速度高于一切:Ramp 如何成为史上增长最快的 SaaS 初创公司 | Geoff Charles
Velocity over everything: How Ramp became the fastest-growing SaaS startup ever | Geoff Charles
Geoff Charles: So when I joined, we were about 10-ish folks, about eight engineers, and in three months, we built a competitor to Amex. Six months after that, we built a competitor to Expensify, both publicly traded companies. We hit a hundred million in annual revenue. I think we were under at that point, 50 total in the R&D department, less than four engineers and three PMs. And then we started expanding into accounts payable. It was three engineers, one designer, one PM three months, and they hit out of the park. And that product is moving in billions of dollars a year. I think the recipe for all this is …
Introduction to the Episode
Lenny: Welcome to Lenny’s Podcast, where I interview world-class product leaders and growth experts to learn from their hard one experiences building and growing today’s most successful products. Today, my guest is Geoff Charles, who is VP of Product at Ramp. This episode is a unique glimpse into a startup and an approach to product that optimizes for moving quickly, thinking from first principles, and empowering individual team members. If you’re not familiar with Ramp, they’re the fastest growing SaaS business in history, getting to over $100 million in annual run rate in two years, which is just wild. And as you’ll hear in this episode, they did this with 50 people. In our conversation, Geoff shares how they operationalize a culture of velocity, how they do a lot with few people, how they organize planning, how they define strategy, how they interview product managers and keep a very high bar for talent, plus also avoid burnout in a very fast moving culture and so much more.
My advice is to seriously study how Ramp operates because there’s a lot to learn from their success and their approach to product. Enjoy this episode with Geoff Charles after a short word from our sponsors.
Luckily, I had what they called an unremarkable screening, which means they didn’t find anything cancerous, but they did find some issues in my back, which I’m getting checked out at a physical next month probably because I spend so much time sitting in front of a computer. Half of all men will have cancer at some point in their lives, as will one-third of women. Half of all of them will detect it late. According to the American Cancer Society, early cancer detection has an 80% survival rate compared to less than 20% for late stage cancer. The Ezra team has helped 13% of their customers identify potential cancer early and 50% of them identify other clinically significant issues such as aneurysms, disc herniations, which may be is what I have, or fatty liver disease. Ezra scans for cancer and 500 other conditions in 13 organs using a full-body MRI powered by AI and just launched the world’s only 30-minute full-body scan, which is also their most affordable. Their scans are non-invasive and radiation free. And Ezra is offering listeners $150 off their first scan with code Lenny150. Book your scan at ezra.com/lenny. That’s E-Z-R-A.com/lenny.
If your team’s work is spread out across different documents and spreadsheets and a stack of workflow tools, that’s why you need Coda. Coda puts data in one centralized location regardless of format, eliminating roadblocks that can slow your team down. Coda allows your team to operate on the same information and collaborate in one place. Take advantage of this special limited-time offer just for startups. Sign up today at coda.io/lenny and get a thousand dollars startup credit on your first statement. That’s C-O-D-A.io/lenny to sign up and get a startup credit of $1,000, coda.io/lenny.
Geoff, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast.
Geoff Charles: Thanks, Lenny, it’s great to be here.
All About Ramp
Lenny: So you are head of product at Ramp. For people not familiar with Ramp, could you just give us a brief overview of what it is that Ramp does?
Geoff Charles: Yeah, Ramp is a finance automation platform and corporate card solution for small and medium-sized businesses. So we help businesses essentially automate most things across expense management, card payments, bill payments, and accounting. And we’ve helped 15,000 of such businesses automate a lot of their back office to focus on what truly matters, which is growing their company and providing value to their customers.
The Culture of Velocity
Lenny: Okay. So what you didn’t mention is some of the most interesting stats about Ramp and the business and the growth story of Ramp. So could you just also share some stats about just the success of Ramp and a sense of just how rare the story of Ramp has been?
Geoff Charles: Yeah. I mean, we were one of the fastest growing FinTech and B2B SaaS companies of all time. I think we’ve hit a hundred million in annual revenue for the first two years and we’ve continued to grow significantly since then. I think every day, about a thousand users join our platform. And this year, we’ve grown and hit 600 million in savings, 8.5 million in hours saved for our customers by controlling spend and automating a lot of the manual tasks. So we’re continuing to grow fast, and in terms of just raw transaction volume, we have crossed 10 billion in [inaudible 00:06:17] spending on the platform and just getting started.
The Power of Single-Threaded Focus
Lenny: You’ve glossed over that stat of just Ramp is essentially known as the fastest growing SaaS business in history and also FinTech business. In two categories, the fastest Ramp to $200 million in run rate.
Geoff Charles: Yeah.
Setting Ambitious Goals
Lenny: Okay. So for that reason and many other reasons, there’s a lot of interest in just how Ramp operates and how you all approach product and we actually previously collaborated on a newsletter post on how Ramp builds product. And that newsletter post is now the eighth most popular post on my newsletter across hundreds of posts that are ever written and even more than how Figma builds product and how Snowflake builds product and all these other incredible companies. And so, clearly, there’s a lot of interest in how you operate. So I’m really excited to get into the meat of how you all work. And if anyone read this post and has any sense of just how you all operate, there’s this one word that immediately comes to mind when people think of how Ramp operates and that word is velocity. So I want to start there. Can you just talk about how important velocity is to how you work and where that came from and how that actually looks day to day working at Ramp?
Geoff Charles: Yeah, absolutely. So you mentioned it, you nailed it. Velocity is everything at Ramp. It’s how we design our product development process. It’s how we incentivize teams, it’s who we want to hire, it’s who we want to promote, and it’s everything around how we make decisions and how we organize the organization.
I think it came from the fact that during the pandemic, we started with a very small team and there was a huge market opportunity ahead of us and it wasn’t so much which path we wanted to pick, but rather how fast we were able to execute on that path. And so velocity was ingrained from the early days on just building, shipping, and iterating. And I think it’s a decent metric for how companies and teams perform. You might say, “Well, what’s the impact of that velocity?” But realistically, teams that have high velocity are able to actually get to that impact over time by iterating. It’s also a great way to have positive selection in terms of talent because talent wants to join companies that ship fast. And a lot of people who join Ramp, I ask them, “Why are you interested in joining the company?” And they often say, “Well, it’s because you guys are actually building things and shipping things and I want to know what that feels like.” And it’s also a great way just de-risk decisions and decision making. If the cost of that decision is really low, then you’re able to essentially simplify a lot of decisions.
Context Over Control
Lenny: To build on that, there’s a lot of companies that say they move fast, that talk about moving fast, that say velocity is really important, moving fast is really important to us, but I feel like Ramp is very different from that, where it’s actually incredibly, incredibly fast and it’s actually something you come back to again and again, this idea of, how do we move faster? Can you just share an example or two of what velocity actually looks like at Ramp and what the reality of that is?
Geoff Charles: Yeah. So when I joined, we were about 10-ish folks, about eight engineers, and in three months, we built a competitor to Amex. Six months after that, we built a competitor to Expensify, both publicly traded companies. We hit a hundred million in annual revenue. I think we were under at that point 50 total in the R&D department, less than four engineers and three PMs. And then we started expanding into accounts payable. We basically gave a team goal of building a competitor, Bill.com. It was three engineers, one designer, one PM three months, and they hit out of the park. And that product is moving in billions of dollars a year.
And I think the recipe for all this is constantly small teams have a single-threaded focus, give them the resources they need to execute big lofty goals, very tight timelines, and then shield them from the chaos that is the rest of the organization. So basically don’t bother them and don’t even tell the rest of the company that you’re doing these things until they find product market fit, until they actually find that early traction and then they can bring in more resources. So it’s like gravity and you need gravitational pull to this thing.
Product Reviews and Delivery Rhythm
Lenny: Okay. I want to double click on some of these points you just made. So what you find is important to help teams and people move fast within Ramp is you talked about single-threaded teams, shielding them from other people, trying to pull them in different directions, lofty goals. There’s a couple more things. Let’s talk about the single-threaded piece a little bit. What does actually mean? What does that look like?
Geoff Charles: There are very few people who are able to execute extremely well in more than one thing, and it’s especially true for individual contributors. And so what I mean by single threaded is there’s only one goal, one thread, that they’re waking up in the morning to focus on. And in order to remove that, you basically need to remove anything else that they’re being asked to do to just focus on that thing, whether it’s any type of research or any type of production engineering or any type of process that’s outside of that single goal. And it almost goes as far as just saving a room in the office just for them and they are just in that room all day every day just working on that one thing.
Speed Drives Higher Quality
Lenny: What’s an example of that? Either maybe someone’s working on it now or in the past that’s a good example of a single-threaded goal or team.
Geoff Charles: Yeah. So, for example, we launched a flex product over the last summer, that was a single-threaded team just focused on eCommerce companies and their needs with more cash flow conversion and cash flow smoothing. And so we kept that team again just purely focused on just shipping that product and hitting that goal. And if they were ever distracted by something else, I don’t think we would’ve hit it.
Advice for PMs Pushed to Move Faster
Lenny: How do you, as a leader, avoid distracting them knowing there’s so many things you need to do and there’s constantly this like, “Oh, if we just fix this one bug, this one customer is going to be so happy,” and, “Okay, if I just ask this one PM to work on this for a day?” I know there’s not going to be like, “Here’s the rule of step one, two, three, but how do you actually approach shielding teams from things that just are constantly on fire?
Communicating Trade-Offs Clearly
Geoff Charles: So, for example, on bugs or issues like that, we have individuals that are protecting those teams from those issues. So we have a rotational program on production engineering, for example, where engineers are protecting the core team from escalations, from bugs, from issues. We have product operators that are protecting the PM from the chaos that is documentation and escalations and release management and enablement customer requests. So we have layers of protective tissue to core teams, but I would say for any of these big bets, you basically have to pull folks from different teams and reorganize a sub-team. And that team typically doesn’t have responsibility on any existing product because these are all fairly new products. I think it gets more challenging when you go from one to two rather than zero to one.
Velocity Culture Without the Burnout
Lenny: You also mentioned this idea of lofty goals and that’s something I’ve seen a lot. At Airbnb, there was a … It is very known for lofty goals. Brian was famous for going to meetings where people present their goals and their plans and he’s like, “How do we 10X that? What do you need in order to 10X that goal?” And then that ends up being your goal and often works shockingly, sometimes burnt a lot of people out. How do you think about for just finding that balance and, I don’t know, is there an example of just like, “Here’s a really ambitious goal?” Or maybe the question is just, how do you find the balance of ambitious but not just impossible?
Hard Work Versus Burnout
Geoff Charles: Yeah. So the first thing is we have market comparables, which is very exciting for us. So when you look at Bill.com, they’re a publicly traded company, Expensify, publicly traded, or Concur or Coupa, these are all large players that are actually very motivating and largely de-risk some of the business decisions you’re making. That’s existing markets. We’ve also been able to create markets. Spend management was an actual market before we and other competitors jump into it.
So that’s motivating. Go attack that market and go drive that revenue is very motivating. We also use designs as a way to motivate teams. So we spend a lot of time with designers crafting out what the future of this thing could look like and that’s also extremely motivating. So we constantly go back to these cornerstone, Loom walkthroughs of Figma prototypes that the design spend a lot of time talking through and I think that’s a big part of the motivation. And so both of those things combined, I think, helps us stay motivated. I think there’s a constant pushback to like, “Okay, what can we actually achieve?” But you’re able to move super, super fast if you have those two things in mind, the market and the revenue goal, because very revenue driven as a company and the designs that can really keep you anchored on what this could look like.
Balancing Planning and Execution
Lenny: I know another important ingredient to how you all operate is you really like to empower product teams and give them a lot of control over how they operate and what they build and how they set goals and things like that versus micromanaging them. I think you have this concept of context over control. I’m curious how you actually operationalize that. A lot of people love the idea of empowering their teams and then they do that and then they do the wrong thing or they take too long or they set the wrong goals. So how do you actually make that work and create empowerment within your teams?
Geoff Charles: Yeah, it was one of the biggest cultural differences, I think, in Ramp versus other companies that were as a part of where my boss, the CTO, Karim, was extremely hands-off in terms of the actual pride decisions because we were extremely aligned on the goals themselves. And so that’s where you really just start alignment is, what is the goal that you’re going after? What is the hypothesis that you have to reach that goal? What is the data by which you’re coming up with that hypothesis? And then what is the potential solution to test that hypothesis? And oftentimes, more junior leaders, and I was certainly in that camp earlier on, kept focusing on the solutions and debating the right solution when in fact you should really be debating upstream of that. You should be debating the interpretation of data, you should be debating the hypotheses and the different ideas that you have there as to what’s really going on or you should be debating the goals themselves.
And so whenever things went wrong at Ramp, it was when I was being prescriptive with regards to the solution without actually explaining and aligning upstream on the goal, the hypothesis, and the data. And if you do that, you realize that the solutions actually can come much better from teams that are much closer to the ground. I think that’s the biggest goal that I have now in my role is to continue giving context so that teams focus on the right goals, come up with the right hypotheses and focus on the right data points. And I spent most of my time just repeating myself, most of my time just sharing the context that I think they might be missing, especially given that I’m in certain meetings or certain groups in certain forms that they’re not a part of and my responsibility to represent them and then share back the context for them to make better decisions over time.
The Strategic Document Contract
Lenny: That touches on a phrase that’s come up a couple times on this podcast that a leader’s job, you’re essentially the repeater in chief, reminding people of strategy, vision, things like that. It feels like to move fast, you need to do what you’re talking about, which is empower your teams to just move, otherwise, it’s not scalable. And I’m curious just to make it even more real. Either … Is there an version of something you did at your previous work versus at Ramp that just shows what that looks like when you’re empowering your team and not in the weeds? What’s most different there? Is it the product reviews, you’re not as involved in design iterations? Where do you come in to actually give feedback? How does that actually look like working at a Ramp versus another company?
Geoff Charles: I think that the contract between me and the team is really their strategy and their roadmap. And as long as we are aligned on the strategy, and we can get into that, and aligned on the roadmap and the timing, that’s their contract. And so then at that point, my goal is to continue to give them context to execute on that and to coach them through that by getting firsthand data on how things are going that they might be missing. And their role is to highlight risks and highlight one-way decisions that they need my input on. And, again, it didn’t use to start that way. I mean, when we first started, it was just me and another PM. I was fairly micromanaging in some areas. I think you build trust over time and you start having these contracts. And so as, I suppose, good more senior, they’re basically publishing out the API by which they interact with me and we basically align on what’s most important on each one on one.
So I basically have teams … All my directs post their goals every week first thing Monday. The goal there is to also have them review each other’s goals. I have a one-on-one template that I basically use to keep on track of how progress is being made, but I certainly don’t spend the time in the one on one going into that. I spend the one on one just focusing on what they need from me. And then on a biweekly basis, I have a team-wide meeting where I share context that everyone is missing and we go deep on the most important topics of the day.
