产品管理的艺术 | Shreyas Doshi (Stripe, Twitter, Google, Yahoo)
The art of product management | Shreyas Doshi (Stripe, Twitter, Google, Yahoo)
Full Interview Transcript
Lenny Rachitsky: Today, I am super excited to bring you a very special episode with Shreyas Doshi, recorded live at the Lenny and Friends Summit in front of 1,000 people in San Francisco. This is Shreyas’ second time on the podcast. His first visit is the third most popular episode of all time of this podcast, and I love that Shreyas was game to try this.
In our conversation, Shreyas shares three questions plus a bonus question that he wished he’d asked himself sooner in his career. We talk about why product leaders are so busy, why the job is so frustrating, why it is so central to build good taste, and also why you’re probably not listening as well as you should be. This was so much fun, a huge thank you to Shreyas for doing this.
If you enjoy this podcast, don’t forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube. It’s the best way to avoid missing future episodes, and helps the podcast tremendously. With that, I bring you Shreyas Doshi. Shreyas, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast.
Shreyas Doshi: Thanks, Lenny, for having me. This is amazing.
Questions to Ask Yourself Early
Lenny Rachitsky: I was going to ask, we recorded our first episode, I think two years ago, and I was in a tiny room in my house. I don’t know where you were, but it was very not like this. Thoughts on the setup of this episode?
Shreyas Doshi: So first, the Lenny Empire keeps growing, which is amazing to see. And second, as I was coming up here, somebody told me this used to be a car dealership, and I actually realized I purchased my car here.
First Question: Why Am I So Busy?
Lenny Rachitsky: What?
Shreyas Doshi: So crazy, only in SF.
Limits of Productivity Hacks
Lenny Rachitsky: What kind of car was this? Say more.
Real Product Strategy Over Long Planning
Shreyas Doshi: It was a Honda CR-V.
Practical Advice for Better Planning
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, wow. I am told this venue was also used for… Jimi Hendrix performed here, and Aretha Franklin performed here. So it’s like Jimi Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, Shreyas.
The Two-Way Door Trap
Shreyas Doshi: There we go, that’s going up on my Twitter bio soon.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, so usually, when we talk, you’re full of ideas and you’re full of answers. When we were preparing for this, you told me, “I have questions, I have questions I want to ask.”
The Cost of Missing Strategy
Shreyas Doshi: You know, reflecting on my career as a PM leader over the years, there are some questions I wish I had asked myself sooner, but I did not, and I had the great luck of having a life, a PM life full of suffering, and I have zero complaints about it. But as I look back, I feel like there are some questions that even if I asked myself some questions, those questions, I wasn’t honest to myself about the answers. So that’s what I thought I’d do, is share the questions that I wish I’d asked myself sooner.
The Taste of Beliefs
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome.
Spotting Authentic Taste
Shreyas Doshi: Yeah.
Judgment Hijacked by Rhetoric
Lenny Rachitsky:
WorkOS also recently acquired Warrant, the Fine Grained Authorization service. Warrant’s product is based on a groundbreaking authorization system called Zanzibar, which was originally designed for Google to power Google Docs and YouTube. This enables fast authorization checks at enormous scale, while maintaining a flexible model that can be adapted to even the most complex use cases. If you’re currently looking to build role-based access control or other enterprise features, like single sign-on, SCIM, or user management, you should consider WorkOS. It’s a drop-in replacement for Auth0 and supports up to 1 million monthly active users for free. Check it out at workos.com to learn more. That’s workos.com.
But building these integrations in-house cost an average of three months of engineering, according to the 2024 State of Integration survey, which results in difficult roadmap trade-offs. This is why engineering teams at Coffee AI, AI21, and over 100 other B2B SaaS companies use Paragon, so they can focus their efforts on core product features, not integrations. The result, they’ve shipped integrations seven times faster, all while avoiding the never-ending maintenance that comes with rolling your own integrations. Visit useparagon.com/lenny to see how Paragon can help you accelerate your product’s integration roadmap today and get $1,000 in credit on their Pro and Enterprise plans. That’s useparagon.com.
What’s the first question?
Shreyas Doshi: Right, so let’s see, the first question is why am I so busy? Why am I so busy? And the background is that I have spent most of my career just being completely stressed out, just absolutely stressed out every day. And there were many reasons for it, but one of the core reasons was I was always super busy, and there was always work I felt like I couldn’t do that I wanted to do, and so I would go home at the end of the day, and even if I had worked hard, I’d just feel dissatisfied.
And so that was a constant fixture of my life as a PM, PM leader, and it’s only… So I did product work for about 20 years before I started this new chapter of my career. And I think I only fixed it in the last three or four years of my career as a PM leader. But that means that there were about 16 or 17 years where I was just incredibly busy, and because I was incredibly busy, I was extremely stressed, and even though I was doing a good job, I was not feeling very good inside. And then, that showed up in my body, like all sorts of pains and aches I realized were actually not physical pains and aches. They were pains and aches from the stress.
Philosophy of Pen and Paper Notes
Lenny Rachitsky: It’s like health issues that you had?
Career Frustrations and Superpowers
Shreyas Doshi: Yeah, yeah, minor stuff. I mean, relatively minor stuff, but playing tennis, and you pull your back muscle, and now you are horizontal for three days, doesn’t feel good.
The Art of True Listening
Lenny Rachitsky: Who here is very, very busy, and is just way too busy? Raise your hand.
End of the Show
Shreyas Doshi: That’s it?
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I know.
Shreyas Doshi: Whoa.
Lenny Rachitsky: Everyone’s like [inaudible 00:07:39] everybody. Yeah, people were like, “Yeah, yeah. I don’t have to raise my hand, I’m busy.” Yeah. Okay, keep going.
Shreyas Doshi: Yeah, and so here’s the thing, when we talk about being busy, and managing your time, energy, all of that, I mean, this is a group of senior product people, so you all know that. Take tips and techniques, like maintain a to-do list. I found the LNO framework very useful for me, which I’ve shared before. I used to like working out of a calendar, those types of things. And I think you’re all familiar with those things, but what I wanted to call out is that, at some point in our product career, we reach something, we reach an immovable force that will just overwhelm us, no matter what we do.
And that force is a scope. Okay, so as we grow in our product career, our scope grows, and we kind of like that, which is all great, but at some point, if you haven’t already gotten there, many of you have, but for those of you who haven’t, you will get there, where your scope will be so large, that no matter what you do in terms of efficiency, whatever framework you use for prioritization, whatever framework or tool you use to manage your to-do list, whatever tools and techniques you use, whatever prioritization you do, your scope is so large that you are still going to be incredibly busy.
And so that’s what I faced, like I was saying for the first about 16, 17 years of working on products, and only in the last 3 or 4 years was I able to kind of find some answers on how to deal with that scope. And so perhaps we can talk about that, what do you think?
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, so you’re basically saying there’s all these productivity tricks, ways to do more faster. And no matter how many of these tools you’ve got, you are just going to take on more and more work, and they’ll peter out? I’ll say many of my most popular newsletters posts are, “Here’s productivity tricks and tips.” And so people are always looking for these. And I’m curious to hear where you go with this, of just like that is not the answer long term, there’s a different approach?
Shreyas Doshi: Yes, and so the challenge is the following. How many of you are going through some kind of annual planning right now or you’re planning on going through annual planning? Please. Everybody loves annual planning, great. So let’s take annual planning. If you are a high-level manager, leader within a company, what does your month look like? Or in some cases, unfortunately, what do your two or three months look like when you are going through annual planning? It’s all these kind of spreadsheets to fill out, and meetings to have, and dependencies, and priorities, and stakeholders to meet, and so on. And so I noticed, for instance, that at some point, that was making me really busy, and then that was making me feel guilty now, because I had my team to look after and to support, and then I had product decisions to make and various other things, and I’ve gone on some planning retreat or whatever.
