Phil Keiken
The great fallacy: “I’m the CEO of the product!”
While a product manager should embody many traits of a CEO, they are - most emphatically - not the CEO of the product.
I’m sure many have heard the statement made by a product manager, ‘I’m the CEO of the product!’. You can even read best-selling books authored by some of our industry gurus that preach this belief. It’s become a commonly communicated perspective. Look around, the concept has even become a joke in dozens of memes depicting product managers as the dictator of the development team. Check out mainstream platforms like Instagram and see it circulating for yourself. Well, I’d like to go on the record and proclaim:
‘The product manager is NOT the CEO of the product!’.
Don’t get me wrong, I am hopeful that those expressing their belief that the product manager is the CEO of the product have good intentions. For example, the product manager should embody many traits of a CEO.
Similar traits
Leadership: Both roles require strong leadership skills to guide and inspire teams towards achieving shared goals. They must motivate teams to drive innovation and excellence.
Business acumen: Product managers and CEOs need a deep understanding of the business landscape. They must be aware of market trends, customer needs, and industry dynamics to make informed decisions.
Goal alignment: Both roles focus on aligning objectives with broader business goals. They strive to ensure that every effort contributes to the organization’s success.
Cross-functional collaboration: Both product managers and CEOs collaborate with various teams and stakeholders, fostering an environment of effective communication and collaboration.
This is all very true. And I wouldn’t argue with this comparison. If the statement was limited to similar traits shared between a CEO and a product manager, I doubt anyone would disagree with the concept. However, the traits associated with a role versus the responsibilities and accountabilities associated with a role are very, very different things.
Responsibility and accountability differences
Elevation: CEOs are responsible for overall company strategy, setting the vision, and ensuring the organization’s success. Product managers, on the other hand, focus on product strategy to ensure alignment, understanding the customer and problem space, and collaborating with the teams engaged in ensuring the product’s success.
Hierarchy: CEOs are positioned at the top of the organizational hierarchy, accountable to the board of directors and shareholders. Product managers typically report to higher-level executives and leaders. They are not positioned hierarchically at the ‘top’ of any team construct.
Decision rights: The CEO has the decision rights. Although the CEO receives inputs from the market, customers, shareholders, leaders, and teams, they’re ultimately making the decision and instituting the direction. Product managers have a shared responsibility, but do not have sole decision rights.
The big sticking point… decision rights. A CEO has the decision rights. The buck stops with the CEO. It’s as simple as that. A product manager should not have sole decision rights. They are not the ones the buck stops with. You disagree? Well, let’s dig deeper.
Decision rights
Let’s explore the popular model of the Product Trio (also referred to as the Pod). If you are an advocate for the Pod and believe the philosophy it represents is true, you have a decision to make. At its heart, the Pod, and the belief that one member of the Pod is the CEO of the product, are at odds. They’re contradictory by nature. No one person in the Pod owns the decision rights.
Let me explain, think of the Pod through the analogy of a stool. It consists of three core facets or legs of the stool. In the realm of product management, three key facets play a vital role in guiding the discovery, delivery, and success of a product: desirability, viability, and feasibility. Let’s explore each facet and its importance:
Desirability: Desirability focuses on identifying and meeting the needs and desires of the users or customers. It involves thoroughly understanding their pain points, needs, and motivations. Through user research, user testing, and market analysis, the Pod gains insights into what drives user engagement, satisfaction, and loyalty. Desirability ensures that the product aligns with the users’ wants and creates an exceptional experience.
Viability: Viability revolves around the business aspect of the product. It entails assessing the product’s potential to generate revenue and achieve profitability. The Pod analyzes market dynamics, competitive landscape, pricing strategies, cost structures, and business models. Through understanding of market conditions, target audience size, and revenue potential, the Pod determines whether the product can meet financial goals and contribute to the overall business strategy. Viability ensures that the product is economically feasible, scalable, and aligned with the organization’s financial objectives.
Feasibility: Feasibility pertains to the technical and operational aspects of product development and delivery. It examines whether the product can be built within the given constraints, considering technology capabilities, resources, expertise, and timeframes. The Pod works closely with cross-functional teams, to evaluate the technical feasibility of the product. We assess factors like technical complexity, development efforts, infrastructure requirements, and potential risks. Feasibility ensures that the product can be effectively developed, maintained, and delivered with the available resources and technology.