Planning Cycles and Frequency
Lenny: What about the product experience itself? Is there design review that happens? How do you stay on top of just like, “I’m proud of this product that we’re shipping as a team?”
Geoff Charles: I’d say we’re iterating. I think when the first couple of years, it was more asynchronous and ad hoc process. And once you hit 10, 15 PMs and 20 or 30 different mini pods shipping constantly, I think you need a bit more of a process by which you have high-risk decisions that are being surfaced. So we’re iterating. I think we’re relating now is any large rock that we have on the roadmap needs to be brought into the product review process, where myself and the head of design are present and giving feedback, but it needs to be structured in a way where you are asking specifically for what type of feedback you need and you’re highlighting the key risks and tradeoffs that you’re making implicitly in that review.
So that’s one way we’re able to scale, but I would say largely people ship and it’s the difference between a beta and the GA, that’s where we really get plugged in. When we make the decision to go live to the rest of the customer base and asking sales to start selling, that’s where I’ll really come in and stress test the hypotheses and the decisions. It’s further downstream so it’s more risky, but because we move so fast, you don’t waste that much time if you have to pull it back.
Unique Advantage and Right to Win
Lenny: Yeah, that came up actually. I just had a chat with Nicole Forsgren, who’s world expert on developer productivity and developer experience, and they’ve done all this research on quality and speed of engineering and the engineering team. And they find that quality goes up as your product velocity goes up. You’d think it’d be the opposite. The faster you move, the lower quality ends up being. But exactly to your point, because you can fix things really quickly and you can get things out the door and there’s not this huge chunk you have to wait for people to review and release and break things, ends up being higher quality. So it’s very much aligned with our experience.
Geoff Charles: Yeah. And you have to create a system by which those folks are getting that feedback. And so we’ve really focused on what are the control mechanisms that ensure that your high velocity doesn’t tank the business. And so examples of that is we have a voice of customer processes where every single negative review that is shared to our products is shared back to the tech lead, the PM and the designer on a monthly basis. We report back NPS and CSAT. We report back operational overhead, meaning the percentage of tickets that come from your product area normalized by the number of users that are using that product. And that’s a core contract that the team has to maintain a low or lower part of operational burden. We also have bugs and issues being directly assigned to the engineer that’s on call. So they feel that pain and then they can continue, to your point, leveraging velocity to solve those problems. Velocity is just a magnitude, it’s not necessarily a specific direction.
Thoughts on Using OKRs
Lenny: With these bugs that are coming in and quality issues versus a team’s goal and their KPIs that they’re trying to hit, how do you recommend teams balance those two things?
Why the Roadmap Is a Contract
Geoff Charles: We don’t have a bug backlog. We fix every bug once they’re surfaced almost.
Applying First Principles Thinking
Lenny: Okay.
Customer Support Under Product Management
Geoff Charles: So it’s part of the production engineer’s job really just to fix those things. I think where we get to nuances, like user experience improvements, the metric there that I really look at is how many support tickets come in that were due to a customer being confused. So we track that. And if that number is slightly elevated, we’re basically saying, “You can’t ship any new features, you need to fix these things.” And so, yeah, there’s just these types of controls, but basically trying to standardize across the teams. This is your percentage of operational burden, this is your CSAT, this is your NPS, and this is the number of customers that are confused. As long as you maintain those metrics, you can do whatever you want. But the moment that these things are under the red, you can’t ship new features and you need to revert back to the [inaudible 00:24:03].
Lenny: Something funny that happened after our post on how Ramp builds product came out, someone on LinkedIn, a product manager, posted half-jokingly that her CEO came to her and every PM CEO came to them after that post. And they’re just like, “How do we prioritize velocity? How do we move faster? Look at this, this culture of velocity that Ramp’s got, why don’t we have that? What do we need to create this culture of velocity?” And I worried a little bit because it creates this additional pressure on product managers that already have a really hard job with already a lot of pressure. So I was like, “Oh, man, we’re creating this new pressure that this one company is doing things really well and now everyone has to do it this way.” So I guess my question is just, what’s your advice to product managers who are getting this push from leaders to move faster as a result of how you guys operate?
Why Writing Is Thinking
Geoff Charles: Yeah. Well, one, I’m sorry. It goes without saying. PMs, we can’t do anything by ourselves. We’re very useless. We’re force multiplier. So the one thing that I’ll highlight is behind Ramp’s velocity is a lot less the culture that I try to amplify, but a lot more the quality of the engineering and design talent candidly. And so I’m just standing really on their shoulders here. And so advice number one is ensure that from the top down there’s an investment in R7D as a first-class citizen that you’re paying upmarket, that you’re hiring the best, that you’re focusing on your engineering and tech brand, that you’re bringing people who want to work there because they want to be empowered. And then you have a culture of empowerment. And what that means is … And it’s hard to get right. What that means is the CEO has less say in the product that is built and the engineers have a lot more say into it.
And so it’s something that I’ve seen done really, really well at Ramp where the CEO sets the vision but is much less opinionated about the specific sequence by which we get there and trusts a tech organization that is radically empowered. The second thing that I would say is the biggest waste of time is meetings and status updates. And I think that oftentimes CEOs would say, or leaders would say, “Hey, we’ve got increased velocity, therefore let’s just add these status meetings and let’s add all this process and all these documents and all these ways to hold teams accountable.” And that’s just a huge way to demotivate people. And so I’ve never had a status meeting. I’ve never scheduled a status meeting. Statuses are done async. They are done in the systems by which they operate and largely they should be in real time. And meetings should be all about collaboration, ideation, decision-making, et cetera. So just look at your calendar and just kill as many things as possible and kill just unimportant process.
And the last thing that I would say is oftentimes leaders say, “I want to move super fast,” but they’ll say, “I want everything under the sun. I want this and that and that.” An example of that at Ramp is always like the debate between adding more products to one segment or going to a different segment, SME versus mid-market versus enterprise. And you ask the CEO, “Hey, which one should we do?” And they would say, “All of it,” because they think that the more goals you have, the faster you’ll be able to execute. And I think there’s just a limitation to that.
So the thing I would amplify is be very clear with the tradeoffs that you need to make and present those tradeoffs back to your leadership team. So here’s what we’re doing and here’s what we’re not doing and why and which one would you pick? Give them a menu of items. And you’ll see that you’re able to execute much, much faster on four things rather than eight at the same time. That’s your job. Your job is to basically communicate those tradeoffs that oftentimes are not well communicated to executives out of fear of looking like you’re pushing back. You’re actually not pushing back, you’re increasing velocity.
Deep Work and Time Management
Lenny: What I’m hearing from a meta point you’re making is use that ask as leverage to change the way things are operating. Is that right?
Task Management and Information Processing
Geoff Charles: 100%. You can’t ask for velocity and not have empowerment and not trust and not eliminate process and not increase the focus. And that requires some serious tradeoffs that oftentimes leaders, especially those coming from more traditional industries, are not comfortable with. And it was the biggest breath of fresh air when I joined Ramp was how committed the team was.
The last thing I’ll say is there’s nothing more motivating than a leader just commenting, “This is awesome,” on a random project channel at a random design crit. I know that our founders are just reading the projects that they actually care a lot about and the engineers know that. And so there’s just a general excitement on just building great cool shit. And engineers just feel that and they’re also highly motivated by that. So that’s another piece of advice is just being able to stay plugged in to give engineers the opportunity to present to those leaders present in the all hands. That’s also a great way to amplify the culture.
Lenny: It’s a good segue to this idea of burnout. Hearing a team operate incredibly fast and velocity, velocity, velocity makes you think about, are people burning out? Are they enjoying their work? How are they sustainably going to last at Ramp? I’m curious just what that’s like and how you think about avoiding burnout for folks that are just constantly shipping, shipping, shipping.
Building and Hiring the PM Team
Geoff Charles: I think the debate around working hard and burnout misses a key point, which is all about how much impact and how good you feel about the work that you’re doing. And I think that for me, when I felt burnout, it was actually at the time where I had the lowest amount of velocity. But it was when I felt like I was putting a lot of effort into things that weren’t actually moving. And so I actually think velocity is a way to potentially avoid burnout. I’m not asking people to work endless hours a week. I’m asking people to get out of their own way and to focus on what truly matters, which is building great products for our customers. And I think you do that if you get into a flow state, if you get into a cadence where everything becomes easier, where work can really become thrilling.
And I think sometimes organizations, especially as they grow, make that really hard. They make it really hard to just be in that flow state with a ton of distractions, a ton of meetings, a ton of cross-functional teams that are all asking for your attention and grabbing for attention. Another parallel of this is running. The best runners are the ones that love running and they feel like running isn’t a chore, work isn’t a chore. And I think as a runner, I try to evaluate that whenever we’re doing something hard, that’s challenging, that’s exhausting. If you love what you do, you feel much better about the amount of effort you’re putting into it. And work doesn’t feel like work.
Lenny: I find the same thing. I find that when I think back to the times that had the best experience, the most fulfilling work that I’ve done, it’s often I was working insane hours. It was just like this very long stressful project but ends up … Looking back, you’re always like, “Wow, that was so much, that was so cool. I learned so much. We shipped so much interesting stuff, made so much impact.” I think the key is what you said is that you have to actually be proud of it and it has to be something that’s meaningful to you because you could work long hours on something that you have no interest in and that does not help and that does lead to burnout. So that’s the key.
Investing in Product Ops Over Low-Leverage Work
Geoff Charles: And you said something there, which is meaningful to you. So not meaningful to your boss or your boss’s boss’s boss, but meaningful to you. And I think that that’s the role of management is to make everyone on your team feel like it’s their goal. And the way to do that is to, again, align on that goal and give it to them and to problems to solve. If everyone feels like it’s their team, it’s their company, their mini company, then they will radically avoid burnout. But if they feel like the work is being pushed onto them, they feel like they’re not aligned on the goal or they don’t feel empowered with the solution, then the burnout will absolutely happen.
How to Spot an A+ Team
Lenny: One of my favorite quotes that you have shared is, any second you spend planning is a second you don’t spend doing. And on the one hand, I love that because the more you do, the more things happen, the more you get done, everything’s happening. On the other hand, it also feels a bit chaotic and I’m curious how you find that balance between, “Okay, we’re not going to spend all this time planning, we’re just going to go, go, go, go, go.” And just how you think about that balance and how it actually ends up working out at Ramp sounds like not spending a ton of time planning.
Geoff Charles: Yeah. I would say when new joiners come at Ramp, I intro myself and I talk about our product strategy. And in the meeting with an apology, I say, “You signed an implicit contract joining Ramp. It’s one where we prioritize velocity over almost everything else. What that means is it’ll be somewhat chaotic. We’ll ship things that don’t work. We will change our products without necessarily fully enabling you and you’ll have to constantly be on your toes whenever you load up a demo instance.” And I think that it’s an expectation and people are welcoming of that because they understand that the tradeoff is that we don’t move forward, that we don’t actually innovate, that we don’t continue to provide value for our customers.
I think there’s certain things that we plan for. And so the question really is because accuracy has cost, make sure that you’re only increasing the accuracy of planning for the things that have high value of that accuracy.
And so those things for us are large market moments where we have products, marketing, and sales all coordinating these big moments. And those typically happen maybe once a quarter, once every six months. It’s basically your marketing calendar. We need a plan for that, for sure, but it’s oftentimes a low percentage of our total R&D focus. And so it’s totally fine for each team to be somewhat autonomous, somewhat chaotic within their pod. They’re extremely clear, but for the outside in, it might be very chaotic. But be very accurate on the things that truly, truly matter. The rest actually doesn’t matter. You don’t need a lot of accuracy and confidence on when specifically certain features will be live. It’s much better to spend whatever time you would spend trying to create accuracy and creating velocity.
Top Traits Valued in Hiring
Lenny: I love that you set expectations very clearly upfront. That seems really important to be successful at a company like that. It also just makes me remember every successful startup is extremely chaotic. As much as it may not feel like that on the outside, it’s insanely chaotic. Things are constantly changing. I was at a fireside chat with Sheryl Sandberg once at Airbnb and somebody asked her just like, “How do you deal with change? Things are just … We’re reorging every six months. People are leaving and coming and teams are shifting and priorities are always adjusting.” And she’s just like, “This is the problem you want, you want to be going through this because that means you’re growing and you’re going through hypergrowth because the alternative is much worse where you’re not growing and that’s much more painful.” So I think it’s just a good reminder that if you’re working at a place that’s chaotic, it’s often a good thing.
Geoff Charles: I would say so. I mean, oftentimes, people use that excuse to not have a very strong strategy. And I think that for us, we’ve always been, from the start, the spend management platform that helps you spend less. Our strategy … I share an annual newsletter around what we did and what we’re going to do next year. And it’s oftentimes pretty spot on in terms of the goals. Again, the goals and the value and the problem and the vision, that’s consistent. The specifics, the timing, the quarterly scopes, all these things, yes, it changes, but what you want to avoid is the thrash of people waking up and feeling like they’re working at a different company or that leaders are constantly changing their minds. We’ve been extremely consistent from the start and I think most of the products that we build, most of the code that we written, is in the customer’s hands and hasn’t been ripped away. And I think that speaks a lot to velocity, too.
Rapid Fire Q&A
Lenny: Awesome. That was a good addition. I didn’t mean to say if your place is chaotic, it’s no problem. It’s that side effect of growth and hypergrowth as things are going to be pretty chaotic.
So you’ve talked about strategy a couple of times and I want to dig into that a little bit. So there’s maybe a couple directions we can go. One is you talked about this contract you create with teams of a strategy. So maybe let’s just go there. What does that actually look like? What’s part of this contract? And is there a document you put together to lay this out?
Geoff Charles: Strategy means a lot of different things. In my mind, strategy is about how do we get to our goals? And it’s not a roadmap and it’s not a vision, it’s something right in between that. So the first thing you need to do is align on what are the goals, what do you want to see in the world? Then the hypothesis, why do you think this will work? Figure out why we’re uniquely positioned as a company to get after that goal. Figure out the metrics by which you would measure whether we reach that goal and then talk about the initiatives, talk about the risks, and talk about the long-term outcomes.
One Final Question
Lenny: So these are the bullet points of the contract essentially of a strategy document?
Geoff Charles: Correct. And now every pod basically spends time writing that doc for themselves. So the pods are basically organized against outcomes, so they should be very clear on their goals and they publish these things out. And then what I typically do is take all these documents and make sure that they’re aligned with our high-level product strategy, which is a bit more long-term thinking than the individual pods, and that they are also aligned with our financial strategy, which we can get into. But that’s a little bit of how you also create a culture of empowerment where each team is thinking about these things thinking like you. And the more that, as a leader, you make teams think like you, the more leverage you get over time and the more you can start thinking ahead on other ways of operating.
Lenny: How long does planning roughly take and how often do you do this strategy rethink?