And there you go, you last four, five, six, weeks, does that sound familiar to folks? Yeah? Okay, so I noticed that I needed to change that at some point, and actually found a solution, again, late in my career, but I found a solution, because I asked myself this question, which is, “Why am I so busy? I’m doing all the efficiency things, I’m managing my to-do list like a champ. I have my calendar set up just right. I have my routine set up just right. I’m working out so that I’m engaged at work, I’m productive, I’m doing all of that. Why am I so busy? Oh, it’s planning season, and that is supposed to take up four to six weeks.” And this was at Stripe when I encountered this. So that is supposed to take up four to six weeks.
Well, I realized that you don’t have to do that. And so at some point in my time at Stripe, what I realized is the following, we go through a whole all sorts of just rituals around planning for four to six weeks. Then, we emerge and we share our plan with our executives. You know the questions they’re going to ask, like, “If money were no concern, what would you do? What is your ambitious plan? So if we gave you five more engineers, what would you do? What other things would you include in the roadmap?” Right? The standard stuff. And so you emerge, you do your presentation, and then you publish the plan, and then you start the new year with a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of excitement. And January goes fine, until you get three customer escalations for features that were not in your plan. And so now, you try to figure out how you’re going to revise resources.
You go talk to some dependency team that’s going to sort of support these new features from these customer escalations. And you go through that process, and you revise your plan again. And then, usually by the time it’s last week of February, everybody’s forgotten the actual plan. And now, we are executing off of some other list somewhere. And by the way, when you mention this at times, politely of course, you might mention like, “You know, I’m noticing we are not actually really using the plan that we spent four to six weeks minimum doing.” And then, some smart person in the room chimes in with, “Plans are useless, but planning is everything.”
I don’t know, Eisenhower, somebody else, I don’t know who said this, “Plans are useless, but planning is everything.” Nobody knows what it means. Nobody knows what that means, but everybody appreciates, “Ah, plans are useless, but planning is everything.” Right? So I went through a few years of this. And then I go, “You know what? I’m going to bend some rules here.” And so what I realized, Lenny, is you don’t have to go through these four to six weeks, and it was an accident. Basically, what happened is around that time, the product I was working on, Stripe Connect, it’s like a major product for Stripe, major, major business for Stripe. And I had put together a product strategy, like a real product strategy for this product.
And so this must have been earlier in the year. And so now, planning season came along. And the interesting I found is that because I had a real product strategy, not one of those fake ones, a real product strategy that I had gotten alignment on with everybody, my planning for this major product for Stripe took me like three days. Right, so while a lot of my peers, unfortunately, for their own products, were in this four-to-six week cycle of planning, and meeting, and blah, blah, blah, I just put it all together in three days, and whatever artifacts were needed, I put them together.
I did not fill out some templates. That’s where it’s about bending the rules, because if a template doesn’t make sense, why should I fill it out? There’s no need to fill it out. And so that’s when I realized that actually, if you have a real product strategy, a real one that everybody is aligned with, that you have got pre-alignment on, then a lot of this nonsense we tend to do with annual planning actually goes away. Now, you still have to do some resource allocation and all of that, but even there, you don’t need that false precision. How many of you have gotten into arguments about, “So should it be eight engineers for this team in 2025, or nine engineers for this team in 2025?”
Like, who cares? We all know that even those numbers that we set up, we don’t actually follow through on them, as 2025 happens. So that’s just an example of where we spend a lot of time on things that we think are strategic, that we think are important, but actually, we ought to spend that time on other much higher leverage things. Right, now it does require some upfront work, in this case upfront work on a clear product strategy that everybody understands, that everybody’s aligned on. But frankly, if you have that, planning should be a breeze.
Lenny Rachitsky: So what would be your kind of tactical tip for folks that want to do this better? I know there’s probably a billion examples of these sorts of things you shared, so planning is an example. Folks that want to be less busy, maybe on that one is it give yourself very little time, and focus on strategy, and let that be the plan, basically, versus every single person and their roadmap for the next six months. What’s the piece of advice you’d share there? And then, I want to move on to the next question, because I want to make sure we get through all these questions.
Shreyas Doshi: Yes, there’s definitely a specific tip, which is if you do have a strategy that will make a lot of your prioritization problems go away, it will make a lot of planning problems go away. And even if you do have some escalation from sales, which you will, or from support, or somewhere else, you now have at least a more rigorous framework to figure out what to do with that escalation. So there’s definitely that.
But I think other thing I want to share is that, and this was my other realization as I asked the question, “Why am I so busy?” is I realized that I am so busy because I’m not making good product decisions. Okay, now, you have to understand, by this time I’m like 15 years into building products and whatever, 11 years into being a product manager. And so I think I’m pretty good. That’s my kind of self-image. But then, again, if I’m being honest to myself, I’m not making as good product decisions as I can. So can I share an example of that?
Lenny Rachitsky: Please.
Shreyas Doshi: So what I noticed is that you have a meeting about some product feature that somehow is requested or is really important, whatever the case might be. And so you have a meeting with some stakeholders and your engineering team, designers, et cetera. And then, you’re trying to decide, “Should we build this or not?” And somebody says, “You know what? Why are we doing a meeting for this?” I read somewhere or I heard Bezos say that two-way doors, it’s a two-way door. You quickly make a decision. Like, just quickly make a decision and move on. This is a two-way door. And so you say, “Yeah, that’s right.” And any time we hear something like that, two-way door, you’re like, “Oh, that person’s really smart, so I want to be like them.”
So I noticed that myself and my team, we were making these kinds of decisions without very clearly thinking through customer motivation, very clearly thinking through differentiation, very clearly thinking through a distribution approach for whatever this feature is. And while it sounds like, “Oh, of course you should be doing this,” I guarantee you this is not how most product teams work. They’re talking about, “Well, is Bob the engineer going to be free? And when are they free? And if they are free, then let’s build the feature.” That’s kind of how a lot of product decisions happen.
The challenge here with this kind of approach, and again, this is what happens in practice, I’m not talking about whatever theory you read, this is what happens in practice. So when you follow this approach and you assume that, “Oh, this is a two-way door, we can kill the feature,” in reality, it doesn’t work out that way, because here’s what happens in reality. So in reality, you commit to the feature, and it’s going to take five, six weeks to do it, and then a couple more weeks to make sure, to ramp it up, et cetera, right? And so now the feature is out, and now you have your Q1 QBR, right? Say two months from now you have your Q1 QBR, and you’re going to present your business review, whatever. You’re going to present what you did, “What did you do last quarter? How are your ships performing from last quarter?”
And so now, it’s time to talk about this feature at the QBR, because you have to share that/ Now as you start talking about this feature, the CEO will ask, “So yeah, we launched the feature. I’m very glad we launched this feature. How is it doing?” And you want to be able to say, you are the PM leader, you want to be able to say something smart, and something that makes you look competent. But the challenge is the feature hasn’t had much adoption. So I’m not going to ask anybody to raise hands, but I think most PMs are familiar with this conundrum. And of course, we are verbally very agile as product leaders. So what we say is we don’t have data, so we use favorable anecdotes.
And so we say, “Yeah, we launched the feature, and you know what? This customer from this company really loves the feature.” And we put in an anecdote, it’s like, “Life-changing feature.” It doesn’t matter that they’re the only person using it. That doesn’t matter. “Life-changing feature,” right? We use data when it favors us, we use anecdotes when it favors us. So anyway, so we present that. Now. we do have the sales counterpart in the room too, our sales counterpart, and they say, “You know what, though? We are still not winning many deals because of this feature.” And so of course the CEO asks, “So what’s up? Why aren’t we winning deals, even though we have the feature?”
