of control over the broad direction and vision of a product, as well as the scope and acceptance criteria of a deliverable or product feature. After all, that’s what documentation, such as user acceptance criteria and product requirements definition, are for.
We often simplify PM roles to providing the answer to ‘what’ problem should be solved and ‘why’, then letting teams discover and deliver the solutions needed to meet the compelling problem to be solved (i.e. the how). In most cases, this is an adequate enough distinction between PMs and engineers.
That said, it can be extremely tempting for product leaders to specify the exact method (“how”) of delivery. This happens especially when:
PMs have biases towards solution ideas they hold fondly;
PMs have released a similar deliverable in the past in a previous role or product;
PMs gain impatience with team members for taking too long to deliver the product requirements, perhaps driven by demanding stakeholders; or
PMs do not have seasoned experience as a Product Manager in the past, potentially transitioning from a project delivery role towards Product.
But telling teams ‘how’ things should be done, can be completely disastrous and demotivating.
By just focussing on the ‘what and why’, you make your way from manager to leader. You provide room for creative problem-solving and for teams to explore various solutions, rather than being constrained by preconceived notions of how things should be done.
Leaders should set a compelling problem to be solved, provide context on why the problem exists, what hypotheses need to be validated and link them to business objectives, before then delegating tasks to their teams, empowering them to take ownership and contribute their skills.
As Daniel Pink, writer of Drive puts it:
“Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another. And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives.”
― Daniel H. Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
Marty Cagan also emphasizes the significance of empowered product teams and how they can drive innovation and create successful products, in his book: “Inspired: How To Create Products Customers Love”. He believes that leaders must trust the expertise and judgment of the team members, while providing them with a clear vision and goals. He also acknowledges that excessive control can stifle creativity and hinder the ability to respond effectively to changes and customer needs.
4. Art vs. Science
If Product Management is purely scientific, then we omit visual narrative, storytelling, creative expression, innovative design and flair. visual design, human interaction and much more.
If Product Management is entirely artistic, we omit systematic research, analysis, testing, repeatable processes, and measurement.
The most influential product leader understands the right balance between the two. IDEO, a renowned design firm, exemplifies the interplay between art and science through their Design Thinking approach: a non-linear, iterative process that usually five stages, as proposed by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (the d.school).
The five stages of design thinking, according to the d.school, are:
Empathise: research your users’ needs.
Define: state your users’ needs and problems.
Ideate: challenge assumptions and create ideas.
Prototype: start to create solutions.
Test: try your solutions out.
The “art” in their process is used heavily during the first 3 steps: empathetic understanding, brainstorming, and creative ideation. Designers tap into their intuition to envision novel solutions that resonate with users emotionally.
The “science” in their process is most visible in their user research and iterative testing during steps 3 and 4. IDEO collects data, analyses user behaviours, and employs prototyping to validate concepts. This empirical approach refines ideas based on real-world feedback, ensuring practicality and effectiveness
As Teo Yu Siang and the Interaction Design Foundation says:
It is important to note the five stages of design thinking are not always sequential.
They do not have to follow a specific order, and they can often occur in parallel or be repeated iteratively.
The stages should be understood as different modes which contribute to the entire design project, rather than sequential steps.
IDEO’s success lies in harmonizing art and science. IDEO created thousands of breakthrough inventions including the first computer mouse for Apple, the stand-up toothpaste tube, and a better Pringle for Procter & Gamble. IDEO may be the most influential product design company in the world.
They blend human-centered design intuition with data-backed insights, creating products that delight users while addressing genuine needs. This balance allows IDEO to innovate imaginatively while grounding their solutions in a rational, user-driven framework: a perfect balance between artistic creativity and scientific rigor.
5. Feature Parity vs. Differentiation
A common tension exists between meeting user expectations and standing out in a competitive market. Product leaders may feel pressured to work on “Feature parity”, when they operate in a red ocean of many similar competitor offerings. Feature parity involves offering what competitors provide to satisfy baseline user needs, ensuring competitiveness.
Conversely, “Differentiation” requires innovative features that set a product apart, and is essential in achieving competitive advantage, as emphasized by Michael Porter in his competitive strategy framework, and perhaps most elegantly shown in the U-shaped cost curve below:
Michael Porter’s U-shaped cost curve depicts the crucial interplay between cost advantage and differentiation. Early on the curve, pursuing cost leadership involves cutting costs, but overemphasis can erode differentiation. Moving along the curve, investments to differentiate your product leads to unique offerings and revenue, but often increases upfront costs to reach it. The curve’s nadir signifies the sweet spot: optimal differentiation balancing added-value and costs.
It should be acknowledged that feature parity is not always a bad thing: especially if you operate in a market where there are basic ‘must-be’ requirements that many of your competitors do with ease. Take for example an e-commerce or payments product: if the core transaction process cannot be performed without error, there is no point in focussing on differentiation.
Product Leaders can quickly identify features and opportunities that can be considered ‘must be’ through various prioritisation methods. I would recommend any leader to apply a ‘five why’s’ approach, doing strategic competitive assessment per value chain step, as well as adopting a Kano model. I deep dive on these methods within this previous article.
Effective leaders navigate this juxtaposition by understanding core user needs and pinpoints, while introducing distinct, value-adding features and unique selling propositions. They leverage user feedback and market analysis to prioritize differentiators strategically, enhancing user experiences and attracting new customers without sacrificing essential functionality.