Geoff Charles: We’ve gone through iterations, good and bad, I think. For a period of time at Ramp, we created OKRs with financial goals and quotas to some extent for different teams. And that led to just taking a long time to plan because people were trying to make sure there was the right metric, trying to make sure that it was achievable. And it became very political, very annoying. And largely, our entire R&D team was like, “Look, we’re just going to execute on the roadmap, screw the OKRs.” And so we moved from quarterly, very expensive quarterly planning, which took one month every three months, so basically 33% of the time was planning, to a biannual one-pager on, these are the company priorities and it’s much more smooth and much faster. Related to that, though, we have a strong financial plan that we execute on and each row or lever of that financial plan has an owner. Oftentimes it’s marketing and sales. For anything that’s product led, it’s product. So that’s one contract. And then we have our roadmap, that’s the second contract.
Lenny: One of the bullet points you mentioned is this idea of being, what are we uniquely positioned to do? Can you talk a bit more about that and maybe what’s an example of something you worked on, how you described why you’re uniquely positioned to win at that?
Geoff Charles: One of the biggest values, I think, of software is how do you reuse the components that you’ve built to increase, again, velocity and impact. So why we were interested in bill payments as an expansion of our corporate card platform was we saw a bill as just an invoice to the company. And an expense was an invoice to the employee. And so there was a lot of parallels between these two things. It was all about having a liability. It was all about processing that liability in terms of the financial event and moving the money, moving the money either between the company, between the company and the employee or between two companies.
So we believed that we were uniquely positioned to get after that space because we already had money movement. We already had some type of liability. We already integrated with accounting systems and we had a pretty strong risk process that can govern all that. And the employees that were requesting to pay these bills were already on the platform. So that’s an example of a right to win. And I think that if you continue to focus on where you’re uniquely positioned to win, you’ll increase velocity because you already have a lot of the components of the expertise.
Lenny: I love that. It’s not something you really see in teams’ docs of just why we have the right to win this. So I think that’s a really interesting element. By the way, I should mention we’ll link to a template of your planning approach in the show notes, which we also had in the post that we worked on. So folks are trying to write down notes of all these little bullet points. We’ll link to a doc that has all these things.
What do you think of OKRs and how do you approach OKRs as a part of this planning?
Geoff Charles: I largely stay away from OKRs from a product perspective.
Lenny: Go on.
Geoff Charles: I think that, again, strategy, financial plan, roadmap. I think where we landed on with OKRs were really around more cross-functional things in nature. So, for example, we’ll have an OKR around winning a specific market and we’ll have OKRs that are cross-functional across different teams. But, again, an OKR is just a method to measure an objective with metrics and you can use them at various levels of granularity. I stay away from them from a product perspective because, again, I want to focus on velocity, which is just output, which is your roadmap, but they’re pretty strong at more of the cross-functional side of things as well as the financial side of things.
Lenny: I don’t even know what separates an OKR from not an OKR. I feel like OKRs are just a goal with some high-level statements of things we’re trying to accomplish. I don’t even understand when people say they use OKRs or don’t, what that even means anymore. There’s a recurring point on this podcast and other posts of just people are weary of just being obsessed with, “Here’s the metric that we’re going to hit and that’s all that matters.” And there’s a fear they lose sight of the bigger picture, what they’re trying to accomplish. But I think in the end, it’s just like, “Here’s what we’re trying to do. Here’s some goals, we’re going to hit it,” because I don’t know care, I don’t know.
Geoff Charles: I think that’s right. I think that’s right. And at the end of the day, again, the contract is your product roadmap and that’s the contract you have, the sales organization. Marketing can take that product roadmap and create market moments. And ultimately, if your product roadmap doesn’t actually hit the goals of the company, then I’m accountable because I’ve created a system by which I’ve aligned with each team on why the roadmap is going to hit the goals. And so you essentially need to point back to the leader in that regard. But I can’t ask every team to try to manipulate OKRs to fit their roadmaps. That’s just completely exhausting. We’ve aligned on what we need to do, let’s get it done.
Lenny: Something that comes across pretty clearly in the way you think and the way Ramp operates is this idea of thinking from first principles. And it’s a cliche term, feels like everyone’s always trying to talk about how they’re thinking from first principles and it’s important to their culture to think from first principles, but it feels like you guys actually do it. And so I am curious just where that emerged for you or for Ramp. And is there an example of something that emerged within Ramp, a new product or an idea, that was very clearly from first principles?
Geoff Charles: The most important thing to talk about here is that Ramp is a very unique business. I mean, we’re a credit card company, which is all about risk management and underwriting. We’re also a payments company because we move money between businesses. We’re also a software company because we deal with spend management and expense management, accounting. We’re building for SMEs. So we have PLG, but we’re also building for enterprise. So we are sales driven, we’re everything.
And so it’s really important when you’re dealing with something that hasn’t been done before to think from first principles. And what I mean by that is you don’t pattern match from your past experience, but you go back to the fundamentals of what we’re trying to do and you think through them very, very deeply. And that means you need to hire people who can think from first principles and be okay putting aside their experience. And that’s a tough pill to swallow for some folks who will come in and will say, “I’m the subject matter expert on X, Y, Z and I know what’s best.” And they come in and they get a reality check about the complexity of our business. And how also you can’t influence teams by saying, “I’ve seen this before.” That’s just like an anti-pattern. You can’t say, “My past company, X, Y, Z.”
Lenny: No one wants to hear that.
Geoff Charles: No one wants to hear that. And surely, I thought I was coming into Ramp and I was going to apply the best product [inaudible 00:46:39] process, and I had to shift that process entirely because the process was predicated on a B-plus engineering team, and I was faced with an A-plus engineering team. And so my entire … I had to go back to first principles around how products should be developed and built. So, again, all the advice I’m sharing here, don’t just take it and map it and copy paste. Start from the first principles that we’re sharing.
An example of that is our support team. So support reports into me. And the first principle there was saying, “Well, every support ticket is a failure of our product.” We literally have that as a quote just posted on all those channels. It’s a failure. And if the product works perfectly, no one should ever have to contact our support team. And what better way of holding the product team accountable for support other than having support report into product.
And the second piece was that we believe that a lot of our value to our customers were because it was going to come from deeply understanding them, deeply listening to them, and moving on that feedback. And so instead of hiring people who were focused just on resolving the ticket, we incentivized people to actually decrease number of tickets over time and decrease deflection or increase deflection. And that required hiring a different breed of people that then became leaders in different parts of the organization as well.
So, again, we could have easily just pattern matched, look at comparables, hired people who’ve scaled large support teams, and just used benchmarks in the industry, but we’ve started from first principles. And the outcome of that is we have an extremely low contact rate. We have over 400,000 users on our platform and a team of agents that’s under 30. And it’s a pretty crazy ratio to think about.
Lenny: That’s wild. I missed this nuance. So the support team reports into you and the product team?
Geoff Charles: Yes.
Lenny: Wow, I’ve never heard of that. That’s cool. Okay.
So I’m going to change course a little bit and I’m going to talk about writing. So we worked on this post together on how Ramp operates. And I was just incredibly impressed with your attention to detail, your ability to articulate, your approach to product. And as we were working on this, you mentioned that writing is really important to you as a way of figuring out what you think and to solve and crystallize problems, which is exactly how it works for me. And that’s how this whole newsletter started. It was just trying to crystallize what I remembered and did so that I can remember it and share with people. So I’d love to just hear your insights and take on just what writing does for you and maybe what you’d recommend listeners do with this approach of writing, helping them think.
Geoff Charles: Throughout the years at Ramp, I was often faced with a problem or a question that I couldn’t answer off the bat, and I had to go back to first principles. And the best way of doing that is to shut down your laptop, take out a piece of paper, write the question as simply as possible at the top of the paper, and just spend time just thinking about how to answer that question. And there were a ton of questions over time. For example, how do we … And it was all scalability problems that few companies have actually done successfully. And so you have to start with your own thinking, how do we scale decision making? How do we incentivize teams to work together? How do we do headcount planning? How do we allocate headcount in a fair way? How do we avoid politics as firsthand data goes away? How do we make decisions on doubling down versus pivoting?
All these things are really tough. And I found myself … You could read things and that’s helpful, but I don’t think that reading makes you necessarily think better. It makes you more wise, but the best way to increase your capacity to think is to actually do the thinking. And so that’s where I see writing. If you’re able to write things clearly, you’re able to think through things clearly. It was also a way for me to effectively communicate, especially during COVID, where we largely grew up during COVID, where everything was written, and it was also a way for me to get content out there to increase my brand and Ramp’s brand in terms of the space that then led us to hire better people over time. So all these things worked out, but it does require you to block out time and to, again, focus on how you think about problems rather than try to Google the answer. After you thought through it, then go out and read and you’ll fine-tune your thinking and you’ll identify new questions to ask yourself afterwards.
Lenny: I love this advice. You mentioned earlier that PMs can’t really do much on their own, but I think this is the thing PMs can do is PMs have the time to think and to plan and think ahead because they’re not required to build code all day and design. This is the advantage you have as a PM. I always think that PMs often don’t really have any special unique skills. They just have the time to do the things that nobody else wants to do or doesn’t have the time to do or doesn’t want to do. And just this really important point of just spending the time to think and not just constantly try to discuss things in meetings or, like you said, just Google around for answers. That ends up being incredibly important. And I just love this framework of just starting a doc with a little question at the top and just sit there and try to answer the question on your own before doing anything. I think that’s a really good approach.
I want to ask how you actually do that. How do you actually create these blocks of time? There’s this concept of deep work and how valuable that is to creative work and knowledge work. How do you do that for yourself? How do you block out time and not get bugged all day?
Geoff Charles: Because we’re really anti-meeting at Ramp, I had time in my calendar. And so what I would basically do is the Friday before I clocked out, I would look at the next week, I would look at the top questions that I needed to spend time thinking about, and I would block out that time. I also work on one day of the weekend in terms of deep work. I find that hanging out outside and doodling on my piece of paper, some thoughts is actually really refreshing because it doesn’t feel like work. It feels like just me just philosophizing about something. And so, yeah, blocking out that time, finding a space where things are less busy, where you’re not in a critical path either early mornings or later afternoons or a day on the weekend is the best path for it.
Lenny: What do you do if someone wants to actually schedule a meeting with you or reach out or put someone on your calendar? Do you have a policy there to protect that time?
Geoff Charles: I think that I should never really be in the critical path of anything. So largely, I’m not available, but if they really need to get to me, they have my phone number.
Lenny: Cool. The thing that I found really valuable is just on Wednesday mornings and Friday mornings, I just have this huge block called deep work time. If you book a time during this time, I’ll slap you. And I don’t know if I’m allowed to put that into meeting calendar invites anymore, but that actually worked really well. Nobody really booked meetings in that slot.
Geoff Charles: I didn’t know Zoom had a slot feature that’s coming handy.
Lenny: It was a Google, it was in the calendar. It was like the calendar invite. And I also worked usually at least one day a week and I found that to be really effective and I know a lot of people don’t want to be doing that, but I found that really important to have great success.
One other question along these lines around just optimizing for processing and getting stuff done and deep work time, do you have any other best practices for just being organized and staying on top of stuff, knowing there’s just stuff coming at you all day every day?
Geoff Charles: If you’re a manager and, like me, you’re in back-to-back meetings from 10:00 to 6:00, it’s very easy to be completely overwhelmed with a sheer amount of stuff you need to do. And so I’ve invested over time in just a very robust but fairly simple task management process, which is, at the end of every meeting, I would write down the tasks that I owe and the tasks that someone else owes and I would write them down to as clearly as possible, not some vague thing, but a very clear thing and just when I need to get this done by. I don’t spend time just grooming. So at the end of the day, I use notes. I have just a page-long thing of all the things I need to get done, all the things people need to get done for me. And then I spend time grooming, which is basically just trying to group things together in logical chunks, grouping the tactical versus the strategic, the important versus the less important.
I group also what other people owe me and I Slack them what they owe me and I put a reminder on Slack for when they owe it to me by. And that way, it’s just out of sight, out of mind. I think that the high-level theme is I try to create or free up headspace for processing, not memory. And so I just basically spend very little time memorizing anything and I write everything down. That is hard when you’re trying to remember a specific date or remember something that someone said, but you have a system by which you can pull these things up very, very quickly. In the Google Space, you can pull up any document and search a bunch of documents very, very quickly. So that’s what I would do is just spend a lot more time on the processing, be extremely good at just task management, and then grouping things, and then the next day, creating your calendar aligned to the goals that you’ve set for yourself the day before in terms of the tactical, where you group those tactical tasks together and then the more strategic deep thinking, walking out that additional space.
Lenny: I feel like you and I are very aligned on a lot of things. That’s exactly how I approach priorities. Have you read Getting Things Done by David Allen?
Geoff Charles: I don’t read a lot of nonfiction actually.
Lenny: Okay, because what you’re describing is very aligned with this approach to processing and taking to-dos, and it’s what I built my approach on. And so you naturally merged out of your head. I love it.
Let’s move on to talking a little bit about your team and hiring and things like that. And there’s just going to be a grab bag set of questions. What is your current PM team look like, either number wise or just ratio and just a PM wise?
Geoff Charles: We have about 13 PMs at Ramp and probably over a hundred engineers. So I try to keep basically one to eight to one to 15 depending on the team. Obviously, B2B is slightly more complex because you’re dealing with pretty strong marketing team and pretty strong sales team and pretty demanding customers that you have relationships with. So I’ve seen ratios be a bit lower than the B2C space. But, yeah, that’s a little bit of the team today. And they’re organized by those teams, by those customer pain points.
Lenny: And I have this note from before, you said that you reached a hundred million ARR, and that’s a run rate, not recurring revenue at that point, I imagine, right?
Geoff Charles: Yep.
Lenny: With 50 people, which is incredible. And so just on that point, how do you do so much with so few PMs, especially? Do you have anything that you figured out that ends up being really important there?
Geoff Charles: I think that by eliminating or reducing the size of the team, we’ve forced other people in the company to think like PMs and I think it’s been a huge value add to our culture. When I say product, often people think about product management, but I actually think product is anyone that actually reports into our CTO, and that’s product engineering, product design, product managers, product data scientists. So making everyone feel like a PM is a great way to get leverage as a PM, and that means basically empowering the designer to think about the actual specs and priorities and scopes more than you or empower the engineer to take something that’s fairly lightweight in terms of a spec or direction and actually think through it deeply and come back with some great questions that the PM hasn’t thought through. So that’s one thing.
The second is that we invested early on in product operations, which was a team that also reports to me that basically focuses on the operational functions of product that’s everything around whether it’s project management or issue management or release management or enablement and content beta and customer research. They basically are tasked with a lot of the work that needs to get done to continue shipping products and scaling product development.
And then lastly, just cutting as much of the low-leverage work that PMs often get sucked into. So, for example, we never write a ticket. We don’t spend much time in linear, which is our ticket management system. Basically, our contract is the vision and the priority and a very high-level spec and everything else is pushed on the engineering teams. And I think that’s when engineers actually are also able to move even faster because they can create whatever tickets they want, they can break down the work that they want, they are accountable for the projects that they’re driving, and that increases trust and moves things faster as well.