So the people on the customer side usually we respond, “Well, I’m glad we have the feature, but it’s not full featured yet. We need all these other bells and whistles to meet the table stakes.” So now, what happens? Somebody uttered the word, “Meet the table stakes.” Now, it’s over for you, because now, the only response you can give is, “Oh, yeah, that’s already part of the plan.” And now, you put your engineering leader on the spot and you say, “Alice, isn’t it? Haven’t we allocated engineers to it already?” And so now, Alice has to come up with some response, which is like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, Carol and David are going to work on it. It’s slotted for one of these sprints.”
And so now, you exit the QBR, you high-five each other. Well, “Good job, team, great job,” et cetera, et cetera. But now, you have signed up for even more work for a feature you should not have built in the first place. That’s why we’re busy. And through a product leader’s life, what happens is we just accumulate all of this debt, feature after feature. So I guess what I’m saying, Lenny, is one of my other tactical tips would be sometimes it is useful to pause for two minutes, or two days, or two weeks before making that decision, right? Because frankly, most doors that look like two-way doors are actually one-way doors. They are two-way doors at Bezos’ level, but as a PM leader, for you, they are a one-way door, and that’s making you busy.
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow. I feel like you’re a stand-up comedian/product manager. That was incredible.
Join thousands of global companies that use Vanta to automate evidence collection, unify risk management, and streamline security reviews. Get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com/lenny. That’s vanta.com/lenny.
I know it’s Spotify, I heard one of their core values is, “Talk is cheap,” but it’s the virtue version of that. It’s like, they actually prefer to talk more, and I think that’s exactly what you’re saying. Basically, spend more time on these things that seemingly seem just small little ideas and experiments.
Shreyas Doshi: Yep, thinking is cheap, so you should do more thinking, not less.
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing. Shreyas, what’s your second question?
Shreyas Doshi: Yes. So my second question, I have to get the words right, do I actually have good taste? Do I actually have good taste is my second question. And for me, I asked this question after, again, all of these things… By the way, everything I say, I have been that guy, I’ve made that mistake. So that’s why I just have to admit to myself that, yes, I have made these mistakes. And one of the mistakes I made, this was when I was at Google, and I was relatively new to product, about less than five years. And at Google, there’s some parts of Google where you would be told as an early career PM that like, “We don’t do strategy here. Strategy is for MBAs, okay? We are all about execution, okay?”
So I’m in this environment, I’m naïve, and I look around me and I’m like, “Google is the most successful company on the planet,” at the time, and they are saying this, and I’m hearing this consistently, so it must be right. It must be right. And so I start saying it. I start saying, “Oh, yeah, execution is everything, and we don’t do strategy around here.” And I even remember there were not that many PMs, but there was a PM at Google who was kind of like the same level as me, but he just had much more wisdom than me. And he was trying to nudge me into… Like, I was managing a product. And he’s like, “Shreyas, what is your strategy here?” And I was like, I told him the same thing. Like, “Oh, no, no, what are you talking strategy? We don’t need strategy. We just need to get shit done.” That was the thing.
And so I kept repeating that mantra until I got to Twitter. So this is Twitter right after their IPO. And I saw Twitter had an incredible asset, which is the product and the network effects. It had other incredible assets, including the brand. It had other assets that were great, including the talent. And yet, this company was struggling, the product was struggling. And even if it wasn’t struggling, it was making a lot of money. But the point is it was not meeting its potential. So that’s when I realized, and it wasn’t like some sudden realization, it took me six to nine months of being at Twitter. This is circa 2014. That’s when I realized that, “Oh, my gosh, Twitter’s biggest problem is a product strategy problem. The reason they’re struggling is they don’t have a real product strategy.”
Now, of course, attempts were made to create a product strategy, but it wasn’t a real compelling, cohesive product strategy. So that’s when I realized the folly of like, “Oh, wait a minute…” I was at Google six years. I spent most of those six years saying like, “Ah, strategy’s useless. There’s no point to strategy. Execution is where it’s at. “I’m like, “No, actually, I was wrong.” And that got further solidified as I went to Stripe, and I was kind of now growing earlier stage products and trying to make them highly, highly successful. I saw an even greater value and importance of having a clear strategy. And so that made me realize, basically…
You know, we talk about taste, we all talk about taste, and it’s about the beautiful pixels, and the perfect product, and the whatever else, the Steve Jobs-esque passion, and all of that, whatever it is. And yes, taste is about that, but I think there is something that we as product leaders, and certainly I did, needed to recognize about taste as just a factor in pretty much everything we do, which is like, do we have good taste around the beliefs we choose to create within ourselves as product leaders? And then, those beliefs end up dictating everything we do, including how we manage, how we lead, how we make decisions. And so it’s that taste I’m talking about when I say, “Do I really have good taste?”
And when I asked myself this question, and again, I really had to dig deep. It wasn’t easy, but at some point I realized that no, actually, I don’t have good taste. I don’t have good taste in how I choose to evaluate things that come my way. Again, not in terms of the product, because by that time I had skills to say, “Well, this should not be a two-step flow. This should be a three-step flow,” whatever the case may be. But I still did not have good taste in terms of how I choose what are the things I choose to believe, how do I learn, who do I learn from, what content I learned from, what content I resonate with? And then, I went on this journey to try to develop that better taste.
Lenny Rachitsky: What I’m hearing is people focus maybe too much on the output, like the experience, these experience design taste versus what they choose to take in as informing their taste, and what they see as an example of great and correct. Is that what you’re saying?
Shreyas Doshi: Yeah. And look, taste is about the ability to identify what is really good, without needing to see its results, because, look, it requires zero taste right now for anybody to say, “Oh, that CEO of NVIDIA is a genius, right? Jensen is a genius.” If you are saying that in 2024, it actually requires zero taste, because you can just look up NVIDIA stock price. It requires zero skill. But to be able to say that in 2010, you have to realize Jensen Huang didn’t change much between 2010 and 2024. So Lenny, even in sports, there’s this saying, “Game recognize game,” and that’s about taste.
But what we need to understand is it’s game recognize game before the game is called, right? Like, game recognize game in the practice session. Because it takes no genius right now to say, “Well, Patrick Mahomes is great quarterback,” or, “Virat Kohli is a great cricketer,” or whatever else. It requires no genius to do that. It requires zero taste. So I also believe some of us, especially as we get more senior, and we get more successful, and we just get a lot more scope, and responsibility, and a lot of accolades, we become these tough graders. Like, “I don’t like anything,” right? Like, “Ah, this is crap, this is crap, this is crap.” Again, that requires zero taste. Anybody can say that. Anybody can just say, “Everything is horrible.”
So I do think there is something about being able to understand that, and I think I’ll share some examples. This two-way door thing, so let me just share a few observations, if I might. So the first one is we get overly excited about cool metaphors, okay? Like, one-way door, two-way doors. There’s some guy, I don’t know who it is, I just read somewhere, there’s some guy who had written a blog post about this idea, but he called it reversible and irreversible decisions, and it was the same idea. And I think somebody was lamenting that that did not catch on, reversible and irreversible decisions. But what caught on is two-way door and one-way door. What’s the difference? The only difference is you got attracted to the catchy metaphor, and the other one is the authority bias, because Bezos said it.
Take another example, we get very impressed with alliterations. I’m serious, we get very impressed with alliterations. Okay, so how many of us love fail fast? Fail fast, okay, nobody’s going to raise hands now. Okay, fine. Maybe you truly don’t love fail fast. How about fast follow? How many of you love fast follow? Let’s consider that, like fail fast, “We’re going to fail fast.” What if that thing were called fail quickly? It’s the same meaning. Do you think you would be as attracted to that idea if it were called fail quickly?
Lenny Rachitsky: No.
Shreyas Doshi: Probably not, so what changed? The only thing that changed is one is an alliteration. So I see this in everything. Like, let’s see, the other one is we also get very impressed with complicated charts and math we don’t understand. And some of you product leaders who are at the top of the game, you actually use this as a strategy. So as I realized that here’s the outcome of that, asking myself that question, was that what I realized is everybody says, “Oh, I’m a first principle thinker. I am a rigorous thinker,” whatever.
