IME people often don’t realize that product strategies are actually way more important and influential than company strategies. Simply because it’s the products that have an impact on people’s lives, not the company. And this is not only true for users and customers, and society — it’s also true for the people who contribute to the creation and introduction of products which is basically everyone in the company. It’s the products we work on and use that connect us, not the company. It’s the products that are “strong centers” (Christopher Alexander) of our thinking and action, not the company.
Dec 5, 2022·edited Dec 5, 2022Liked by Jackie Bavaro
Having a VC-like approach to your product porftolio is no company strategy - it's a certain method to create products but no standin for an overarching strategy.
I would argue, if Google had such a astrategy, they could have succeeded with Google+. The strategy would have justified to leverage existing products instead of letting Google+ fight for itself without much support.
I enjoyed the comparison of Microsoft and Google in this article. I'm curious, if you were VP of Product at Google, how would you ensure that more consideration is given to product strategy?
I'd start by defining what strategy means, and work with some of the successful product teams to create strategies that can be used as examples. I'd have those teams share their strategies at all-hands, and talk at the end of each strategy all hands with my own take on what was good/unique/important about the strategy just presented. Lots of communication and sharing of examples so everyone can learn & absorb.
From there, it's a choice about what kinds of processes/delegation/checkpoints/templates/etc would work best in the culture.
Resonated with this line - I care about product strategy because the world would be a better place if people spend less time on failed projects and more time working on things that make a difference.
I worked at Google till 2016, and I'd say that Google doesn't have any kind of strategy. If the premise in your article is right, we'd see several huge successes of the scale necessary to move the needle for Google, and we haven't: https://kartick.substack.com/p/which-tech-giants-have-stopped-innovating . Google is just a giant bureaucracy sans strategy.
I also disagree about 20%, at least in my experience: they're officially allowed but managers exert influence, such as by saying "This is an important project you've been given, and I want you to do a great job at it over the next two quarters, after which we can discuss the 20% project." Or "I know you've proven yourself in earlier teams, but you haven't in my team, so you need to do that first". Or "Sure, you can do a 20% project in any team under our director" which is not a 20% project. 20% is more marketing than reality.
Thanks for this comment. Do you think Chrome, Android, or Waymo would count as huge successes? For 20%, I agree it’s really 120% and not always approved, but even with those caveats I think it’s still way more acceptance for side projects than other large companies have, which I think keeps entrepreneurial people at the company longer than if it didn’t exist at all. Agree/disagree?
Thanks, Jackie, for engaging. Chrome and Android are obviously huge successes, but from 2008. When I said Google doesn't have huge successes, I meant recently, say in the past five years. If I compare a Google product I use today with the same product five years back, there's little difference. The link mentioned in the last comment gives more detail.
As for your comment that there's more acceptance at Google than other large companies, I wouldn't disagree with you.
I don't think there are many entrepreneurial people at Google. The ones I know were interested only in promotions, and would stare blankly when I proposed a product improvement. I worked on a mobile app that was so hard to use that I couldn't figure out how to use it as a user. I asked a teammate and he felt the same. My tech lead told me he can't figure out how to use it, so he doesn't use it. I went to my PM who toed the party line for a long time and then admitted that the team isn't being run well and do I know any other team that's a hiring a PM? My manager told me, "Why do you care about the product so much? Will you get fired if it doesn't do well? Will I? You should focus on what's important — getting promoted!"
I guess you and I have different experiences of Google, and that's why we're disagreeing. Which is fine :)
Thanks again for the conversation, and I wish you the best in whatever you're doing now!
Thank you, I've also heard people who were more recently at Google with a similar take to yours, so I can definitely imagine that the culture has shifted. Good luck with whatever you're working on now too!
IME people often don’t realize that product strategies are actually way more important and influential than company strategies. Simply because it’s the products that have an impact on people’s lives, not the company. And this is not only true for users and customers, and society — it’s also true for the people who contribute to the creation and introduction of products which is basically everyone in the company. It’s the products we work on and use that connect us, not the company. It’s the products that are “strong centers” (Christopher Alexander) of our thinking and action, not the company.
Having a VC-like approach to your product porftolio is no company strategy - it's a certain method to create products but no standin for an overarching strategy.
I would argue, if Google had such a astrategy, they could have succeeded with Google+. The strategy would have justified to leverage existing products instead of letting Google+ fight for itself without much support.
https://medium.com/hyperlinked/give-me-one-year-product-ownership-of-google-contacts-and-i-make-google-social-622e84a01cdf
I enjoyed the comparison of Microsoft and Google in this article. I'm curious, if you were VP of Product at Google, how would you ensure that more consideration is given to product strategy?
I'd start by defining what strategy means, and work with some of the successful product teams to create strategies that can be used as examples. I'd have those teams share their strategies at all-hands, and talk at the end of each strategy all hands with my own take on what was good/unique/important about the strategy just presented. Lots of communication and sharing of examples so everyone can learn & absorb.
From there, it's a choice about what kinds of processes/delegation/checkpoints/templates/etc would work best in the culture.
Resonated with this line - I care about product strategy because the world would be a better place if people spend less time on failed projects and more time working on things that make a difference.
I worked at Google till 2016, and I'd say that Google doesn't have any kind of strategy. If the premise in your article is right, we'd see several huge successes of the scale necessary to move the needle for Google, and we haven't: https://kartick.substack.com/p/which-tech-giants-have-stopped-innovating . Google is just a giant bureaucracy sans strategy.
I also disagree about 20%, at least in my experience: they're officially allowed but managers exert influence, such as by saying "This is an important project you've been given, and I want you to do a great job at it over the next two quarters, after which we can discuss the 20% project." Or "I know you've proven yourself in earlier teams, but you haven't in my team, so you need to do that first". Or "Sure, you can do a 20% project in any team under our director" which is not a 20% project. 20% is more marketing than reality.
Thanks for this comment. Do you think Chrome, Android, or Waymo would count as huge successes? For 20%, I agree it’s really 120% and not always approved, but even with those caveats I think it’s still way more acceptance for side projects than other large companies have, which I think keeps entrepreneurial people at the company longer than if it didn’t exist at all. Agree/disagree?
Thanks, Jackie, for engaging. Chrome and Android are obviously huge successes, but from 2008. When I said Google doesn't have huge successes, I meant recently, say in the past five years. If I compare a Google product I use today with the same product five years back, there's little difference. The link mentioned in the last comment gives more detail.
As for your comment that there's more acceptance at Google than other large companies, I wouldn't disagree with you.
I don't think there are many entrepreneurial people at Google. The ones I know were interested only in promotions, and would stare blankly when I proposed a product improvement. I worked on a mobile app that was so hard to use that I couldn't figure out how to use it as a user. I asked a teammate and he felt the same. My tech lead told me he can't figure out how to use it, so he doesn't use it. I went to my PM who toed the party line for a long time and then admitted that the team isn't being run well and do I know any other team that's a hiring a PM? My manager told me, "Why do you care about the product so much? Will you get fired if it doesn't do well? Will I? You should focus on what's important — getting promoted!"
I guess you and I have different experiences of Google, and that's why we're disagreeing. Which is fine :)
Thanks again for the conversation, and I wish you the best in whatever you're doing now!
Thank you, I've also heard people who were more recently at Google with a similar take to yours, so I can definitely imagine that the culture has shifted. Good luck with whatever you're working on now too!