Lenny: That makes a ton of sense. Basically, you distribute the PM job that other companies put on the PM across other team members. So if you had to think about just what is the core product manager job at Ramp at this point, I imagine from what I’ve been hearing, it’s strategy, vision, aligning the team. What else plays into that, just bullet point wise? A few things that come to mind.
Geoff Charles: Team building. So building a culture within the pod because oftentimes your managers are no longer in your team, right? Engineers might report to different people, designers might report to different people. PMs might report to different people. So actually building a team culture within the pod is really, really important. And oftentimes it falls on the PM to create those offsites or to create those ideation sessions or to find ways to have fun as a team.
The second is making sure that the team is humming in terms of the actual focus areas and then protecting the team from stakeholders that might want to have an opinion or want to have an update or want to schedule certain meetings. So protecting that core team from that chaos and then being the central point of contact if someone has a question or needs something, and then being able to bring in the right person at the right time. So those are the different things that is also really important to mention.
Lenny: Coming back to a note that I made earlier, you talked about how a lot of this advice you’re sharing in the approach to product at Ramp is assuming that the team is A plus, the engineers are A plus, the designers A plus. For somebody listening to this that may be wondering, “Are my engineers A plus or not?”, what comes to mind as ways that you could get a sense of this is a team that can operate in this way versus, no, we’re never going to work in this way and maybe we should shift the way we work or I should get work somewhere else?
Geoff Charles: Great question. Yeah, it’s very hard to identify. A few things. One is, does the engineer want to win in the market? Does the engineer really care about winning against competitors, winning the hearts and minds of the customer? Do they understand the business context in which they operate by which they need to do that? Are they curious about how the company makes money, about what customers love and don’t love, about what the most important project is and why it’s important? They’re asking you questions about the business outside of just the engineering domains. Are they able to execute on what they said they were going to execute without your help or do you actually feel like you need to be behind them? Are they the one actually setting the pace, asking you to keep up with your specs, keep up with your decisions, respond more quickly to the things that are blocking them, bringing more PMs or more designers to do more things?
Are they being proactive in different channels where you think it’s actually your job, but actually they’ll jump in anyways? For example, we have different Slack channels with a bunch of people sometimes asking questions or raising issues or having blockers. And you have engineers who are just jumping in and explaining how a feature works, getting the feedback and fixing a bug proactively. And you may think, “Well, that’s not the priority. I need to control what the engineers are doing.” That’s not your job actually, that’s not your job. Your job is to make sure that they’re aligned with the long-term vision and that they can deliver what they’ve committed to, but on top of that, they can do whatever the hell they want. And if they’re taking on something that puts the things that they committed to at risk, they’ll communicate that. So, again, that proactiveness, that desire to help, that desire to improve that accountability on their product.
If their product isn’t performing, if their product has feedback, are they doing it themselves or they need you to push them? So those are all mentality and culture aspects. I’m not even getting into the technical rigor and the quality of their systems and the velocity of code because I’m not a good judge of that. That’s not really my role. But those are the things that I would immediately look at that, I think, is just fundamentally different in the engineering team that we built at Ramp versus others. And it’s just a big part of the culture shift and the culture that we’ve been able to build.
Lenny: That was an awesome answer. And I think as a PM, you often don’t want your engineers and designers to have such strong opinions and to be so on top of everything because there’s just like, “Oh, no. Okay, here’s what I think we should actually do,” but engineers have all these opinions. And what you’re saying is that’s what you want to lean into, assuming you trust that they know what they’re doing and can actually get things done. And so it’s like a catchment to you a little bit, but I think that’s a really unique culture and approach. And so that’s an awesome answer.
Geoff Charles: And, look, there’s drawbacks to that culture where you get to a radically empowered engineering team that thinks that they know the product better than the designer or the PM and they push back on the designs or they disagree with the PM, but I’ll take that culture any day compared to a culture where they’re just taking things at face value and not challenging the thinking and not actually thinking from their own perspectives. And it is like I’ll take someone on my team any day that challenges what I tell them to do or what I think is important and is maybe a bit harder to manage, but it’ll make me think way deeper about what I’m asking them and what I think is important. And I’ll grow as a manager much faster because of that.
Lenny: I love it. Two final questions, one around hiring. When you’re interviewing people, what do you look for and what does Ramp look for that maybe other companies don’t value as much as they should or maybe overvalue? What do you look for that you think is unique that helps you hire this A-plus team?
Geoff Charles: We look for people who have a very strong desire to have impact. And the best way to assess that is the impact that they’ve had or the reason why they are switching jobs. So, again, it goes back to what I was mentioning earlier in the chat, which was velocity leads to people wanting to join because they want to have velocity. And the best signal that is, I’m leaving because things got too slow, things got too bureaucratic. I missed the old days where we were just building and shipping and launching. I look for people who can think deeply, so I’ll go super deep into a decision, a tradeoff that they had to make. And I’ll really just scratch at that until I get to a deep understanding of how they make decisions and how deep they think about things.
And in general, we tend to overemphasize those two skills rather than necessarily experience because experience … Again, to the point around Ramp is a unique business, it matters a lot less. You can have a lot less impact than your ability to be hungry and your ability to think deeply.
Lenny: Final question. A lot of people listening to this want to get into product management. What’s your advice? I’m sure you get asked this a lot. How do you break into product management? What do you tell people?
Geoff Charles: Yeah. So for me, I went from college to consulting to my four into tech was really into more like solutions analyst, I think that was my title. I was basically trying to implement a large B2B software in national banks. And how I got into product management was really around understanding deeply the customer and understanding deeply the product and being able to show impact on the combination of these two things. Typically, the folks that join product teams are the highest performers outside of product that either understand the customer really well and can advise product or understand the product very well and can serve customers.
And so my advice is for folks that want to break into that is to find a role that is adjacent to product that enables you to have those experiences and to prove yourself. So, for example, product operations is a good one. Business operations is a good one. More consulting sales engineering or solution engineering is a good one. There are designers and engineers that can become PMs as well. Typically, it’s folks that can do the job as well as the PM. And what we typically do is we give those PMs a shot or those folks a shot. So we’d give them like six months to go into a new area and try it out. And then we basically have the engineers they work with and designers they work with actually make the call as to whether or not they would want this PM versus another PM on the team.
Lenny: Is there anything else you want to share before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Geoff Charles: Yeah. I mean, first, think from first principles, don’t take everything I’m saying at face value. And second is back to talent, that a huge part of our success was the early team that Karim built on the tech side. And so I can write blogs all day on how we increased velocity, but if there’s one thing to take away from this is that empowered and talented engineers and designers are the biggest reason why Ramp was so successful and it’s something that requires a ton of focus. I mean, early on for the first year at Ramp, Karim, our CTO, was only focused on that. It was hiring the best talent. He was a lot less interested or focused on our product strategy, our product market fit, or even our revenue. It was all about bringing in the best engineers and the best designers and that has had compounding effects on the company and the team.
Lenny: And I think an important element there is the initial people you hire end up impacting the next batch and the next set because they see, “Wow, this person is working at Ramp. That’s incredible. I got to look at that.” So there’s an early compounding effect, too, that happens.
Geoff Charles: Exactly.
Lenny: Well, with that, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. I’ve got six questions for you. Are you ready?
Geoff Charles: Yes.
Lenny: What are two or three books you’ve recommended most to other people?
Geoff Charles: Because I work a lot, I try to read things that are completely outside of work. I don’t think I can get through any fiction or nonfiction book that’s often recommended. So anything that will pull on your heartstrings and try to make you more human. When Breath Becomes Air is a really good one that I often recommend.
Lenny: Amazing. Love that one. Favorite recent movie or TV show?
Geoff Charles: I started watching The Bear a few weeks ago. I think it’s a great show around leadership around how a different industry operates, the restaurant industry. My dad owned a restaurant so I got a little bit into that and all about teamwork and quality versus velocity [inaudible 01:11:24] of personal and professional stress. So I thought it was a really good learning.
Lenny: Wow, that show makes me really think of Ramp. That makes a lot of sense. It feels very … Everything’s just crazy moving fast. I’m just so stressed watching that show. I haven’t watched the second season yet.
Geoff Charles: You should come to our office, probably very similar.
Lenny: Just delicious food, sandwiches and the velocity. Favorite interview question you’d like to ask candidates?
Geoff Charles: I ask, what’s the hardest thing you’ve ever done? And I ask that because working at Ramp is hard. I want to understand what hard means for them. I want to understand why it was hard. I want to understand how they overcame that difficulty, how they worked with other people to overcome that difficulty, and how much agency they had in overcoming that. So it’s a really good sign around what is difficult to them and how much work they put into overcoming that.
Lenny: What is a favorite product you’ve recently discovered that you really like?
Geoff Charles: So my partner bought me this WHOOP recently. Wearing it now. It gives you this real-time stress signal. [inaudible 01:12:36] that’s pretty helpful. But I think it’s a great product in terms of just actual insights. It’s very data-driven, so it’ll tell you … You have a daily journal of all the things you did that day and it’ll correlate what you did that day to your recovery score or how healthy you are for that day.
And so it’ll give you insights around how certain actions you take will have impact on your next day’s health, which is all about heart rate variability. I thought it was just a great way to continue to focus on your health. I think running a team has a huge impact on your physical health, on your mental health, and I think you are an athlete at a high growth startup or even a small business or a large company. And focusing on that health is really, really important. So any tools like the WHOOP to invest into that is great.
Lenny: That was a really good pitch for the WHOOP. I have never wanted one, but now I do. Okay, next question. What is something relatively minor you’ve changed in your product development process that has had a big impact on your team’s ability to execute?
Geoff Charles: It’s not something I’ve changed, it’s more something that our head of design, Diego, has changed. Basically having designers spend more time creating more visionary prototypes and then sharing those out in videos. It just has just huge impact on how exciting work is and how excited the team are. And so just providing that clarity is massive. And I think just, again, Figma and Loom and prototypes that actually are interactive so people can actually play around with it is a huge way to unlock velocity.
Lenny: Final question. I’ve already asked you about this a couple of times, but I’m curious if there’s any other productivity tip or tool that you’d recommend to listeners that you haven’t mentioned yet.
Geoff Charles: Turn off notifications. Quit Slack when you’re doing deep work. Check your emails once a day and just literally go through them in five minutes. Oftentimes, most of them use lists. Check Slack only at the top of the hour. Use Slack snooze or reminders. I mean, there’s a whole other podcast we can talk about over Slack channels and how to organize that, but just get really good at the tools you’re using. I think the first year of consulting, we just got really good at Excel and Excel shortcuts, and it was a big part of our training. And so just train yourself and train your teams on how to use their tools, how to use your calendar, how to use Slack, how to use email, whatever the tool you’ve designed as the right tool for you. Be dogmatic. I mean, what Ramp is, is a tool at the end of the day and we’re helping finance teams more efficient, so let’s dock through that and do that with our own tools.
Lenny: I think we’ve had just enough velocity in our chat. I think we’re going to hit a hundred million downloads. I think we built an A-plus team here. Geoff, thank you so much for doing this. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to ask you any other questions? And second question, how can listeners be useful to you?
Geoff Charles: You can find me on Twitter and LinkedIn. Twitter is geoffintech. How can they be useful? Honestly, your attention is a gift. If you’re interested in joining us here at Ramp, we’re obviously hiring incredible people. So if anything that I shared resonates with you and if you want to join the team, and we’re hiring across product engineering design, but most importantly, be kind to yourself. I think I’ve been a huge listener to this podcast. It’s an honor to be here. I know very little. Hopefully some of what I shared was meaningful to you. But keep the growth mindset. Keep thinking from first principles. Keep investing in that growth and be patient. It takes a lot of time.
Lenny: What a beautiful way to end it. Geoff, thank you again so much for being here.
Geoff Charles: Thanks a lot, Lenny. This was a lot of fun.
Lenny: Same. Bye, everyone.
Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| accounts payable | 应付账款 |
| annual revenue | 年收入 |
| anti-pattern | 反模式 |
| B2B SaaS | B2B SaaS |
| Brian | Brian(Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky) |
| cash flow conversion | 现金流转化 |
| cash flow smoothing | 现金流平滑 |
| compounding effects | 复利效应 |
| Concur | Concur |
| contact rate | 联系率 |
| context over control | 上下文优于控制 |
| Coupa | Coupa |
| CSAT | CSAT(客户满意度) |
| deflection | 客服自助解决率 |
| design crit | 设计评审 |
| enablement | 培训赋能 |
| escalation | 升级事件 |
| FinTech | 金融科技 |
| first principles | 第一性原理 |
| flex product | flex 产品 |
| force multiplier | 力量倍增器 |
| heart rate variability | 心率变异性 |
| Karim | Karim(Ramp CTO) |
| market comparable | 市场参照物 |
| Nicole Forsgren | Nicole Forsgren(开发者生产力研究专家) |
| NPS | NPS(净推荐值) |
| one-way decision | 单向决策 |
| operational overhead | 运营负担 |
| PLG | PLG(产品驱动增长) |
| pod | pod(小型自治团队) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合点 |
| product operator | 产品运营 |
| production engineering | 生产环境工程 |
| release management | 发布管理 |
| repeater in chief | 首席重复官 |
| right to win | 赢的权利 |
| roadmap | 路线图 |
| run rate | 年化收入 |
| SaaS | SaaS(软件即服务) |
| single-threaded | 单线程 |
| SME | SME(中小企业) |
| spend management | 支出管理 |
| subject matter expert | 领域专家 |
| velocity | 速度(指执行速度) |
| voice of customer | 客户之声 |
| VP of Product | 产品副总裁 |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
速度高于一切:Ramp 如何成为史上增长最快的 SaaS 初创公司 | Geoff Charles
速度高于一切:Ramp 如何成为史上增长最快的 SaaS 初创公司 | Geoff Charles
Geoff Charles: 我加入的时候,团队大概十来个人,其中八名工程师。三个月内,我们做出了一个 Amex 的竞品。又过了六个月,我们做出了一个 Expensify 的竞品——两家都是上市公司。我们实现了 1 亿美元的年收入。我记得当时整个研发部门不到 50 人,工程师不到四名,加上三名 PM。之后我们开始扩展到应付账款(accounts payable)业务,那是个三人团队——三名工程师、一名设计师、一名 PM,三个月就做出了一个极其出色的产品。那个产品每年处理的资金流动量达到数十亿美元。我认为这一切的秘诀在于……
节目介绍
Lenny: 欢迎收听 Lenny’s Podcast,在这里我采访世界级的产品领导和增长专家,从他们打造和增长当今最成功产品的宝贵经验中学习。今天的嘉宾是 Geoff Charles,Ramp 的产品副总裁。这期节目将带大家深入了解一家初创公司——以及一种产品方法论,它以追求速度、第一性原理思考和赋能每个团队成员为核心。如果你不太了解 Ramp,他们是历史上增长最快的 SaaS 企业,仅用两年就突破了 1 亿美元年化收入,这简直疯狂。而且你在这期节目中会听到,他们是用 50 个人做到这一切的。在这次对话中,Geoff 分享了他们如何将速度文化制度化、如何以少胜多、如何组织规划、如何定义战略、如何面试产品经理并保持极高的人才标准,以及如何在高速运转的文化中避免倦怠等等。
我的建议是,认真研究 Ramp 的运作方式,因为他们的成功和产品方法论有很多值得学习的地方。请享受这期与 Geoff Charles 的对话。
关于 Ramp
Lenny: Geoff,非常感谢你来做客。欢迎来到播客。
Geoff Charles: 谢谢,Lenny,很高兴来到这里。
Lenny: 你是 Ramp 的产品负责人。对于不太了解 Ramp 的听众,能不能简单介绍一下 Ramp 是做什么的?