But I realized that if I really want to be that, I have to shed a lot of these just patterns that were just built in me, and I kind of have to evaluate the idea separate from all of its social proof, and authority proof, and whatever else. And that ended up being a meaningful change in my growth as a product leader, because the moment I started shedding these kinds of social proofs, and authority proofs, and all of that, it just made me a much… We all again think we are critical thinkers, but we are not, right? So it made me a more critical thinker.
Lenny Rachitsky: I want to move on to the next question, just so we can get through some of these questions. Before I do, can you just show people your notes real quick, just like show it from a distance? This is how Shreyas plans for something like this. There’s color coding, I wish I understood what was going on there.
Shreyas Doshi: People ask me, “What’s your favorite note-taking app?” It’s a common question I get, and I say this, right? It’s a 3, and I think the Office Depot clipboard costs-
Lenny Rachitsky: Wait, doesn’t that pen… Does it have the different color clicky thing?
Shreyas Doshi: Yes, yes, yeah. A [inaudible 00:38:04]. Yeah, exactly. This is great.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s going to be another podcast episode. Okay, so we want to try to do two more questions. We have six minutes left. The last one’s a bonus, so maybe we touch on it briefly. Shreyas, what’s your third question?
Shreyas Doshi: So my third question is why does my job feel so frustrating? Why does my job feel so frustrating? And it goes back to the point that, look, I loved, loved my PM leadership job. I just absolutely loved it. And I think looking back, I would not have exchanged it for anything else, any other experience. That said, there were daily frustrations. There were daily frustrations in that job, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that the PM leader’s job is extremely lonely. The PM’s job, the PM’s on your team, their job is also lonely. But a PM leader’s job is further lonelier. So there’s that. There’s also what I learned at the time when I started asking this question is that our jobs get frustrating when we behave, most of the time, in misalignment with our superpowers and who we truly are at our core.
Okay, so for me, as I was evaluating that question, it’s like, “Why am I getting frustrated every day? I love the job, I love the macro, but I do not like the micro. And so why is that?” And that’s when I actually… There’s a simple framework that I’ve shared, which is you can be doing your work at three levels. Product work happens at three levels. There’s the impact level, there’s the execution level, and there’s the optics level. My epiphany as I was exploring this question was I have a preferred level at which I like to operate, but if most of the day, and most of the week, and most of the month, I am forcing myself to operate in not my happy place, in my non-default level, that makes me very frustrated.
So many product leaders, their happy place is the execution level. In my case, my happy place is the impact level. So that is fine. Your happy place can be whatever level, it doesn’t matter. But the point is, as you go higher up in the corporate ladder, no matter what kind of company it is, you are now going to have to spend a lot of time on optics, at the optics level. And I have willpower, I have the skills to do it, I have all of that. So it’s not about willpower or skills, but willpower is finite. So as I spent day in and day out, just mostly doing optics work, I realized I was not happy and I was getting frustrated. And so that’s when I realized the solution, which is I have to abandon the traditional path, that like, “Oh, after this level, I’m supposed to do this, and then I’m supposed to do this, and then this is what society expects. This is what my mom expects. What will people say on LinkedIn when they see my LinkedIn profile?” Like, “Oh, he has this progression, this, and then what stopped? Why did it stop?”
So when I realized this, I said, when a team grew to a certain size, so when I was at Stripe and I realized this, when the team I was managing, it had a fan out of about 50 people, so this includes engineers and everything, I said, “This is enough.” Because for me, any time a team goes to like 50s, and 100s, and beyond, it is a law of corporations that you’re going to have to spend a lot of time at the optics level. So instead of just pushing, pushing through against who I truly am, what did I do? I just went back to more of an earlier stage product, and then I was fine with like, “You know what? I’m not going to just play the corporate game,” as an example.
So I guess my suggestion would be identify your superpowers, and like Shakespeare said, “To thine own self be true.” Just be honest to yourself. Operate your career and make your career decisions not out of expectation, not out of envy, like the LinkedIn envy of like, “Oh, this person is at a different level. We both went to the same grad school, so I got…” No, identify your superpowers, because if you identify your superpowers and work in accordance with them, you will do the best work of your life. You will love it, and you will be great at it, and you won’t have that frustration.
Lenny Rachitsky: I wish we had an hour for every single one of these questions, I feel like there’s so much more to get into. We have 40 seconds. Do you want to touch on your last question or do you want to leave that for a follow-up discussion?
Shreyas Doshi: Let’s touch on it, let’s touch on it.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, we got to go though in 30 seconds.
Shreyas Doshi: All right. My last question is am I really listening? Okay, and this is perhaps the hardest one for me, because I thought, of course I’m a good listener because I listen, then I recap, and I make eye contact, and I tell them, “This is what I heard,” And all of that nonsense. I realized there is an entirely other level to listening, which once you understand that there’s an entirely other level to listening, that is what enables you to be a world-class leader. And so that is what I guess my last takeaway is, is ask yourself, “Am I really listening?” If you want resources, there are very few people who actually talk about what that real listening means. I would refer you to what Rick Rubin says about listening, I would refer you to what [inaudible 00:44:30] said about listening, and what Drucker said about listening as some pointers.
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing. Shreyas, you said you were going to hang out for the next hour somewhere. You want to share that real quick, and then we’ll get off?
Shreyas Doshi: Yes, I will maybe try to hang out in the back part of the room.
Lenny Rachitsky: Be quiet back there, too.
Shreyas Doshi: Yes.
Lenny Rachitsky: Shreyas, thank you so much for being here.
Shreyas Doshi: Great, thank you. Oh, should we take a picture?
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, yeah. We’re going to take a quick selfie.
Shreyas Doshi: We’re going to take a picture.
Lenny Rachitsky: There we go. They’re going to turn lights on, I think.
Shreyas Doshi: Oh.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay.
Shreyas Doshi: All right, folks.
Lenny Rachitsky: 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.
Reformatted by reformat_english_direct.py
在产品管理的职业生涯中,许多人终日被压力与待办事项裹挟,却鲜少停下来追问背后的真正原因。在这期对谈中,曾任职于Stripe、Twitter等科技巨头的资深产品人Shreyas Doshi坦诚分享了他耗费近二十年才想明白的核心问题:为什么我们总是这么忙?他一针见血地指出,传统的时间管理技巧与优先级框架在庞大的“范围”面前往往显得苍白无力。当职责边界不断扩大,单纯追求效率不仅无法带来内心的从容,反而会成为一种逃避。这篇对谈超越了常规的工具与技巧分享,直击产品领导者的本质困境,引导读者重新审视自身的工作状态与边界,是每一位陷入忙碌泥沼的从业者值得深思的清醒剂。
产品管理的艺术 | Shreyas Doshi (Stripe, Twitter, Google, Yahoo)
访谈记录
愿意早些问自己的问题
Lenny Rachitsky: 今天,我非常激动地为大家带来一期非常特别的节目,与 Shreyas Doshi 的对谈,这是在旧金山千人规模的 Lenny and Friends Summit 上现场录制的。这是 Shreyas 第二次做客这档播客,他第一次的到访是我们这档播客史上第三受欢迎的一期,我很高兴 Shreyas 愿意尝试这次新的形式。在这次对谈中,Shreyas 分享了三个问题,外加一个附加问题,这些都是他希望自己能在职业生涯中更早问自己的问题。我们聊到了为什么产品领导者总是那么忙,为什么这份工作令人如此沮丧,为什么培养良好的品味如此核心,以及为什么你可能并没有像你应该的那样去倾听。这次交流非常有趣,非常感谢 Shreyas 参与其中。如果你喜欢这档播客,别忘了在你最喜欢的播客应用或 YouTube 上订阅和关注。这是避免错过未来节目的最好方式,也对这档播客有着巨大的帮助。言归正传,为大家请出 Shreyas Doshi。Shreyas,非常感谢你的到来,欢迎来到这档播客。
Shreyas Doshi: 谢谢你邀请我,Lenny。这太棒了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我本来想问,我们录制第一期节目的时候,大概是两年前吧,我当时在我房子里的一个小房间里。我不知道你当时在哪里,但跟现在截然不同。你对这期节目的场景布置有什么想法?