6. Customer-Centric vs. Market-Centric:
Product leadership grapples with the tension between being customer-centric and market-centric. A “customer-centric” approach focuses on deeply understanding and addressing individual customer needs, fostering loyalty and personalized experiences. Conversely, a “market-centric” approach emphasizes broader trends and demands, targeting a wider audience for growth.
I found this exceptionally challenging in my time at TIER Mobility, the largest shared micro mobility operator (e.g., electric scooters, electric and pedal bikes and cargo bikes) in Europe. While our target user was the consumer, the rider of each of our vehicles, we needed to also cater to the needs of the cities and local transportation authorities that had influence over the rules and policies that govern the legal operations of scooters in these cities today and in future.
Without continually evaluating trends and top problem areas of each city and their authorities, nor delivering solutions that solve the city’s needs (e.g., pollution, cluttered streets, safety), we could not gain the license to operate vehicles in the city. However, many of these requirements often had a detrimental impact to user experience, such as mandatory parking or multi-step ID verifications during onboarding. To succeed, our product leaders needed to navigate the leanest possible way to solve city problems whilst not introducing any friction to the user.
While customer-centricity is obviously key to developing loyalty with users, overemphasising it can risk overly niche solutions that miss the overall needs that apply to the general market you operate in, missing broader market opportunities. Conversely, an exclusive market focus might lead to generic products that don’t deeply resonate with users, or potentially is not customer-centric enough to make the user feel loved or valuable.
Effective product leaders integrate both approaches by analysing customer insights within the larger market context, finding solutions that address individual user needs while aligning with the broader market trends over the short to medium term, for scalable success.
I have found that there’s no clean formula to this balance, but setting primary KPIs and North Star metrics, whilst also establishing threshold counter metrics (i.e. metrics that should not degrade regardless of what you implement) can allow you to decide with a risk-weighted approach.
If you want more information about Counter Metrics, check out this wonderful article written by Clement Kao!
7. Big Picture Thinking vs. Sheer Focus
“Big Picture Thinking” involves envisioning the broader strategy, long-term goals, and market trends. It ensures alignment with the company’s overarching vision. On the other hand, “Sheer Focus” entails concentrating intensely on specific tasks, features, or projects to achieve immediate results.
Yet, how can one find the right equilibrium? Excessive big picture thinking may lead to vague execution, while sheer focus might cause tunnel vision, missing strategic opportunities.
Effective product leaders harmonize both by defining a clear vision while prioritizing focused, incremental steps to achieve it. They provide inspirational narratives of a truly compelling problem to solve, large business objectives that may break down into high level KPIs or North Star Metrics for teams, communicate the larger vision, and empower teams to execute with precision.
Alistair Croll and Benjamin Yoskovitz, in their book “Lean Analytics: Use Data to Build a Better Startup Faster”, talk about using “One Metric That Matters”, offering case studies and examples that illustrate how different companies have successfully implemented North Star Metrics to guide their product development strategies. These metrics go beyond traditional vanity metrics and provide a deeper understanding of how the product is meeting customer needs and driving meaningful outcomes.
By combining big picture insights with focused execution on a bold North Star Metric, leaders navigate complexity while driving tangible progress toward long-term objectives. This balance enable continuous improvement while ensuring tangible, timely outcomes.
8. Knowing The Answers vs. Acting Humble
Let’s face it: we all love it when someone asks a question when we know all the answers. We demonstrate our knowledge, increase our conviction, but also may risk us looking like the obnoxious know-it-all, lacking humility and grace. This tension centres on the delicate balance between one’s craft and expertise, and one’s openness to learning.
“Knowing the answers” involves leveraging one’s knowledge and experience to make confident decisions based on past successes. Conversely, “Acting humble” entails acknowledging that no one has all the answers and remaining receptive to new ideas and perspectives.
Overemphasizing knowing the answer can lead to rigidity and a resistance to change, hindering productivity and collaboration between teams. Conversely, being overly focused on humility might erode personal and team confidence in you as a leader, and potentially hinder timely decision-making, especially in situations when you don’t have time to evaluate the many risks at bay.
Effective product leaders navigate this by blending both approaches. They rely on their expertise while recognizing that innovation requires humility and a willingness to challenge assumptions. They cultivate a culture that values diverse insights and fosters continuous learning.
Striking this balance enables leaders to make informed decisions while staying adaptable, fostering a dynamic and successful product development environment.
Final Thoughts
In the complex realm of product leadership, the balancing act between these divergent principles is the crucible where effective leaders are forged. The journey of a product leader is fraught with many paradoxes, whether it be navigating the terrain of:
Unwavering vision vs. pivoting agility
Speed vs. quality
Trust vs. steer
Art vs. Science
Feature parity vs. differentiation
Customer-centricity vs. market-centricity
Big picture thinking vs. sheer focus
Knowing the answers vs. acting humble
… and many more!
While each of the dichotomies above require a mastery of delicate equilibrium rather than the absolute adherence to one side, the key message that I would love for you to take away is that:
…these juxtaposing forces are not hurdles, but opportunities for growth, creativity, and resilience!
We never know how best to handle each scenario, but by failing, learning, and collecting war stories along the way, we can help each other navigate these dichotomies and create a powerful leadership culture that benefits the entire Product and Technology community as a whole. As leaders, we must continue to refine this balance, craft a legacy of exceptional products, and nurture a culture where the interplay of contrasts leads to continual improvement and progress.
I would love to hear about your approaches and the daily dichotomies you face in product leadership. Share some of your tips by placing a comment below, or by finding me on my usual social spots: Twitter and LinkedIn.