Geoff Charles: 好的,Ramp 是一个面向中小企业的财务自动化平台和企业卡解决方案。我们帮助企业自动化处理费用管理、卡片支付、账单支付和会计等方面的大部分事务。我们已经帮助 15000 家这样的企业自动化了大量后台工作,让他们能专注于真正重要的事——发展公司、为客户创造价值。
Lenny: 好,你没提到的是 Ramp 一些最有意思的数据、业务表现和增长故事。能不能也分享一些关于 Ramp 成绩的数据,让大家感受一下 Ramp 的故事有多罕见?
Geoff Charles: 好的。我们是史上增长最快的金融科技和 B2B SaaS 公司之一。我记得我们在前两年就达到了 1 亿美元的年收入,之后继续保持显著增长。现在每天大约有一千名新用户加入我们的平台。今年,我们为客户节省了 6 亿美元和 850 万小时——通过管控支出和自动化大量手工任务来实现。我们还在快速增长,就原始交易量而言,平台上的消费支出已经突破 100 亿美元,而这只是个开始。
Lenny: 你刚才轻描淡写地略过了那个数据——Ramp 本质上被称为历史上增长最快的 SaaS 企业,同时也是增长最快的金融科技企业。在两个品类中,它都是达到 2 亿美元年化收入最快的一家。
Geoff Charles: 没错。
速度文化
Lenny: 好的。正因如此以及很多其他原因,大家对 Ramp 的运作方式和你们的产品方法论非常感兴趣。我们之前合作过一篇 newsletter 文章,讲的是 Ramp 如何打造产品。那篇文章现在是我 newsletter 上几百篇历史文章中阅读量第八高的,甚至超过了 Figma 如何打造产品、Snowflake 如何打造产品等等这些了不起的公司。所以很显然,大家非常关注你们的运作方式。我非常期待深入聊聊你们的工作方式。任何读过那篇文章、对你们的运作有所了解的人,一提到 Ramp 的运作方式,脑海中都会立刻浮现一个词——速度(velocity)。我想从这里开始聊。能不能谈谈速度在你们的工作方式中有多重要、这个理念从何而来,以及在 Ramp 的日常工作中它具体是什么样子的?
Geoff Charles: 没错,你说到了点子上。速度就是 Ramp 的一切。它决定了我们如何设计产品开发流程,如何激励团队,我们要招什么样的人,提拔什么样的人,以及我们如何做决策、如何组织整个公司,全都围绕速度展开。
我认为这源于疫情期间的背景——我们当时团队非常小,而面前是一个巨大的市场机会。问题不在于我们该选哪条路,而在于我们在这条路上能执行得多快。因此,速度从早期就根植于我们的基因中——不断构建、发布、迭代。我认为速度是衡量公司和团队表现的一个不错的指标。你可能会说,“那速度带来的影响是什么?“但现实是,高速度的团队能够通过持续迭代真正积累出影响力。速度也是在人才市场上实现正向筛选的好方法,因为优秀人才想加入快速交付产品的公司。很多加入 Ramp 的人,我问他们为什么想来这家公司,他们常说,“因为你们确实在构建东西、发布东西,我想知道那种感觉是什么样的。“速度也是降低决策风险的好方法——如果做一个决策的成本很低,那你就能大幅简化很多决策。
Lenny: 在此基础上我想说,很多公司嘴上说他们行动很快,说速度很重要,但我觉得 Ramp 和它们非常不同。你们是真的快到令人难以置信,而且你们会不断回到这个问题上——我们怎样才能更快?你能不能举一两个例子,说说速度在 Ramp 到底是什么样子,实际情况如何?
Geoff Charles: 好的。我加入时,团队大约十来个人,八个工程师左右。三个月内,我们做出了一个 Amex 的竞品。六个月后,我们做出了一个 Expensify 的竞品——两家都是上市公司。我们达到一亿美元年收入时,整个研发部门大约不到五十人,工程师不到四名、产品经理三名。然后我们开始扩展到应付账款领域,基本上下了一个团队目标:做一个 Bill.com 的竞品。三名工程师、一名设计师、一名产品经理,三个月,他们超额完成了目标。如今那个产品每年处理数十亿美元的资金。
我认为这一切的秘诀在于:始终用小团队,保持单线程专注,给他们执行宏大目标所需的资源,设定非常紧的时间线,然后把他们与组织其余部分的混乱隔离开来。基本上就是不去打扰他们,甚至不告诉公司其他人他们在做什么,直到他们找到产品市场契合点,找到早期牵引力,然后才能引入更多资源。这就像引力一样——你需要用引力把东西拉过来。
单线程专注
Lenny: 好,我想深入聊聊你刚才提到的几点。你发现帮助团队和个人在 Ramp 内部快速行动的重要因素包括:你谈到了单线程团队、把他们保护起来不受其他人干扰、避免被拉向不同方向、设定宏大的目标。还有其他一些要点。我们先聊聊单线程这个部分。它到底是什么意思?具体长什么样?
Geoff Charles: 很少有人能在不止一件事情上同时做到极其出色的执行,这一点对个人贡献者尤其成立。所以我说”单线程”,意思就是他们每天早上醒来只有一个目标、一条线在聚焦。要实现这一点,基本上需要把要求他们做的其他任何事情都拿掉,让他们只专注于那一件事——不管是任何类型的研究、生产环境工程,还是任何超出那个单一目标的流程。这甚至到了这种程度:在办公室里专门为他们留一个房间,他们整天、每天都待在那个房间里,只做那一件事情。
Lenny: 有什么具体例子吗?不管是现在正在做的还是过去的,一个关于单线程目标或团队的好例子。
Geoff Charles: 比如,去年夏天我们上线了 flex 产品,那就是一个单线程团队,专门聚焦于电商公司及其对现金流转化和现金流平滑的需求。我们让那个团队完全专注于发布那个产品、达成那个目标。如果他们被其他事情分心,我觉得我们就不可能完成。
Lenny: 作为领导者,你怎么做到不去打扰他们?毕竟有那么多事情要做,总是会有这种声音——“如果我们只修这个 bug,这个客户会非常高兴”,或者”如果我只让这个产品经理花一天时间做这件事就好了”。我知道不会有什么”第一步、第二步、第三步”的规则,但你实际上是怎么保护团队,屏蔽那些不断冒出来的紧急事务的?
Geoff Charles: 比如,对于 bug 或类似问题,我们有专门的人来保护那些核心团队免受干扰。我们有一个生产环境工程轮值制度,工程师会保护核心团队,挡下升级事件、bug 和问题。我们还有产品运营人员来保护产品经理,挡下文档、升级事件、发布管理、培训赋能和客户请求等各种混乱。所以我们有多层保护机制围绕核心团队。但我要说,对于任何一个大赌注,你基本上需要从不同团队抽调人员,重新组建一个子团队。那个团队通常不承担任何现有产品的责任,因为这些都是全新的产品。我觉得从”0到1”变成”1到2”时,挑战会更大。
宏大目标
Lenny: 你还提到了宏大目标这个概念,这个我在很多地方都见过。在 Airbnb 时,嗯……Airbnb 以宏大目标著称。Brian(Chesky)有个出名的做法:开会时人们汇报他们的目标和计划,他就会问,“怎么做到 10 倍?你需要什么才能把目标做到 10 倍?“然后那个 10 倍的目标就成了你的目标,而且很多时候真的出人意料地奏效,当然有时也会把人累垮。你怎么看待找到那个平衡?有没有一个例子,比如”这是一个非常宏大的目标”?或者问题可能是,你怎么在雄心勃勃和根本不可能之间找到平衡?
Geoff Charles: 首先,我们有市场参照物,这对我们来说非常有利。你看 Bill.com,它是一家上市公司;Expensify,也是上市公司;还有 Concur、Coupa,这些都是大型玩家,非常激励人心,也很大程度上降低了商业决策的风险——这些都是已有的市场。同时我们也创造了新的市场。在我们和其他竞争者进入之前,支出管理本身就是一个实际存在的市场。
Geoff Charles: 这很激励人心。去攻克那个市场、去推动收入增长,这本身就非常有驱动力。我们还会用设计来激励团队,所以花大量时间与设计师一起精心构思产品未来的样子,这同样极其激励人心。我们会不断回到这些关键节点,用 Loom 录制 Figma 原型的 walkthrough 演示——设计师花大量时间逐一讲解——我认为这是激励中很大的一部分。这两者结合起来,帮助我们保持了动力。当然也不断会有这样的质疑:“好吧,我们到底能实现什么?“但如果你同时心中有市场和收入目标——因为作为一家公司我们极其收入驱动——再配合那些让你对产品未来形态有锚定感的设计,你就能以超乎寻常的速度推进。
上下文优于控制
Lenny: 我知道你们运营方式中另一个重要的要素,就是你非常喜欢赋能产品团队,给他们很大的自主权——怎么运作、构建什么、怎么设定目标等等——而不是微观管理。我觉得你有一个”上下文优于控制”(context over control)的理念。我很好奇你实际上是怎么落地执行的。很多人喜欢赋能团队的想法,然后真放手了,结果团队要么做了错误的事,要么耗时太长,要么目标设错。那么你到底是怎么做到的,怎么在团队中真正实现赋能?
Geoff Charles: 对,我觉得这是 Ramp 与我经历过的其他公司之间最大的文化差异之一。我的上司、CTO Karim,在实际产品决策方面极其放手,因为我们在目标本身上已经高度对齐。所以你真正需要做的,起点就是对齐——你要追求的目标是什么?你达成那个目标的假设是什么?支撑那个假设的数据是什么?以及验证那个假设的潜在方案是什么?很多时候,比较初级的领导者——我早年间肯定也在这个行列——一直在纠结方案,争论正确的方案,但实际上你应该在更上游的地方展开讨论。你应该争论对数据的解读,应该争论假设和各种想法——到底真正发生了什么,或者应该争论目标本身。
所以在 Ramp,每当出了问题,往往是因为我在没有事先对齐上游的目标、假设和数据的情况下,直接对方案进行指令式规定。如果你做到了上游对齐,你就会发现,实际上离一线更近的团队能产出更好的方案。我认为我现在角色中最大的目标就是持续提供上下文,让团队聚焦正确的目标、提出正确的假设、关注正确的数据点。我大部分时间都在反复重复同样的话,大部分时间都在分享我认为他们可能缺失的上下文——特别是考虑到我身处一些他们没有参与的会议或小组中,我的职责就是代表他们,然后把上下文传递回去,让他们随着时间推移做出更好的决策。
Lenny: 这让我想到这个播客中几次提到的一个说法——领导者的工作本质上就是”首席重复官”(repeater in chief),不断提醒大家战略、愿景等等。感觉要快速推进,就需要像你说的那样赋能团队让他们自己动起来,否则就无法规模化。我很好奇,为了让这更具体——你能不能举一个例子,你在之前的工作中怎么做的,对比在 Ramp 怎么做的,来展示赋能团队、不陷在细节里到底是什么样?最大的区别是什么?是产品评审中你不那么参与设计迭代了?你到底在什么环节介入给出反馈?在 Ramp 工作和在其他公司相比,实际运作上有什么不同?
Geoff Charles: 我觉得我和团队之间的契约就是他们的战略和路线图。只要我们在战略上——这个我们可以展开聊——以及在路线图和时间节奏上保持对齐,那就是他们的契约。达成对齐之后,我的角色就是持续为他们提供上下文来推进执行,通过获取他们可能遗漏的一手数据来辅导他们。而他们的角色是暴露风险,标记出那些需要我参与的单向决策(one-way decision)。再说一次,一开始并不是这样的。最开始的时候,就我和另一个 PM,我在某些方面确实相当微观管理。我认为信任是随时间建立的,你逐渐建立起这些契约。所以随着更资深的领导者成长起来,他们基本上就是在发布与我交互的”API”,我们基本上在每次一对一中对齐最重要的事项。
所以我基本上让团队这样做——我所有的直属下属每周一第一件事就是发布他们的目标。这样做的目的是让他们互相审阅彼此的目标。我有一个一对一模板,用来跟进进度,但我在一对一中其实不会花时间逐项过那个模板,我利用一对一的时间专注于他们需要从我这里得到什么。然后每两周,我有一个团队全员会议,分享大家缺失的上下文,我们就当天最重要的议题深入讨论。
产品评审与交付节奏
Lenny: 那产品体验本身呢?会有设计评审吗?你怎么确保”我们对团队一起交付的产品感到自豪”?
Geoff Charles: 我觉得我们在不断迭代。最初几年,流程更多是异步的、非正式的。当团队规模达到十到十五个 PM、二十到三十个不同的小组同时持续交付时,我觉得你需要更规范的流程来暴露高风险决策。所以我们一直在迭代。现在的做法是,路线图上任何重要的大事项都需要进入产品评审流程,我和设计负责人都会在场给出反馈,但评审的结构需要是:你明确说明需要什么类型的反馈,并且突出标注你在评审中隐含做出的关键风险和权衡。
这是我们实现规模化的一种方式。但我想说,很大程度上团队是自己交付的,区别在于 beta 和 GA 之间——这才是我们真正介入的地方。当我们决定向更广泛的客户群正式上线、让销售团队开始销售时,我才会真正介入,对假设和决策进行压力测试。这处于更下游的环节,所以风险更高,但因为我们的速度非常快,即使需要撤回也不会浪费太多时间。
速度越快,质量越高
Lenny: 对,这个确实有人提到过。我之前刚好和 Nicole Forsgren 聊过,她是开发者生产力和开发者体验领域的世界级专家,他们做了大量关于工程质量和工程速度的研究。他们发现,产品交付速度越快,质量反而越高。你可能会觉得恰恰相反——越快质量越低。但正如你所说,因为你可以非常快地修复问题,可以把东西推出去,而不需要等待一大堆人评审、发布然后才出问题,最终质量反而更高。所以这和你们的经验非常一致。
Geoff Charles: 对,而且你必须建立一套系统,让相关人员能持续收到这些反馈。所以我们真正关注的是:有哪些控制机制能确保高速度不会把业务搞垮。举几个例子,我们有客户之声流程,每一条针对我们产品的负面评价,每月都会反馈给对应的技术负责人、产品经理和设计师。我们会汇报 NPS 和 CSAT。我们还会汇报运营负担——也就是来自你产品领域的工单占比,按使用该产品的用户数做了归一化处理。这是团队必须维持的核心契约:将运营负担保持在较低水平甚至持续降低。我们还有一条,缺陷和问题会直接派给值班的工程师。这样他们能切实感受到那个痛点,然后就可以像你说的,用速度去解决这些问题。速度只是一个大小,并不代表特定的方向。
Lenny: 面对不断涌入的缺陷和质量问题,与团队自身要达成的目标和 KPI 之间的冲突,你建议团队如何平衡这两者?