Shreyas Doshi: 首先,Lenny 帝国在不断壮大,看到这一点真是太棒了。其次,当我走上台的时候,有人告诉我这里以前是一家汽车经销商,然后我意识到我实际上就是在这里买的车。
Lenny Rachitsky: 什么?
Shreyas Doshi: 太疯狂了,只有在旧金山才会这样。
Lenny Rachitsky: 是什么车?多说点。
Shreyas Doshi: 是一辆本田 CR-V。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,哇哦。我听说这个场地以前还被用来……吉米·亨德里克斯在这里表演过,艾瑞莎·弗兰克林也在这里表演过。所以这就像是,吉米·亨德里克斯、艾瑞莎·弗兰克林,然后是 Shreyas。
Shreyas Doshi: 没错,这马上就会被写进我的 Twitter 个人简介里。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,通常我们聊天的时候,你总是充满了想法,充满了答案。但当我们准备这次对谈时,你告诉我:“我有一些问题,我有一些想问的问题。”
Shreyas Doshi: 你知道,回顾我这些年作为产品领导者的职业生涯,有些问题我希望我能更早问自己,但我并没有,我有幸拥有一种充满苦难的生活,一种充满苦难的 PM 生活,但我对此毫无怨言。但回首往事,我觉得有些问题,即使我问了自己一些问题,对于这些问题,我也没有对答案对自己诚实。所以我想做的,就是分享这些我希望自己能更早问自己的问题。
第一个问题:为什么我这么忙?
Lenny Rachitsky: 第一个问题是什么?
Shreyas Doshi: 对,那么我们来看看,第一个问题是,为什么我这么忙?为什么我这么忙?背景是,在我的大部分职业生涯中,我都处于完全紧张的状态,每天绝对都是压力山大。这有很多原因,但核心原因之一是我总是超级忙,总有我觉得我想做却做不完的工作,所以一天结束时我回到家,即使我很努力地工作了,我也只会感到不满意。因此,那是我作为 PM、作为产品领导者生活中的常态,而且只是……所以在我开始职业生涯的新篇章之前,我做了大约 20 年的产品工作。我认为我只是在作为产品领导者的最后三四年才解决了这个问题。但这就意味着,有大约十六七年的时间,我就是难以置信地忙,因为难以置信地忙,我极度紧张,即使我工作做得很好,我内心感觉也并不好。然后,这就表现在了我的身体上,比如各种疼痛,我意识到这些其实不是身体上的疼痛,而是压力带来的疼痛。
Lenny Rachitsky: 就像是你遇到的健康问题吗?
Shreyas Doshi: 是的,是的,都是些小毛病。我的意思是,相对来说都是小毛病,但是打网球时拉伤了背部肌肉,然后你要躺平三天,这感觉并不好。
Lenny Rachitsky: 在座的各位谁非常、非常忙,而且简直太忙了?请举手。
Shreyas Doshi: 就这些吗?
Lenny Rachitsky: 是的,我知道。
Shreyas Doshi: 哇哦。
Lenny Rachitsky: 大家都觉得是这样。是的,人们的反应像是,“是的,是的。我都不用举手,我很忙。”好的,继续。
Shreyas Doshi: 是的,所以事情是这样的,当我们谈论忙碌,谈论管理你的时间、精力等等,我的意思是,这是一个资深产品人群体的聚会,所以你们都懂这些。采用一些技巧和方法,比如维护一个待办事项列表。我发现 LNO 框架(LNO framework)对我非常有用,我之前分享过。我以前喜欢按日历安排工作,诸如此类的事情。我认为你们都对这些方法很熟悉,但我想指出的是,在我们产品职业生涯的某个时刻,我们会遇到一种东西,遇到一股不可撼动的力量,它会压倒我们,无论我们做什么。
而这股力量就是范围(scope)。随着我们产品职业生涯的成长,我们的范围也会随之扩大,我们某种程度上也喜欢这样,这都很好。但在某个时刻,如果你们还没遇到,你们中许多人已经遇到了,但对于那些还没遇到的人,你们也会遇到的:你的范围会变得如此之大,以至于无论你在效率方面做什么,无论你使用什么优先级框架,无论你使用什么框架或工具来管理待办事项列表,无论你使用什么工具和技术,无论你做什么优先级排序,你的范围如此之大,你依然会极其忙碌。这就是我面临的状况,就像我说的,在做产品的前大概16、17年里一直如此,直到最近的三四年里,我才算是找到了一些关于如何应对这种范围的答案。所以也许我们可以聊聊这个,你觉得呢?
效率技巧的局限性
Lenny Rachitsky: 是的,所以你基本上是在说,有所有这些生产力技巧,能让你更快地做更多事。但无论你掌握了多少这类工具,你只会接手越来越多的工作,然后它们就会无济于事?我得说,我最受欢迎的一些Newsletter文章就是“生产力技巧与窍门”。所以大家总是在寻找这些东西。我很想听听你接下来要讲什么,也就是说,长远来看那并不是答案,还有另一种不同的方法?
Shreyas Doshi: 是的,所以挑战是这样的。你们中间有多少人现在正在经历某种年度规划,或者打算进行年度规划?请举手。大家都喜欢年度规划,很好。那我们就拿年度规划来说。如果你是公司里的高层管理者、领导者,你那一个月是什么样的?或者在有些不幸的情况下,当你在进行年度规划时,你的两三个月是什么样的?全是些要填的电子表格,要开的会,要处理的依赖关系、优先级,要见面的利益相关者等等。于是我注意到,比如说在某个时候,这让我变得非常忙碌,然后这又让我感到内疚,因为我还要照顾和支持我的团队,我还要做产品决策以及各种其他事情,而我却去参加了什么规划静修会之类的。
然后就这样了,你最后的四、五、六周,大家对这种感觉熟悉吗?是吗?好的,所以我注意到在某个时刻我需要改变这种状况,并且确实找到了一个解决方案,同样是在我职业生涯的后期,但我找到了解决方案,因为我问了自己这样一个问题:“为什么我这么忙?我做了所有效率方面的事情,我像冠军一样管理着我的待办事项列表。我的日历安排得恰到好处。我的常规安排得恰到好处。我坚持锻炼以便在工作中保持投入,我很高效,我做了所有这些。为什么我还是这么忙?哦,因为是规划季,而这本来就应该占用四到六周的时间。”这是我在 Stripe 时遇到的,所以这本来就应该占用四到六周的时间。
嗯,我意识到你其实不必那样做。所以在 Stripe 期间的某个时刻,我意识到了以下情况:我们花了四到六周的时间经历各种围绕规划的仪式。然后,我们走出来向高管们分享我们的计划。你知道他们会问的问题,比如,“如果资金不是问题,你会怎么做?你的雄心勃勃的计划是什么?那么如果我们再给你五名工程师,你会怎么做?你还会在路线图中加入什么其他东西?”对吧?都是些标准问题。然后你走出来,做了你的演示,然后发布了计划,接着你带着极大的热情和兴奋开始新的一年。一月过得很好,直到你收到三个关于不在你计划中的功能的客户升级事件。所以现在,你试图弄清楚如何修改资源分配。
你去找某个依赖团队谈话,这个团队将或多或少支持这些因客户升级而产生的新功能。你走完这个流程,然后再次修改你的计划。然后,通常到了二月的最后一周,所有人都忘记了实际的计划。现在,我们是在执行某个不知在哪里的其他列表。顺便说一句,当你有时提到这一点时,当然是很礼貌地,你可能会说,“你知道吗,我注意到我们实际上并没有真正使用我们花了至少四到六周时间做出来的计划。”然后,房间里的某个聪明人插嘴道,“计划是无用的,但规划就是一切。”
我不知道,艾森豪威尔,或者是别人,我不知道是谁说的,“计划是无用的,但规划就是一切。”没人知道这是什么意思。没人知道那是什么意思,但大家都很赞赏,“啊,计划是无用的,但规划就是一切。”对吧?我经历了几年这样的情况。然后我想,“你知道吗?我要在这里打破一些规则。”所以我意识到,Lenny,你不必经历这四到六周的时间,这其实是个意外。基本上发生的事情是,在那个时候,我正在做的产品,Stripe Connect,它是 Stripe 的一个主要产品,是 Stripe 非常非常重要的业务。而我为这个产品制定了一个产品战略,一个真正的产品战略。
用真正的产品战略替代冗长规划
这肯定是在那年早些时候。所以现在,规划季来了。我发现有趣的是,因为我有一个真正的产品战略,不是那种虚假的,而是一个真正的、已经与所有人达成一致的产品战略,我为 Stripe 这个主要产品做规划只花了我大概三天时间。对吧,所以当我的许多同龄人,不幸的是,为了他们自己的产品,陷入这种为期四到六周的规划、开会、等等等等的循环中时,我只是在三天内就把所有东西整合在一起,并且把任何需要的交付物(artifacts)也都整理出来了。
我没有填某些模板。这就是打破规则的地方,因为如果一个模板没有意义,我为什么要填它?没有必要填它。所以那时我意识到,实际上,如果你有一个真正的产品战略,一个所有人都达成一致的、你已经提前达成一致的真正的战略,那么我们在年度规划中倾向于做的许多这种无意义的事情实际上就消失了。现在,你仍然需要做一些资源分配以及所有那些事情,但即使在那里面,你也不需要那种虚假的精确性。你们中有多少人曾陷入过这样的争论:“那么2025年这个团队应该是8名工程师,还是9名工程师?”