By considering all three facets of desirability, viability, and feasibility, the Pod can strike a balance between user needs, business goals, and technical constraints. This holistic approach enables the development and delivery of products that are not only desired by users but also financially sustainable and technically achievable. The interplay of these facets empowers the Pod to make informed decisions, optimize experimentation, and drive successful product outcomes.
Now that there’s an understanding of the basic tenet, let’s align the appropriate teammate to their facet. This is where the relationship between the three starts to drive home the concept of the ‘shared decision’.
In the Pod model, the accountability for each facet is ‘owned’ by an individual from each primary discipline. Each facet represents a leg of the stool. Overcompensate on any one leg and the stool will tip. It is the same if there is overcompensation between desirability, viability, and feasibility. They balance one another and the overall success criteria to meet customer and business needs will guide the emphasis placed on each facet. For example, if too much weight (or decision rights) is placed on feasibility or feasibility is the only driver considered, desirability may be lost. In turn, leading to a product that was delivered with a great technical solution but fell short of meeting the customer’s needs and solving their problem.
Through another lens
Looking at the Pod concept from a different lens, I see this as being akin to that of a sports organization such as a soccer club.
For this example, let’s call the team ‘Santa’s Strikers’. I know, creative, right?
Santa’s Strikers is structured as a club with a direct owner and includes various roles and positions, each contributing to the overall success of the team. For simplicity’s sake, let’s narrow the team composition to the following:
Owner: The owner has the ultimate authority, decision rights, and responsibility for the club’s overall operations, including the appointment and management of the head coach, who reports to them and collaborates with the front office and other key stakeholders. The owner(s) sets the vision, objectives, and budget for the club.
Head coach: The head coach reports directly to the club’s owner. The head coach is responsible for leading the team. They develop training programs, devise game strategies, select the starting lineup, and make decisions during matches. The head coach also oversees the team and manages the team’s overall performance.
Players: Players are the heart and soul of the team. They are responsible for executing the strategies and tactics set by the coaching staff during training and matches. Players’ positions vary, including defenders, midfielders, forwards, and goalkeepers, each with specific roles and responsibilities on the field. Within this group you may have a Captain of the team. The captain provides leadership and influence with other teammates but does not have any decision-making authority or management responsibilities.
If we compare this to the structure of a company, you will find it overlaps very well. You can see the parallels below by merely changing a few words and phrases:
CEO: The CEO has the ultimate authority, decision rights, and responsibility for the company’s overall operations, including the appointment and management of executive leaders, who report to them and collaborate with key stakeholders. The CEO ‘owns’ the vision, objectives, and budget for the organization.
Senior leader: The senior leader reports directly to the CEO or Executive Team. The senior leader is responsible for leading the team. They develop training programs, devise strategies, select the team makeup, and make decisions during product discovery and delivery. The senior leader also oversees the team and manages the team’s overall performance.
Product teams: Players are the heart and soul of the team. They are responsible for fleshing out the strategies, executing the strategies, and refining tactics set by their leader(s) during product discovery and delivery. Players’ positions vary, including product managers, experience designers, and developers each with specific roles and responsibilities. (of course, there are other teammates from marketing, data, legal, and many others)
Leaning into shared decision rights
Just like the soccer club depicting the team as a collective of players with no one position on the team making the decision alone. Where harmony between teammates is required to succeed. No one member of the Pod possesses more power than another. By nature, it is balanced. You can still shift weight, but it requires alignment, mutual understanding, and balance to avoid losing control or ‘tipping the stool’. Even the captain of the player’s squad isn’t independently making the decision. The captain is a leader, respected within the team, full of wisdom, proven in competence and character, and ready to continually learn and inspire the teammates around them. They are leaders, they are influential, but they are not the owner of the soccer club.
In conclusion, I ask you to walk away from this reading and self-reflect on your desire to claim, ‘I’m CEO of the Product!’ Ask yourself, Is it from a place of customer-centricity and need to delight the customer? Is it from a place of craving to deliver business value? Or is it from a place of desire for hierarchical power so that you possess the decision rights.
I’ll leave you with an ask… As product managers, let’s lose the phrase ‘I’m the CEO of the Product!’, and start pushing aside ego and power dynamics. Let’s institute a system of balance and remain dedicated to the intersection of business and customer needs.
Change the vernacular. Debunk the fallacy. Embrace the Pod!
Originally published on www.mindtheproduct.com, September 7, 2023.