Geoff Charles: 我们没有缺陷积压列表。几乎每个缺陷一经发现就会立即修复。
Lenny: 好的。
Geoff Charles: 修复这些本来就是生产环境工程师工作的一部分。我觉得真正需要细微处理的地方在于用户体验改进。我非常关注的一个指标是:有多少支持工单是因为客户感到困惑而产生的。我们会追踪这个数据。如果这个数字略微偏高,我们基本就会说:“你们不能发布任何新功能了,需要先解决这些问题。” 所以确实存在这些类型的控制机制,但基本上是在尝试标准化到各个团队:这是你的运营负担占比,这是你的 CSAT,这是你的 NPS,这是感到困惑的客户数量。只要你维持住这些指标,你想做什么都可以。但这些指标一旦亮红灯,你就不能发布新功能,必须回过头来处理这些问题。
给被要求”更快”的产品经理的建议
Lenny: 有一件挺有意思的事。我们那篇关于 Ramp 如何做产品的文章发布后,LinkedIn 上有一位产品经理半开玩笑地发帖说,她的 CEO 来找她——那篇文章之后基本上每个 CEO 都去找自己的产品经理了——就问:“我们怎么把速度提上去?怎么更快?你看看 Ramp 这种速度文化,我们为什么没有?我们怎么做才能建立这种速度文化?” 我其实有点担心,因为产品经理本身工作就很难,压力已经很大了,这又制造了新的压力。等于说有一家公司做得特别好,现在所有人都要照着做。所以我的问题是,对于那些因为你们的做法而被领导施压要求更快的产品经理,你有什么建议?
Geoff Charles: 首先,我很抱歉。不言而喻,产品经理靠自己做不了什么事。我们很没用,我们是力量倍增器。所以我想强调的第一点是,Ramp 的速度背后,与其说是我在努力放大的那种文化,不如说更多归功于工程和设计人才的质量,坦白说就是这样。我不过是站在他们的肩膀上而已。所以第一条建议是:确保从上到下把研发投入当作一等公民来对待——要愿意付高于市场的薪酬,要招最优秀的人,要重视工程和技术品牌,要让人们是因为想获得赋能才愿意来工作。然后你就有了一种赋能的文化。这意味着什么呢?这意味着 CEO 对具体产品的发言权变少了,而工程师的发言权大大增加了。
我在 Ramp 看到这一点做得非常非常好——CEO 设定愿景,但对于具体以什么顺序到达那里,他就不那么固执己见了,而是信任一个被深度赋能的技术团队。
第二点我想说的是,最大的时间浪费就是会议和状态汇报。很多时候 CEO 或领导者会说:“我们要提速,所以我们加一些状态同步会吧,加一些流程、文档、让团队担责的机制。” 这恰恰是打击团队积极性的最好方法。我从来没开过状态同步会,也从来没安排过这种会。状态更新都是异步完成的,就在大家日常使用的系统里完成,而且基本上应该是实时的。会议应该全部用来做协作、头脑风暴、决策等。所以看看你的日历,尽可能砍掉那些东西,砍掉不重要的流程。
最后一点,领导者经常说”我想特别快”,但同时又说”我什么都想要,我要这个、那个、还有那个”。Ramp 内部一个经常出现的辩论就是:是在一个客群上增加更多产品,还是进入新的客群——中小企业 vs 中型市场 vs 大企业。你问 CEO:“我们该做哪个?” 他的回答是:“全都要。” 因为他们认为目标越多,执行就越快。但我觉得这有一个上限。
清晰地沟通取舍
Geoff Charles: 所以我想强调的是,要非常清晰地明确你需要做的取舍,并把这些取舍呈现给领导层:这是我们正在做的,这是我们没在做的事情以及为什么,您会选哪个?给他们一个选项菜单。你会发现,同时做四件事比同时做八件事的执行速度快得多。这就是你的职责。你的职责就是把这些取舍沟通清楚,而很多时候这些取舍出于害怕被认为是在抵触的恐惧,并没有很好地传达给高管。你其实不是在抵触,你是在提升速度。
Lenny: 我从你的话里听到的一个元层面的意思是,把那个要求当作杠杆,去推动运营方式的改变。是这样吗?
Geoff Charles: 百分之百。你不能既要速度,又不赋权、又不信任、不砍流程、不提高聚焦度。这需要做出一些真正的取舍,而很多领导者,尤其是来自传统行业的领导者,对此并不适应。我加入 Ramp 时最大的感受就是一种如释重负——团队对此的投入程度之深。
速度文化与避免倦怠
最后我想说的是,对一个领导者而言,最能激励团队的莫过于在一个随机的项目频道里、在一次随机的设计评审中,评论一句”这太棒了”。我知道我们的创始人会去看他们真正关心的项目,工程师们也知道这一点。所以大家就是有一种共同的热情——做出真正酷的东西。工程师们能感受到这一点,也因此备受激励。所以另一条建议就是:保持参与感,给工程师创造向领导层展示成果的机会,让他们在全员大会上做演示。这也是放大这种文化的好方式。
Lenny: 这正好可以过渡到倦怠这个话题。听到一个团队以极快的速度运转,速度、速度、速度,会让人想到:人们会不会倦怠?他们享受自己的工作吗?他们如何在 Ramp 持续地坚持下去?我很好奇实际情况是怎样的,以及你如何思考为那些不断在发布、发布、发布的人避免倦怠。
努力工作与倦怠的辨析
Geoff Charles: 我认为关于努力工作和倦怠的争论忽略了一个关键点,那就是你感受到的影响有多大,以及你对正在做的工作感觉有多好。对我来说,当我感到倦怠的时候,实际上恰恰是我产出速度最低的时候。那时候我觉得自己把大量精力投入到了根本没有推进的事情上。所以我其实认为速度反而是一种可能避免倦怠的方式。我不是要求人们每周无休止地工作,而是希望大家摆脱自身的阻碍,专注于真正重要的事——为客户打造出色的产品。而要做到这一点,你需要进入心流状态,进入一种节奏,在这个节奏里一切都变得更顺畅,工作可以真正变得令人兴奋。
我认为有时候组织,尤其是在规模扩大之后,会让这一切变得非常困难。大量的干扰、大量的会议、大量跨职能团队都在争夺你的注意力,让你很难保持那种心流状态。一个类似的例子是跑步。最好的跑者是那些热爱跑步的人,他们觉得跑步不是苦差事,工作也不是苦差事。作为一个跑者,我试着去审视每当我们做那些艰难的、有挑战的、令人疲惫的事情时的感受。如果你热爱你所做的事,你对付出的努力会感觉好得多。工作也不会感觉像工作。
Lenny: 我也有同感。回想那些最好的经历、我做过的最有满足感的工作,往往是我工作时长最长的时候。就是那种非常漫长、压力很大的项目,但回头看,你总是会想,“天哪,那太不可思议了,我学了那么多,交付了那么多有趣的东西,产生了那么大的影响。“我觉得关键就像你说的——你必须为此感到自豪,它必须对你有意义,因为如果让你在毫无兴趣的事情上长时间工作,那是没有帮助的,而且确实会导致倦怠。这就是关键所在。
Geoff Charles: 你刚才说了一个词——对你有意义。不是对你的老板有意义,也不是对你老板的老板的老板有意义,而是对你有意义。我认为管理者的职责就是让团队里的每个人都觉得这是他们的目标。而做到这一点的方式,就是再次与那个目标对齐,把它交给他们,交给他们需要解决的问题。如果每个人都觉得这是他们的团队、他们的公司、他们的小公司,那他们就会从根本上避免倦怠。但如果他们觉得工作是被人强加的,觉得目标没有对齐,或者在解决方案上没有获得授权,那么倦怠一定会发生。
计划与执行的平衡
Lenny: 你分享过一句我很喜欢的话:你在计划上花的每一秒,都是你没有在执行上花的秒。一方面我很喜欢这句话,因为做得越多,发生的事情越多,完成的事情越多,一切都在推进。但另一方面,这也让人感觉有点混乱。我很好奇你如何找到这个平衡——“好吧,我们不会花大量时间做计划,我们就是冲冲冲。“以及你是如何看待这种平衡的,它在 Ramp 实际上是如何运作的——听起来你们确实不会花太多时间做计划。
Geoff Charles: 是的。我会说,当新加入者来到 Ramp 时,我会做自我介绍,讲我们的产品战略。在那个会上我会先道个歉,然后说:“你加入 Ramp 时签了一份隐含的契约。这份契约的内容是,我们几乎把速度置于一切之上。这意味着会有一定程度的混乱。我们会发布不好用的东西。我们会在没有完全做好准备的情况下更改产品,你每次打开演示实例都得时刻保持警觉。“我觉得这是一个预期,而且人们是接受这一点的,因为他们理解另一种代价是我们无法前进,无法真正创新,无法持续为客户创造价值。
我认为有些事情是需要计划的。所以真正的问题是——因为准确性是有成本的,你要确保只对那些准确性具有高价值的事情提升计划的准确性。
对我们来说,那些需要高准确性的事情是重大的市场时刻,在这些时刻我们需要产品、市场和销售协同配合。这些通常大概每季度一次,或者每半年一次。基本上就是你的市场日历。我们确实需要一个计划,但这往往只占我们整体研发投入的一小部分。所以每个团队在自己的小团队内保持一定程度的自治、一定程度的混乱,是完全可以的。他们内部极其清晰,但从外部来看可能非常混乱。但在真正重要的事情上要做到高度准确。其余的其实不重要。你不需要对某些具体功能什么时候上线有很高的准确性和信心。把原本花在创造准确性上的时间用来创造速度,要好得多。
Lenny: 我很喜欢你一开始就把期望设定得非常清晰。在这样一家公司里取得成功,这看起来真的非常重要。这也让我想起,每一家成功的创业公司都极其混乱。尽管从外部可能感觉不到,但内部确实混乱得惊人。事情在不断变化。有一次我在 Airbnb 参加了一场与 Sheryl Sandberg 的炉边谈话,有人问她:“你怎么应对变化?事情就是……我们每六个月就重组一次,人员来来去去,团队在调整,优先级一直在变。“她的回答就是:“这是你想拥有的问题。你想经历这些,因为那意味着你在成长,你在经历高速增长,因为另一种选择要糟糕得多——不增长要痛苦得多。“所以我觉得这是一个很好的提醒:如果你工作的地方很混乱,那往往是件好事。
Geoff Charles: 我同意。不过人们有时候会以此为借口,不去建立一个非常强有力的战略。而对我们来说,从一开始我们就定位为帮助客户少花钱的支出管理平台。我们的战略……我每年会发一封年度通讯,总结我们做了什么以及来年要做什么。在目标方面通常相当准确。再说一遍,目标、价值、问题和愿景,这些是一致的。具体的细节、时间、季度范围,这些东西确实会变,但你要避免的是那种频繁摇摆——让员工每天醒来觉得自己在一家不同的公司工作,或者觉得领导层在不断改变主意。我们从一开始就保持了高度的一致性,我认为我们构建的大多数产品、编写的大多数代码,都到了客户手中,没有被废弃。我觉得这也在很大程度上证明了速度的价值。
Lenny: 太好了,这个补充很好。我不是想说如果你工作的地方很混乱就没问题,而是说这是增长和高速增长的副产品,事情注定会相当混乱。
战略文档契约
Lenny: 你之前几次提到了战略,我想稍微深入聊聊。可以往几个方向展开,其中一个就是你提到的跟团队之间制定的战略契约。我们就从这里开始吧,这个契约实际是什么样的?包含哪些内容?是不是会有一份文档把这些都列出来?
Geoff Charles: 战略的含义有很多种。在我看来,战略解决的是我们如何达成目标的问题。它既不是路线图,也不是愿景,而是介于两者之间的东西。首先要做的就是对齐目标——你想看到什么结果?然后是假设——你为什么认为这样做行得通?想清楚我们作为一家公司为什么在追逐这个目标上具有独特优势。确定衡量是否达成目标的指标,然后讨论具体举措、风险以及长期成果。
Lenny: 所以这些就是战略文档契约的核心要点?
Geoff Charles: 没错。现在基本上每个 pod 都会花时间为自己团队写这样一份文档。Pod 基本上是按照产出来组织的,所以它们对自己的目标应该非常清楚,并且会把这些文档公开发布出来。而我通常会做的,是把所有这些文档拿过来,确保它们与我们高层的产品战略保持一致——产品战略比单个 pod 的思考周期更长——同时确保它们与我们的财务战略也对齐,这个我们之后可以聊。但这也是你建立赋能文化的一部分:让每个团队都去思考这些问题,像你一样思考。作为领导者,你让团队越像你一样思考,随时间获得的杠杆就越大,也越能提前思考其他运营方式。
规划周期与频率
Lenny: 规划大致需要多长时间?这种战略重新思考多久做一次?
Geoff Charles: 我们经历过各种迭代,有好的也有不好的。有一段时间,Ramp 制定了附带财务目标和某种程度上配额的 OKR 给不同团队。这导致规划耗时很长,因为大家都在努力确保指标选得正确、确保目标是可实现的。整个过程变得非常政治化,非常令人厌烦。基本上我们整个研发团队的态度就是:“我们就执行路线图好了,管它什么 OKR。“所以我们从每季度进行一次非常昂贵的季度规划——每三个月就要花一个月,基本上 33% 的时间都在做规划——转变为每半年写一页纸的公司优先级,过程顺畅得多也快得多。不过与此相关的是,我们有一个很强的财务计划在执行,财务计划的每一行或每一个杠杆都有明确的负责人。通常是市场和销售团队。对于产品驱动的事情,则是产品团队负责。这是一份契约。然后我们有路线图,这是第二份契约。
独特优势与赢的权利
Lenny: 你提到的要点中有一个是”我们在哪些方面具有独特优势”。能不能多聊聊这个?也许可以举个你做过的项目的例子,说明你是怎么描述自己为什么在这方面有赢的权利的?