谁在乎呢?我们都知道,甚至那些我们定下来的数字,当2025年真正到来时,我们实际上并没有真正执行它们。所以这只是一个例子,说明我们在那些我们认为具有战略性、我们认为重要的事情上花了很多时间,但实际上,我们应该把时间花在其他杠杆率高得多的事情上。对吧,现在它确实需要一些前期工作,在这个例子中,是在一个每个人都理解、每个人都达成一致的清晰产品战略上的前期工作。但坦率地说,如果你有了那个,规划应该是轻而易举的事。
关于改进规划的具体建议
Lenny Rachitsky: 那么,对于想在这方面做得更好的人,你有什么战术性的建议吗?我知道你可能有一百亿个这类你分享过的例子,所以规划只是其中之一。对于那些想不那么忙的人,也许在这件事上,是不是给自己很少的时间,专注于战略,基本上让战略成为计划,而不是让每个人以及他们未来六个月的路线图占据时间?你会在这里分享什么建议?然后,我想进入下一个问题,因为我想确保我们能过完所有这些问题。
Shreyas Doshi: 是的,肯定有一个具体的建议,那就是如果你确实有战略,它会让你的很多优先级排序问题消失,也会让很多规划问题消失。而且,即使你确实遇到了一些来自销售团队的升级诉求——你肯定会的——或者来自支持团队,或者其他地方的,你现在至少有了一个更严格的框架来弄清楚该如何处理这种升级诉求。所以这肯定是其中一点。但我想分享的另一件事是,当我在问自己“我为什么这么忙?”这个问题时,我的另一个顿悟是,我意识到我这么忙是因为我没有做出好的产品决策。好的,现在你得明白,到这个时候,我已经做了大概15年的产品之类的工作,当了11年的产品经理。所以我认为自己相当不错。这算是我的自我认知。但后来,如果我对自己诚实的话,我并没有做出我能做出的那么好的产品决策。那么我能分享一个这方面的例子吗?
Lenny Rachitsky: 请讲。
双向门陷阱
Shreyas Doshi: 所以我注意到的是,你会开一个关于某个产品功能的会议,这个功能不知怎么被提出来了,或者非常重要,不管是什么情况。于是你和一些利益相关者以及你的工程团队、设计师等等开个会。然后,你在试图决定,“我们到底要不要做这个?”这时有人说,“你知道吗?我们为什么要为这个开会?”我在哪里读到过,或者我听贝佐斯说过,双向门(two-way door),这是一个双向门。你应该快速做决定。就像,直接快速做个决定然后继续往前走。这是一个双向门。然后你会说,“对,没错。”而每次我们听到类似这样的话,双向门,你就会想,“哦,那个人真聪明,所以我想像他们一样。”
所以我注意到,我和我的团队在做出这类决定时,并没有非常清楚地考虑客户动机,没有非常清楚地考虑差异化,也没有非常清楚地考虑这个功能 whatever 的分发方式。虽然这听起来像是,“哦,你当然应该这样做”,但我向你保证,大多数产品团队都不是这样工作的。他们在讨论的是,“好吧,工程师鲍勃会有空吗?他们什么时候有空?如果他们有空,那我们就做这个功能吧。”很多产品决策就是这样发生的。
这种方法面临的挑战在于,再说一遍,这是实践中真正发生的,我不是在说你读过的什么理论,这是实践中发生的事情。所以当你遵循这种方法,并假设“哦,这是一个双向门,我们可以砍掉这个功能”时,在现实中,情况并不会那样发展,因为现实中的情况是这样的。在现实中,你承诺了做这个功能,这会花上五六个星期,然后再花几个星期来确保、来推广它等等,对吧?所以现在功能上线了,现在你要开你的第一季度 QBR(季度业务回顾)了,对吧?比如两个月后你有一个第一季度 QBR,你要展示你的业务回顾之类的。你要展示你做了什么,“上个季度你做了什么?上个季度你的交付表现如何?”
所以现在,是在 QBR 上谈论这个功能的时候了,因为你必须分享出来。现在当你开始谈论这个功能时,CEO 会问,“是啊,我们上线了这个功能。我很高兴我们上线了这个功能。它表现如何?”而作为产品负责人,你希望能说出点聪明的、能显得你很胜任的话。但挑战在于,这个功能并没有获得多少采用率。所以我不打算让任何人举手,但我认为大多数产品经理都熟悉这个困境。当然,作为产品负责人,我们在口头上是非常灵活的。所以我们的做法是,既然我们没有数据,我们就用有利的轶事。
于是我们会说,“是的,我们上线了这个功能,你知道吗?这家公司的这个客户非常喜欢这个功能。”然后我们抛出一个轶事,就像,“改变生活的功能。”就算他们是唯一使用它的人也没关系。那不重要。“改变生活的功能”,对吧?数据对我们有利时我们就用数据,轶事对我们有利时我们就用轶事。总之,我们就这么汇报了。现在,房间里也有我们的销售对接人,我们的销售对接人说,“你知道吗,尽管如此,我们并没有因为这个功能赢得很多交易。”然后当然 CEO 会问,“怎么回事?既然我们有了这个功能,为什么还是赢不了交易?”
通常客户方面的人会回应说,“嗯,我很高兴我们有了这个功能,但它还不够完善。我们需要所有这些其他花里胡哨的附加功能(bells and whistles)来达到基础门槛(table stakes)。”于是现在,发生了什么?有人说出了“达到基础门槛”这个词。现在,你完蛋了,因为现在你唯一能给出的回应就是,“哦,对,那已经包含在计划里了。”然后,你把你的工程负责人置于聚光灯下,你说,“爱丽丝,是吧?我们不是已经分配工程师去做这个了吗?”于是现在,爱丽丝不得不想出个回应,比如,“对对对,卡罗尔和大卫会去做的。它已经被安排进某个冲刺(sprints)里了。”
于是现在,你离开了 QBR,你们互相击掌。“干得好,团队,干得太棒了,”等等等等。但现在,你为一个你一开始就不该做的功能揽下了更多的工作。这就是我们为什么这么忙。而在一个产品负责人的职业生涯中,发生的事情就是我们只是积累了所有这些债务,一个功能接一个功能。所以我想说的是,Lenny,我的另一个战术建议是,有时候在做决定之前暂停两分钟,或者两天,或者两周是有用的,对吧?因为坦率地说,大多数看起来像双向门的门实际上是单向门(one-way door)。在贝佐斯的层面上它们是双向门,但作为一个产品负责人,对你来说,它们是单向门,而这正让你变得忙碌。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇。我觉得你就像个脱口秀演员兼产品经理。太精彩了。我知道是 Spotify,我听说他们的核心价值观之一是“废话少说”,但这是那种美德版本的体现。就像是,他们实际上更倾向于多谈谈,我认为这正是你所说的。基本上,要在那些看似只是小想法和小实验的事情上花更多时间。
Shreyas Doshi: 是的,思考的成本很低,所以你应该多做思考,而不是少做。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。Shreyas,你的第二个问题是什么?
Shreyas Doshi: 是的。我的第二个问题是,我得把词用准确,我到底有没有好品味?我到底有没有好品味就是我的第二个问题。对我而言,我在经历了所有这些事情之后问了自己这个问题……顺便说一下,我说的每一件事,我自己都曾是那个人,我都犯过那个错。所以这就是为什么我必须向自己承认,是的,我犯过这些错误。我犯过的其中一个错误是在谷歌时期,当时我相对比较新入行做产品,大概不到五年。在谷歌,有些部门会这样告诉你这样一个早期的产品经理:“我们这里不做战略。战略是给 MBA 们做的,好吗?我们只看重执行,好吗?”我身处那个环境里,很天真,我环顾四周心想,“谷歌是地球上最成功的公司”,在当时,他们这么说,我也一直听到这种说法,所以这肯定是对的。肯定是对的。于是我也开始这么说。我开始说,“哦,是啊,执行就是一切,我们这儿不做战略。”我甚至记得当时产品经理没那么多,但谷歌有一位和我级别差不多、但比我睿智得多的产品经理。他试图引导我……比如,我当时在负责一个产品。他问,“Shreyas,你这里的战略是什么?”而我就像,我把同样的话告诉了他。比如,“哦,不不,你提什么战略?我们不需要战略。我们只需要把事干完。”当时就是这种态度。
缺失战略的代价
于是我不断重复这句口头禅,直到我加入 Twitter。那是 Twitter 刚刚 IPO 不久的时候。我看到 Twitter 拥有令人难以置信的资产,也就是产品和网络效应。它还有其他令人难以置信的资产,包括品牌。它还有其他很棒的资产,包括人才。然而,这家公司在挣扎,产品也在挣扎。即使它不在挣扎,它也赚了很多钱。但关键在于它没有发挥出潜力。所以那时我意识到,这不是某种突然的顿悟,而是我在 Twitter 待了六到九个月才明白的。那是在 2014 年左右。那时我意识到,“天哪,Twitter 最大的问题是一个产品战略问题。他们挣扎的原因是他们没有一个真正的产品战略。”当然,他们也曾尝试制定产品战略,但那并不是一个真正引人注目、连贯的产品战略。所以那时我意识到了那种愚蠢,比如,“哦,等一下……”我在谷歌待了六年。在那六年里,我大部分时间都在说,“啊,战略没用。战略毫无意义。执行才是王道。”我心想,“不,其实我错了。”当我去了 Stripe 后,这一点得到了进一步的巩固,我当时在培育更早期的产品,并试图让它们取得极高的成功。我看到了拥有清晰战略的更大价值和重要性。
信念的品味
你知道,我们谈论品味,我们都在谈论品味,谈论的是那些漂亮的像素、完美的产品以及其他种种,那种史蒂夫·乔布斯式的热情,以及所有这些,不管是什么。是的,品味确实是关于这些的,但我认为,作为产品领导者,至少我是这样,我们需要认识到品味作为我们在几乎所有事情中的一个因素,即:作为产品领导者,我们在选择为自己树立的信念上,有没有好品味?然后,这些信念最终决定了我们所做的一切,包括我们如何管理、如何领导、如何做决策。所以,当我说“我真的有好品味吗?”时,我谈论的就是这种品味。当我问自己这个问题时,再说一次,我真的必须深挖自己。这并不容易,但在某个时刻我意识到,不,其实我没有好品味。我在选择评估遇到的事物时没有好品味。再说一次,不是在产品方面,因为到那时我已经具备了这样的技能,可以说,“嗯,这不应该是两步流程。这应该是三步流程”,不管具体情况是什么。但在选择我相信什么、我如何学习、向谁学习、我从什么内容中学习、我与什么内容产生共鸣这方面,我仍然没有好品味。于是,我踏上了一段试图培养更好品味的旅程。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我听到的是,人们可能过于关注产出,比如体验,这种体验设计的品味,而不是关注他们选择吸收什么来塑造自己的品味,以及他们把什么视为伟大和正确的典范。你是这个意思吗?
识别品味的真伪
Shreyas Doshi: 是的。听着,品味是在不需要看到结果的情况下识别出什么真正好的能力,因为,你看,现在任何人说“哦,英伟达的 CEO 是个天才,对吧?Jensen 是个天才”,这其实需要零品味。如果你在 2024 年这么说,它实际上需要零品味,因为你只需查一下英伟达的股价。它不需要任何技能。但要在 2010 年就能说出这句话,你必须意识到 Jensen Huang 在 2010 年到 2024 年间并没有太大改变。所以 Lenny,即使在体育界也有句话叫“行家识行家”,这就是关于品味的。但我们需要理解的是,这是在比赛结果公布之前的“行家识行家”,对吧?就像在训练赛中的行家识行家。因为现在说“嗯,Patrick Mahomes 是个伟大的四分卫”,或者“Virat Kohli 是个伟大的板球运动员”,或者其他什么,根本不需要什么天才。做到这一点不需要天才。它需要零品味。所以我也认为,我们中的一些人,尤其是随着我们职位变高,变得更成功,获得了更多的范围、责任和大量的赞誉时,我们变成了严苛的评分者。比如,“我什么都不喜欢”,对吧?比如,“啊,这是垃圾,这是垃圾,这是垃圾”。再说一次,这需要零品味。任何人都可以这么说。任何人都可以直接说,“一切都是糟糕的”。
被修辞绑架的判断
所以我确实认为能够理解这一点很重要,我想分享几个例子。这个双向门的事情,如果可以的话,让我分享几点观察。第一个是我们对酷炫的比喻过于兴奋,好吗?比如,单向门,双向门。有个人,我不知道是谁,我只是在什么地方读到过,有个人写了一篇关于这个想法的博客文章,但他把它称为可逆决策和不可逆决策,这是同一个想法。我想有人曾感叹可逆决策和不可逆决策这个说法没有流行起来。但流行起来的是双向门和单向门。区别在哪?唯一的区别是你被这个朗朗上口的比喻吸引了,另一个是权威偏见,因为贝索斯这么说了。再举个例子,我们对头韵印象深刻。我是认真的,我们对头韵印象深刻。好吧,那么我们有多少人喜欢“快速失败”?快速失败,好吧,现在没人会举手了。好吧,没关系。也许你真的不喜欢快速失败。那“快速跟进”呢?你们中有多少人喜欢快速跟进?让我们想想看,比如快速失败,“我们要快速失败”。如果那个东西被称为“迅速失败”呢?意思是一样的。你觉得如果它被称为“迅速失败”,你还会对这个想法如此着迷吗?