Geoff Charles: 我认为软件最大的价值之一,就是如何复用你已经构建的组件来提升速度和影响力。我们之所以对账单支付作为企业卡平台的扩展方向感兴趣,是因为我们把账单看作就是给公司的一张发票,而费用报销是给员工的一张发票。这两者之间有很多相似之处——都涉及负债,都涉及在财务事件中处理这笔负债并完成资金转移,无论是公司内部的转移、公司与员工之间的转移,还是两个公司之间的转移。
所以我们相信自己在这个领域具有独特优势,因为我们已经具备了资金流动能力,已经有了某种形式的负债处理,已经与会计系统做了集成,而且我们有一套相当强大的风控流程来管理这一切。需要支付这些账单的员工也已经在平台上了。这就是一个”赢的权利”的例子。我认为如果你持续关注自己在哪些方面具有独特的获胜优势,你就会提升速度,因为你已经具备了大量的组件和专业知识。
Lenny: 我很喜欢这一点。你很少会在团队的文档里看到”为什么我们有赢的权利”这样的内容,我觉得这是一个很有意思的要素。顺便提一下,我会在节目简介里附上一个你们的规划方法的模板链接,我们之前合作的那篇文章里也有。所以大家如果在忙着记笔记抄这些要点的话,我们会有一个文档链接包含所有这些内容。
对 OKR 的看法
Lenny: 你怎么看 OKR?在规划中你是如何对待 OKR 的?
Geoff Charles: 从产品的角度来说,我基本不碰 OKR。
Lenny: 继续说。
Geoff Charles: 我认为,再说一遍,战略、财务计划、路线图。我们最终对 OKR 的定位是围绕那些更具跨职能性质的事情。比如,我们会有一个关于拿下某个特定市场的 OKR,会有跨不同团队的 OKR。但说到底,OKR 只是一种用指标来衡量目标的方法,你可以在不同粒度上使用它们。我从产品角度避开它们,是因为我更关注速度,也就是产出,也就是路线图。但在跨职能层面和财务层面,它们确实是比较有用的。
Lenny: 我甚至都不知道什么算 OKR、什么不算 OKR 了。我觉得 OKR 也就是一些目标加上一些关于我们想要达成什么的高层表述。我都不理解当人们说自己用 OKR 或不用的时候,到底意味着什么了。这个播客和我其他文章里反复出现的一个观点就是,人们已经厌倦了对”这就是我们要达到的指标,这才是唯一重要的”这种执念,担心会因此看不到更大的图景、看不到自己到底想达成什么。但我觉得归根结底也就是”这是我们要做的事,这些是我们的目标,我们要达成”——别的我也说不清了。
路线图就是合同
Geoff Charles: 我觉得你说得对。归根结底,合同就是你的产品路线图,那就是你和销售团队之间的契约。市场团队可以拿这个产品路线图去创造市场节点。最终,如果你的产品路线图没有真正达成公司的目标,那就是我的责任,因为我建立了一套体系,与每个团队对齐了路线图为什么能达成目标。所以在这一点上,你基本上需要追溯到对应的负责人。但我不能要求每个团队都去试图操控 OKR 来适配他们的路线图,那实在太折磨人了。我们已经对齐了要做的事情,那就把它做成。
第一性原理思维
Lenny: 从你的思维方式以及 Ramp 的运营方式来看,有一点非常明显,就是第一性原理思维。这个词已经被说烂了,感觉每个人都在说自己如何用第一性原理思考、这如何是他们文化的重要组成部分,但你们给人的感觉是真的在践行。所以我很好奇,这一点对你或对 Ramp 来说是怎么形成的?在 Ramp 内部有没有一个从第一性原理出发、非常明确地催生出来的新产品或新想法的例子?
Geoff Charles: 这里最重要的一点是,Ramp 是一家非常独特的公司。我们是一家信用卡公司,核心是风险管理和承保。我们同时也是一家支付公司,因为我们在企业之间转移资金。我们还是一家软件公司,因为我们做支出管理、费用管理和会计。我们面向 SME,所以有 PLG,但同时我们也面向大企业,所以我们也靠销售驱动。我们什么都是。
所以当你面对前所未有的事情时,用第一性原理来思考就非常重要。我的意思是,你不要从过去的经验中做模式匹配,而是回到我们要做的事情的根本原理,非常、非常深入地去思考。这意味着你需要招聘那些能从第一性原理出发思考、并且愿意把自己的经验放在一边的人。这对一些人来说是很难接受的——他们进来会说:“我是某某领域的专家,我知道什么最好。“进来之后,他们会受到一次关于我们业务复杂性的现实教育。而且你也不能靠说”我以前见过这种情况”来影响团队,那就是一种反模式。你不能说”我以前的公司怎么怎么做。”
Lenny: 没人想听那个。
Geoff Charles: 没人想听那个。我自己也是一样——我加入 Ramp 的时候,以为我会用上最好的产品流程,结果我不得不彻底改变那个流程,因为那个流程的前提是一个 B+ 的工程团队,而我面对的是一个 A+ 的工程团队。所以我整个……我必须回到第一性原理,重新思考产品应该如何开发和构建。所以我再说一遍,我在这里分享的所有建议,不要直接照搬照抄。从我们分享的第一性原理出发,自己推导。
客服团队归产品线管理
一个例子是我们的客服团队。客服团队汇报给我。这里的第一性原理是:“每一个客服工单都是我们产品的失败。“我们把这句话直接贴在了所有相关频道里。这就是一次失败。如果产品完美运作,没有人应该需要联系我们的客服。而让产品团队对客服负责,最好的方式就是把客服放在产品团队下面。
第二点是,我们相信我们对客户很大一部分价值来自于深度理解他们、深度倾听他们,并据此行动。所以我们不是去招聘那些只专注于解决工单的人,而是激励大家去真正减少工单数量,减少客服负担。这就需要招聘一种不同类型的人,这些人后来也成为了组织不同部门的领导者。
所以我们本来可以轻松地做模式匹配,看看市场参照物,招聘那些曾扩展过大型客服团队的人,直接使用行业基准,但我们从第一性原理出发。结果是我们的用户联系率极低。我们的平台有超过 40 万用户,而客服代理团队不到 30 人。这个比例想想是很疯狂的。
Lenny: 这太夸张了。我之前没注意到这个细节——客服团队向你和产品团队汇报?
Geoff Charles: 是的。
Lenny: 哇,我从没听说过这种做法。很酷。好。
写作即思考
我换个话题,聊聊写作。我们一起合作了那篇关于 Ramp 如何运营的文章。我对你的细节把控能力、你的表达能力、以及你对产品的思考方式印象极其深刻。在合作过程中,你提到写作对你来说非常重要,是你理清思路、解决和凝固问题的方式,对我来说也是完全一样的。我整个 newsletter 就是这样开始的——就是试图把我记住的东西、做过的事情凝固下来,这样我就能记住并分享给别人。所以我很想听听你对写作的见解——写作对你意味着什么,以及对听众有什么建议,关于用写作来帮助思考这个方法。
Geoff Charles: 在 Ramp 的这些年里,我经常面对一些无法立即回答的问题或挑战,需要回到第一性原理。最好的方法是关掉电脑,拿出一张纸,把问题尽可能简单地写在纸的最上方,然后花时间去思考如何回答这个问题。这些问题积累了很多。比如,如何……而且都是那些很少有公司成功解决过的扩展性问题。所以你必须从自己的思考出发:我们如何扩展决策机制?我们如何激励团队协作?我们如何做人员编制规划?我们如何公平地分配人员编制?当一手数据消失时,我们如何避免办公室政治?我们如何在加码投入和转型之间做决策?
这些事情都非常棘手。我发现……你可以读书,那是有帮助的,但我认为阅读不一定能让你思考得更好。它让你更有智慧,但提升思考能力最好的方式是真正去思考。这就是我对写作的看法:如果你能把事情写清楚,你就能把事情想清楚。写作也是我有效沟通的方式,尤其是在疫情期间——我们在很大程度上是在疫情期间成长起来的,所有东西都是文字形式。写作也是我输出内容、建立个人品牌和 Ramp 在行业中的品牌的方式,这又帮助我们后来招到了更优秀的人。所以这些事情相互促进,但它确实需要你留出专门的时间,再次强调,专注于你如何思考问题,而不是试图去 Google 答案。在你自己想清楚之后,再去阅读,你会修正和打磨你的想法,也会发现新的需要问自己的问题。
深度工作与时间管理
Lenny: 我非常喜欢这个建议。你之前提到 PM 其实不能独自完成太多事情,但我认为这正是 PM 能做的事情——PM 有时间去思考、去规划、去提前布局,因为他们不需要整天写代码或做设计。这就是你作为 PM 的优势。我一直觉得 PM 其实并没有什么特别独特的技能,他们只是有时间去做那些别人不想做、没时间做或不愿意做的事情。而”花时间去思考”这一点极其重要——不是整天在会议里讨论来讨论去,也不是像你说的那样去 Google 上搜答案。这一点最终会变得极其重要。我非常喜欢你这个框架:在文档最上方写下一个问题,然后坐下来,在做任何事情之前先自己尝试回答这个问题。我觉得这是一个非常好的方法。
我想问问你具体是怎么操作的。你实际上是怎么创造出这些大块时间的?有一个概念叫深度工作,它对创造性工作和知识工作非常有价值。你自己是怎么做的?你如何屏蔽出时间,不被全天的事情打扰?
Geoff Charles: 因为 Ramp 非常反对开会,所以我的日历里有时间。我基本上会这样做:每周五下班前,我会看下周的日程,看哪些最重要的问题需要我花时间思考,然后我会把那些时间屏蔽掉。我还会在周末抽出一天做深度工作。我发现拿着纸坐在外面随手涂写一些想法,其实非常令人精神焕发,因为那不像是工作,更像是我在对某个问题进行哲学思考。所以,屏蔽出那段时间,找一个不那么繁忙的空间——不要处于关键路径上——比如清早、傍晚,或者周末的一天,这是最好的方法。
Lenny: 如果有人想跟你安排会议、联系你,或者把某个人加到你的日历上,你会怎么处理?你有没有什么规则来保护那段时间?
Geoff Charles: 我觉得我永远不应该处于任何事物的关键路径上。所以大部分情况下,我是不可约的,但如果他们真的需要找到我,他们有我的电话号码。
Lenny: 很好。我有一个很有用的做法:每周三早上和周五早上,我都会留出一大块时间,叫做深度工作时间。如果你在这个时间段预约会议,我会揍你的。我不知道我还能不能把这种话写进日历邀请里了,但那个方法确实非常有效。基本上没有人在那个时段安排会议。
Geoff Charles: 我不知道 Zoom 还有时段功能,这个倒是挺方便的。
Lenny: 那是 Google 的,是日历里的。就是日历邀请。我也通常每周至少工作一天,我发现这非常有效,我知道很多人不想这样做,但我觉得这对于取得好的成果非常重要。
还有一个相关的问题,关于优化信息处理、推进事务和深度工作时间——你还有没有其他关于保持条理、掌控事情的最佳实践?毕竟每天都有大量的事情向你涌来。
任务管理与信息处理
Geoff Charles: 如果你是一个管理者,像我一样,从上午十点到下午六点都在一个接一个的会议里,你很容易被海量的待办事项完全淹没。所以我花时间建立了一套相当稳健但又比较简单的任务管理流程。具体做法是:每次会议结束后,我会写下我自己欠别人的任务和别人欠我的任务,而且写得尽可能清楚——不是什么模糊的东西,而是一个非常明确的事项,以及我需要什么时候完成。我不会花时间去整理。到了一天结束的时候,我用笔记——就是一页纸,上面写着我需要完成的所有事情,以及别人需要替我完成的所有事情。然后我花时间去整理,基本上就是把事情按逻辑归类,把战术性的和战略性的分开,重要的和不那么重要的分开。
我还会把别人欠我的东西归总,通过 Slack 把他们欠我的事项发给他们,并在 Slack 上设置一个提醒,提醒他们在什么时间之前需要交付。这样一来,这些事情就不在脑子里了,眼不见心不烦。我觉得总的原则是:我试图为”处理”而不是”记忆”创造和释放脑力空间。所以我基本上很少花时间去记任何东西,而是把所有东西都写下来。当你试图记住某个具体日期或某人说过的话时,这确实比较困难,但你有了一套系统,可以非常快速地把这些东西调出来。在 Google 的生态里,你可以调出任何文档,非常快地搜索大量文档。所以我的做法就是:花更多时间在处理上,极其擅长任务管理,然后归类整理,第二天根据你前一天设定的目标来安排日历——把战术性任务归类在一起,然后为更战略性、更深层的思考再开辟出额外的空间。
Lenny: 我觉得你我在很多事情上非常一致。我处理优先级的方式和你一模一样。你读过 David Allen 的《Getting Things Done》吗?
Geoff Charles: 其实我不怎么读非虚构类的书。
Lenny: 好的,因为你描述的这套方法跟那个关于处理信息和对待办事项的方法非常一致,我的方法就是建立在那上面的。所以你是自然地从自己脑子里演化出来的,我很喜欢。
PM 团队与招聘
我们换个话题,聊聊你的团队和招聘之类的事情。接下来会是一组五花八门的问题。你现在的 PM 团队是什么样子的?不管是人数还是比例,或者从 PM 的角度来看?
Geoff Charles: Ramp 大约有 13 个 PM,工程师超过一百人。所以我基本上把比例控制在 1 比 8 到 1 比 15 之间,具体取决于团队。显然,B2B 会稍微复杂一些,因为你要面对相当强势的市场团队、相当强势的销售团队,以及对你有合作关系且要求很高的客户。所以我看到这个比例比 B2C 领域要低一些。但这就是目前团队的基本情况。他们按团队组织,按客户的痛点来划分。
Lenny: 我之前有一条笔记,你说过你们达到一亿美元 ARR 的时候——那个是年化收入,而不是经常性收入,对吧?
Geoff Charles: 对。
Lenny: 当时只有 50 个人,这太惊人了。所以就这一点而言,你是怎么做到用这么少的 PM 做这么多事的?你有没有发现什么最终被证明非常重要的东西?