Lenny Rachitsky: 不会。
Shreyas Doshi: 大概率不会,那改变了什么?唯一改变的就是其中一个是头韵。所以我在所有事情上都能看到这种现象。比如,让我想想,另一个例子是我们也会对看不懂的复杂图表和数学公式印象深刻。你们中一些处于顶尖水平的产品负责人,实际上把这当成了一种策略。所以当我意识到这一点,也就是问自己那个问题后得出的结论是,我意识到每个人都会说,“哦,我是一个第一性原理思考者。我是一个严谨的思考者”,等等。但我意识到,如果我真的想成为那样的人,我就必须摒弃许多仅仅是植入在我大脑里的模式,并且我必须在某种程度上将想法本身与它的所有社会认同、权威背书以及其他任何东西分离开来评估。这最终成为了我作为产品负责人成长过程中一次有意义的改变,因为从我开始摒弃这类社会认同、权威背书等等的那一刻起,它就让我变得极其……我们所有人都再次自认是批判性思考者,但我们其实不是,对吧?所以它让我成了一个更具批判性的人。
纸笔笔记的哲学
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想进入下一个问题,这样我们就能多过几个问题。在此之前,你能快速给大家展示一下你的笔记吗,就像远远地展示一下就行?这就是 Shreyas 为这类事情做计划的方式。里面有颜色编码,我真希望我能看懂那是怎么回事。
Shreyas Doshi: 人们经常问我,“你最喜欢的笔记应用是什么?”这是我常被问到的问题,然后我就会拿出这个,对吧?这是一个5美元的……我猜这笔大概3美元,然后我觉得这个 Office Depot 的剪贴板大概——
Lenny Rachitsky: 等等,那支笔是不是……它有那种可以按出不同颜色的按钮吗?
Shreyas Doshi: 对,对,是的。一个[听不清 00:38:04]。对,完全正确。这个太棒了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 那足够再录一期播客了。好的,我们想再尝试回答两个问题。我们剩下六分钟。最后一个是附加题,所以我们可能简单聊一下。Shreyas,你的第三个问题是什么?
职业挫败感与超能力
Shreyas Doshi: 所以我的第三个问题是,为什么我的工作感觉如此令人沮丧?为什么我的工作感觉如此令人沮丧?这要回到一点,就是,听着,我非常、非常热爱我的 PM 负责人工作。我绝对热爱它。现在回想起来,我不会用它去交换任何其他东西、任何其他经历。话虽如此,仍然有日常的挫败感。那份工作中存在着日常的挫败感,这在很大程度上与一个事实有关,那就是 PM 负责人的工作极其孤独。PM 的工作,你团队里的 PM,他们的工作也是孤独的。但 PM 负责人的工作则更加孤独。这是其中一点。另外,我在当时开始问自己这个问题时学到的是,当我们的大部分行为与我们的超能力以及我们内心深处的真实自我不一致时,我们的工作就会变得令人沮丧。
所以对我来说,当我在评估那个问题时,就像是在问,“为什么我每天都在感到沮丧?我热爱这份工作,我热爱宏观层面,但我不喜欢微观层面。那么为什么会这样?”也就是在那个时候,我实际上……我分享过一个简单的框架,那就是你可以在三个层级上做你的工作。产品工作发生在三个层级。有影响层面,有执行层面,还有观感层面。我在探索这个问题时的顿悟是,我有一个自己喜欢运作的偏好层级,但如果在一天的大部分时间、一周的大部分时间、一个月的大部分时间里,我都在强迫自己在不是我的舒适区、在我的非默认层级中运作,那就会让我非常沮丧。
很多产品负责人的舒适区是执行层面。就我而言,我的舒适区是影响层面。这没问题。你的舒适区可以是任何层级,这无所谓。但关键在于,随着你在企业阶梯上越爬越高,无论是什么样的公司,你现在都将不得不在观感层面、在观感层级上花大量时间。而我有意志力,我有做这件事的技能,我拥有这一切。所以这不在于意志力或技能,但意志力是有限的。所以当我不分昼夜地花时间,大部分时间都在做观感工作时,我意识到我并不开心,而且我变得越来越沮丧。也就是在那时我意识到了解决方案,那就是我必须放弃传统的路径,那种“哦,在这个层级之后,我应该做这个,然后我应该做这个,然后这是社会的期望。这是我妈妈的期望。当人们在 LinkedIn 上看到我的个人资料时他们会怎么说?”就像,“哦,他有这样的晋升轨迹,这个,然后为什么停了?为什么停下来了?”
所以当我意识到这一点时,我说,当一个团队成长到一定规模时,所以当我在 Stripe 并且意识到这一点时,当我管理的团队,它的辐射范围大约是50人时,所以这包括了工程师和所有相关人员,我说,“这就足够了。”因为对我来说,任何时候一个团队发展到50人、100人甚至更多,这是企业的一条定律,就是你将不得不在观感层级上花大量时间。所以我没有选择一味地顶着真实的自我去硬撑,我做了什么?我只是回到了一个更早期阶段的产品,然后我就接受了,比如,“你知道吗?我不打算只是玩企业游戏了”,作为一个例子。所以我想我的建议会是,找出你的超能力,就像莎士比亚说的,“对你自己要诚实”。只要对你自己诚实。运作你的职业生涯并做出职业决策,不要出于期望,不要出于嫉妒,比如那种 LinkedIn 上的嫉妒,就像,“哦,这个人在不同的层级。我们都读过同一个研究生院,所以我得到了……”不,找出你的超能力,因为如果你找出了你的超能力并顺应它们去工作,你将做出你一生中最好的工作。你会热爱它,你会非常擅长它,而且你不会有那种挫败感。
真正的倾听
Lenny Rachitsky: 我真希望我们每个问题都能有一个小时的时间,我觉得还有很多可以深入探讨的。我们还有40秒。你想稍微碰一下你的最后一个问题,还是把它留到后续讨论?
Shreyas Doshi: 简单聊一下吧,简单聊一下吧。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的,但我们30秒后就得结束了。
Shreyas Doshi: 好的。我的最后一个问题是我真的在听吗?好的,这对我来说可能是最难的一个,因为我以前觉得,我当然是一个好的倾听者啊,因为我听,然后我复述,我进行眼神交流,我告诉他们,“这是我所听到的”,以及所有那些废话。我意识到倾听还有完全不同的另一个层级,而一旦你理解了倾听还有完全不同的另一个层级,那就是能让你成为世界级领导者的东西。所以我想我最后的要点就是,问问你自己,“我真的在听吗?”如果你想要一些资源,实际上很少有人谈论那种真正的倾听意味着什么。我会推荐你去看看里克·鲁宾关于倾听的说法,我会推荐你去看看[听不清 00:44:30]关于倾听的说法,以及德鲁克关于倾听的说法,作为一些指引。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。Shreyas,你说过你接下来一个小时要在某个地方待着。你想快速分享一下吗,然后我们就下线?
Shreyas Doshi: 好的,我可能会试着在房间的后半部分待一会儿。
Lenny Rachitsky: 在那边也要保持安静哦。
Shreyas Doshi: 好的。
Lenny Rachitsky: Shreyas,非常感谢你能来。
Shreyas Doshi: 太好了,谢谢。哦,我们要拍张照吗?
Lenny Rachitsky: 哦,对。我们要快速拍张自拍。
Shreyas Doshi: 我们要拍张照。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好了。我想他们要把灯打开了。
Shreyas Doshi: 哦。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好的。
节目结尾
Shreyas Doshi: 好了,各位。
Lenny Rachitsky: 非常感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期内容有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。另外,请考虑给我们打分或留下评论,因为这真的能帮助其他听众找到这档播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到往期所有节目,或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| artifacts | 交付物 |
| bells and whistles | 花里胡哨的附加功能 |
| Eisenhower | 艾森豪威尔 |
| Lenny Rachitsky | Lenny Rachitsky |
| one-way door | 单向门 |
| QBR | QBR(季度业务回顾) |
| scope | 范围 |
| Shreyas Doshi | Shreyas Doshi |
| sprints | 冲刺 |
| table stakes | 基础门槛 |
| two-way door | 双向门 |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)