Geoff Charles: 我觉得通过削减或缩小团队规模,我们倒逼了公司里其他人像 PM 一样思考,我认为这对我们的文化是一个巨大的价值增量。当我说”产品”的时候,人们通常想到的是产品管理,但我实际上认为产品是所有向我们的 CTO 汇报的人——包括产品工程、产品设计、产品经理、产品数据科学家。所以让每个人都觉得自己像一个 PM,是 PM 获得杠杆效应的好方法,这意味着基本上是赋能设计师去思考实际的规格说明、优先级和范围,而不是由你来主导;或者赋能工程师去接手一个相对轻量的规格或方向,然后深入思考,带着一些 PM 没有想到的好问题回来。这是第一点。
投资产品运营与削减低杠杆工作
Geoff Charles: 第二点是我们很早就投资了产品运营(product operations),这是一个同样向我汇报的团队,基本负责产品相关的运营职能——包括项目管理、问题管理、发布管理、培训赋能、内容 beta 测试以及客户研究等等。他们的职责是完成大量支撑持续交付产品和规模化产品开发所必需的工作。
最后一点,就是尽可能削减 PM 经常被卷入的那些低杠杆工作。比如,我们从不写工单。我们不太花时间在 Linear 上——那是我们的工单管理系统。基本上,我们交付给工程团队的是愿景、优先级和一份非常高层级的规格说明,其他一切都交给工程团队。我认为这样工程师反而能走得更快,因为他们可以自己创建想要的工单,自己拆分工作,对自己推进的项目负责,这增加了信任,也加快了速度。
Lenny: 这完全说得通。基本上你把其他公司压在 PM 一个人身上的工作,分散到了团队其他成员身上。那么如果你要概括一下 Ramp 目前产品经理的核心工作是什么,我从目前听到的来看,大概是战略、愿景、团队对齐。还有什么?用要点列几条也行。
Geoff Charles: 团队建设。也就是在 pod 内部建立文化,因为很多时候你的管理者并不在你的团队里——工程师可能向不同的人汇报,设计师可能向不同的人汇报,PM 也可能向不同的人汇报。所以在 pod 内部真正建立起团队文化是非常、非常重要的。这往往落到 PM 头上——去组织那些 offsite 活动、创意脑暴会,或者想办法让团队一起开心地玩。
第二点是确保团队在核心聚焦领域运转顺畅,同时保护团队不受外部利益相关方的干扰——那些想表达意见、要进度汇报、想安排各种会议的人。所以要把核心团队从这些混乱中保护起来,自己作为中心联系人,如果有人有问题或需要什么,由你来对接,然后在恰当的时机引入合适的人。这些也是非常值得一提的重要方面。
如何判断你的团队是否是 A+ 团队
Lenny: 回到我之前记的一个笔记,你提到你在 Ramp 分享的这些产品建议和方法论,都有一个前提假设:团队是 A+ 的,工程师是 A+ 的,设计师是 A+ 的。对于正在听这期节目的听众,如果他们在想”我的工程师到底算不算 A+“,你会怎么帮他们判断——什么样的团队能以这种方式运作,什么样的团队永远不可能这样运作,也许需要调整工作方式,或者该换个地方工作了?
Geoff Charles: 好问题。确实很难判断。我想到几点。第一,这个工程师想不想在市场上赢?他是不是真的在乎打败竞争对手、赢得客户的心?他是否理解自己所处的商业背景以及为什么需要这样做?他是否对公司的盈利方式感到好奇,对客户喜欢什么、不喜欢什么感到好奇,对最重要的项目是什么以及为什么重要感到好奇?他会不会问你业务层面的问题,而不仅仅局限于工程领域?他能不能在没有你帮助的情况下完成他说要做的事,还是你觉得必须在他后面推着才行?是不是他在设定节奏——催你跟上规格说明的进度、催你做决策、催你更快地回应阻碍他们的东西、要求配更多 PM 或更多设计师来做更多事情?
他们是否在你认为本该由你负责的各种渠道中主动出击?比如,我们有不同的 Slack 频道,有时候很多人在里面提问、反馈问题或报告阻塞。你会看到工程师直接跳进去解释某个功能怎么用,收集反馈,主动修 bug。你可能会想,“那不是当务之急啊,我需要控制工程师在做什么。” 但其实那不是你的工作,那不是你的工作。你的工作是确保他们与长期愿景对齐,确保他们能交付承诺的东西,除此之外,他们爱做什么做什么。如果他们做的事情会危及已经承诺的交付,他们会主动沟通。所以,归根结底就是那种主动性、那种帮助的意愿、那种改进的欲望、那种对自己产品的责任心。
如果他们的产品表现不好,如果他们的产品收到反馈,他们是自己去处理还是需要你推着才动?这些都是心态和文化层面的表现。我甚至还没涉及技术严谨性、系统质量和代码速度,因为我不擅长评判那些,那也不是我的角色。但这些都是我一眼就会去看的东西,我认为这就是我们在 Ramp 构建的工程团队与其他团队的根本区别。这也是我们所建立的文化转变和文化的很大一部分。
Lenny: 这个回答太棒了。我觉得作为 PM,你经常不希望你的工程师和设计师有这么强的主见、对什么事情都这么上心,因为你会觉得”完了,我觉得应该这样做,结果工程师有一堆自己的想法”。但你的意思是,这恰恰是你应该拥抱的——前提是你信任他们的判断力,相信他们确实能把事做成。所以某种程度上这对 PM 来说是一种约束,但我认为这是一种非常独特的文化和方法。这个回答真的很精彩。
Geoff Charles: 当然,这种文化也有缺点——你会拥有一支极度被赋能的工程团队,他们觉得自己比设计师或 PM 更懂产品,会反驳设计方案,会与 PM 意见相左。但这种文化,我任何时候都愿意要,远远好过一种工程师照单全收、不挑战思考、不从自己的角度出发去想问题的文化。我宁愿团队里有人挑战我让他们做的事、挑战我认为重要的事——也许管理起来更难,但这会逼我对自己的要求和判断思考得更深。我也因此作为管理者成长得更快。
招聘中看重的特质
Lenny: 我很喜欢这一点。最后两个问题,第一个关于招聘。你面试候选人的时候会看重什么?Ramp 看重哪些东西,可能是其他公司不够重视、或者过于重视的?你觉得什么是你们独特的筛选标准,帮助你们招到这些 A+ 团队成员的?
Geoff Charles: 我们寻找那些有强烈愿望产生影响力的人。评估这一点最好的方式,就是看他们曾经产生过什么样的影响力,或者他们换工作的原因。再说回我之前提到的——速度(指执行速度)会吸引想要追求速度的人。最好的信号就是:「我离开是因为节奏太慢了,太官僚了。我怀念以前那种直接构建、发布、上线的日子。」我还会寻找能深入思考的人,所以我会围绕他们做过的一个决策、一个权衡,挖得非常深,一层一层地追问,直到我真正理解他们的决策方式和思考深度。
总体而言,我们倾向于把这两种能力看得比经验更重要,因为在 Ramp 这样独特的业务中,经验的重要性要低得多。你的影响力和成就,更多取决于你的饥渴感和深入思考的能力,而非过往经验。
Lenny: 最后一个问题。很多听众想进入产品管理领域。你有什么建议?我相信你经常被问到这个问题。怎么才能入行做产品管理?你一般怎么回答?
Geoff Charles: 对我来说,我从大学到咨询,再进入科技公司——最初其实是类似解决方案分析师的职位,我记得那是我的头衔。我 basically 是在大型银行实施一套大型 B2B 软件。我进入产品管理的方式,其实就是深入理解客户、深入理解产品,然后在这两者的结合上展现出影响力。通常能加入产品团队的人,都是产品之外绩效最高的那些人——要么对客户理解极深、能给产品团队提供建议,要么对产品本身理解极深、能很好地服务客户。
所以我对想转产品的人的建议是:先找一个与产品相邻的角色,让你能获得这些经验并证明自己。比如,产品运营就是一个不错的选择。业务运营也不错。做咨询、销售工程或解决方案工程也可以。设计师和工程师也可以转做 PM。通常来说,是那些能做到 PM 所做之事的人能转过来。我们的做法一般是给这些人一个机会——给他们六个月的时间去一个新领域试一试。然后我们让与他们合作的工程师和设计师来做决定,到底想让这位 PM 还是另一位 PM 留在团队里。
Lenny: 在进入我们非常令人期待的快问快答环节之前,你还有什么想分享的吗?
Geoff Charles: 有。第一,从第一性原理出发思考,不要把我说的每句话都当作理所当然。第二,回到人才这个话题——我们成功的很大一部分要归功于 Karim 在技术侧打造的早期团队。我可以整天写博客讲我们如何提升速度,但如果只说一件事的话,那就是:被赋权的、有才华的工程师和设计师,才是 Ramp 如此成功的最大原因,而这需要投入大量精力。在 Ramp 的第一年,我们的 CTO Karim 几乎只专注一件事——招聘最优秀的人才。他对我们的产品策略、产品市场契合点、甚至收入的关注都少得多。他全部的心思就是招到最好的工程师和最好的设计师,而这对公司和团队产生了复利效应。
Lenny: 而且我觉得一个关键要素是,你最初招到的人会影响下一批人、再下一批人,因为他们会看到:「哇,这个人在 Ramp 工作,太厉害了,我得去看看。」所以早期也会产生一种复利效应。
Geoff Charles: 没错。
快问快答
Lenny: 好,接下来就是我们非常令人期待的快问快答环节。我准备了六个问题。准备好了吗?
Geoff Charles: 准备好了。
Lenny: 你最常向别人推荐的两三本书是什么?
Geoff Charles: 因为我工作很忙,所以我会尽量读和工作完全无关的东西。那些经常被推荐的虚构或非虚构类书籍我未必能读完。我推荐任何能触动你心弦、让你变得更有人情味的东西。《当呼吸化为空气》是一本非常好的书,我经常推荐。
Lenny: 太好了,我也很喜欢那本。最近最喜欢的电影或电视剧?
Geoff Charles: 我几周前开始看《熊家餐馆》。我觉得这是一部很棒的剧,讲的是领导力,讲的是一个完全不同的行业——餐饮业是怎么运作的。我爸爸开过餐厅,所以我有点共鸣。它也讲团队合作,以及质量与速度之间的平衡,还有个人和职业压力的交织。所以我觉得从中学到了很多。
Lenny: 哇,那部剧让我想到 Ramp。确实很说得通。感觉一切都在疯狂地高速运转。我看那部剧的时候特别紧张。我还没看第二季。
Geoff Charles: 你应该来我们办公室看看,可能差不多。
Lenny: 就是美味的食物、三明治,还有速度。你最喜欢问候选人的面试问题是什么?
Geoff Charles: 我会问:你做过的最难的事情是什么?我之所以问这个,是因为在 Ramp 工作很难。我想了解「难」对他们来说意味着什么,为什么难,他们是如何克服这个困难的,如何与他人合作来克服的,以及他们在克服过程中有多大的主动权。所以这个问题能很好地反映出什么对他们来说是困难的,以及他们为之付出了多少努力。
Lenny: 你最近发现的、非常喜欢的产品是什么?
Geoff Charles: 我的伴侣最近给我买了一个 WHOOP。我现在就戴着。它会给你实时的压力信号,这个还挺有用的。但我觉得它作为一个产品最厉害的地方在于它提供的洞察。它非常数据驱动——你每天有一个日记记录当天做的所有事情,然后它会把你那天的行为与恢复评分或当日健康状态关联起来。
所以它会给你洞察,告诉你某些行为会如何影响你第二天的健康,这些都与心率变异性有关。我觉得这是一种持续关注自身健康的很好方式。管理一个团队对你的身体健康和心理健康都有巨大影响,我认为在高速增长的创业公司——甚至小企业或大公司——你就是一名运动员。所以专注于身体真的很重要。像 WHOOP 这样的工具在这方面投入是很好的。
Lenny: 这真的是一个非常好的 WHOOP 推销。我以前从来没想要过,现在想要了。好,下一个问题。你在产品开发流程中做过什么相对较小的改变,却对团队的执行力产生了很大影响?
Geoff Charles: 这不是我改的,而是我们的设计负责人 Diego 做的改变。他让设计师花更多时间创建更有远见的原型,然后以视频的形式分享出来。这对工作的吸引力和团队的兴奋度产生了巨大的影响。仅仅是提供那种清晰度就已经非常了不起了。而且我觉得,Figma、Loom 以及可以实际交互的原型——让人们可以真正上手玩一玩——是解锁速度的巨大杠杆。
最后一个问题
Lenny: 最后一个问题。我已经问过你好几次了,但我还是很好奇,你还有什么其他的生产力技巧或工具推荐给听众,是到目前为止还没提到过的?
Geoff Charles: 关掉通知。做深度工作的时候退出 Slack。每天只查一次邮件,五分钟内快速过一遍。大多数邮件用列表处理就好。每小时整点再查 Slack。用 Slack 的暂停或提醒功能。说实话,关于 Slack 频道的组织和整理我们可以单独做一整期播客来聊,但核心就是——把你正在用的工具用到极致。我回想咨询第一年,我们就是花了大量时间把 Excel 和 Excel 快捷键练到极致,那是我们培训的重要组成部分。所以要训练自己和团队,学会使用手头的工具——怎么用日历,怎么用 Slack,怎么用邮件,不管你选择什么作为适合自己的工具,都要严格要求自己。说到底,Ramp 本身就是一个工具,我们帮助财务团队提升效率,所以我们自己也应该用同样的标准要求自己的工具使用。
Lenny: 我觉得我们这场对话保持了足够的速度。我觉得我们要冲到一亿次下载了,我们在这里组建了一支 A+ 团队。Geoff,非常感谢你来做这期节目。最后两个问题——大家如果还想问你其他问题,可以在哪里找到你?第二个问题,听众怎样才能帮到你?
Geoff Charles: 你可以在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上找到我。Twitter 账号是 geoffintech。怎么帮到我?说实话,你的关注本身就是一份礼物。如果你有兴趣加入 Ramp,我们当然在招揽优秀的人才——我分享的任何内容如果引起了你的共鸣,你想加入团队的话,我们在产品、工程、设计各个方向都在招聘。但最重要的是,善待自己。我是这档播客的长期听众,能来这里是我的荣幸。我懂得很少,希望我分享的一些内容对你有意义。保持成长型心态。持续从第一性原理出发思考。持续投资于成长,保持耐心。这需要很多时间。
Lenny: 多美的收尾。Geoff,再次感谢你来参加节目。
Geoff Charles: 非常感谢,Lenny。非常开心。
Lenny: 我也是。大家再见。
感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你喜欢的播客应用上订阅。也请考虑给我们评分或留言,这对其他听众发现这档播客真的很有帮助。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| accounts payable | 应付账款 |
| annual revenue | 年收入 |
| anti-pattern | 反模式 |
| B2B SaaS | B2B SaaS |
| Brian | Brian(Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky) |
| cash flow conversion | 现金流转化 |
| cash flow smoothing | 现金流平滑 |
| compounding effects | 复利效应 |
| Concur | Concur |
| contact rate | 联系率 |
| context over control | 上下文优于控制 |
| Coupa | Coupa |
| CSAT | CSAT(客户满意度) |
| deflection | 客服自助解决率 |
| design crit | 设计评审 |
| enablement | 培训赋能 |
| escalation | 升级事件 |
| FinTech | 金融科技 |
| first principles | 第一性原理 |
| flex product | flex 产品 |
| force multiplier | 力量倍增器 |
| heart rate variability | 心率变异性 |
| Karim | Karim(Ramp CTO) |
| market comparable | 市场参照物 |
| Nicole Forsgren | Nicole Forsgren(开发者生产力研究专家) |
| NPS | NPS(净推荐值) |
| one-way decision | 单向决策 |
| operational overhead | 运营负担 |
| PLG | PLG(产品驱动增长) |
| pod | pod(小型自治团队) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合点 |
| product operator | 产品运营 |
| production engineering | 生产环境工程 |
| release management | 发布管理 |
| repeater in chief | 首席重复官 |
| right to win | 赢的权利 |
| roadmap | 路线图 |
| run rate | 年化收入 |
| SaaS | SaaS(软件即服务) |
| single-threaded | 单线程 |
| SME | SME(中小企业) |
| spend management | 支出管理 |
| subject matter expert | 领域专家 |
| velocity | 速度(指执行速度) |
| voice of customer | 客户之声 |
| VP of Product | 产品副总裁 |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)