Guy Levit

My current product team has about 40 PMs (And we are hiring!). I would not dive into what each of the team does, but maybe talk about how we went about structuring it, which may be a more transferable skill. When I first joined Meta my VP asked me if the current team structure is the right one. Naturally, I did not know the answer. Frankly, I don’t think it was the right question for me to answer at the time. Instead, I engaged with the team on setting a 3 year plan - Write down what our strategy is, at a high level, and what are the key milestones that such a strategy would hit, if successful. This happened both at the org level and for the individual teams in the org. As the team presented the strategy to the stakeholders we started seeing some gaps in our org structure and the team leads started to raise a desire to organize differently. We recently re-organized the team accordingly. Setting a direction was a critical prerequisite before talking about team alignment. As for measuring success, it goes a bit to the first question I answered - I expect each team to define their own strategy, then set the milestones of that strategy. Our discussion can then be focused on the three elements I highlighted: * Strategy: Was the team able to set a good strategy? * Execution: Is the team hitting the milestone? If not, is it because the execution is not tight, or because the milestones are not achievable and we should pivot? This is a very important distinctions that some people are missing - A team can be executing really well and proving that the strategy is the wrong strategy. Being able to prove that point and move on without wasting years of struggles is a big win! * Org health: Are we hiring well? Growing talent? Retaining talent? How is the cross functional relationships going?

Generally, I am thinking of success in 3 dimensions: Vision, People and Execution. All three need to work well for a team to succeed over time. Early in your career Execution takes a bit of a higher focus. You can get your first 2-3 promotions by launching bigger and more complex projects. However, as you grow in your career the ability to offer broader, more ambitious vision and have others join you in the journey become more central for your success. Your already proven execution skills help in attracting people to work with you since they know you will deliver. It’s important to invest in all three dimensions throughout your career, since honing these skills takes time. When I joined Meta I was excited to find out that here we are formally aligning PMs expectations with similar axes: Impact (which includes Strategy and Execution) and Capacity Building (which includes healthy team and cross functional relationship as well as broader contributions to the organization). I believe this structured view creates the right incentive and culture.

Reality these days is that we mostly work in remote settings, and even when we do go to the office, some people will be dialing in. As a result, I believe 80% of the strategies have to do with focusing on the fact that we are all people, 20% are tactics and adjustments for remote settings. General alignment strategies: * Build trust ahead of time. This is fundamental and driving collaboration without it is hard * Focus on common goals. There’s typically a higher goal that teams can easily align on (e.g. Revenue, Engagement, Better experience), and the differences show up as you start double clicking into the “how”. Starting the discussion with a longer term view can also help in skipping tactical disagreements and alignments * Frame, rather than take a position. With common goals in mind, center the discussion on what the characteristics of a good solution are, rather than starting with comparing options. This helps setting a more objective ground before jumping into the solutions * Call out your biases (easier to do when you have trust). In an environment where there is trust, I expect my teams to be able to call out other considerations that may cause them to pull in a certain direction, those can be different stakeholders that push in other directions, past experience and others. Some of those reasons may be valid, some may not be valid. Calling them out can help the entire team work through them. A few remote specific tactics: * Set the right structure, if possible. This includes minimizing the number of time zones each team has to work across (In my organization we are trying to limit ourselves to 2 time zones per team, when possible). If you can, hire senior enough people in the right locations to be able to run autonomously. * Invest in getting to a clear strategic direction. Having an upfront debate on the direction is time consuming, but can then help in setting the guardrails for autonomous decisions that can happen within the teams, locally. * If you do have the opportunity to meet in person, do so. Especially when working across time zones with little overlap, a good relationship would allow you to accomplish more offline, and can dedicate the overlapping time for working more effectively through the tougher topics. While I still mostly work from home I prioritize going to the office when team members from other offices are coming to town (and I am writing this note from the airport, while waiting for a flight - going to visit my team in Austin!)

I love this question! It happens a lot and working through it is part of our role as PMs. There are a few layers to my approach here: First, start with building the relationship. (I hope this theme is clear by now ;-). While your goals may conflict, at a higher level you are playing for the same team, and having constructive, trusting relationships is a key for any team’s success. You don’t need to agree, but at least seek to understand and show empathy. Second, focus on higher level framing, rather than your own goals - You both want the company to succeed, and if you start double clicking into what success means, you will likely be in agreement for the first few clicks. As you go deeper, call out the framing e.g. “We want to grow revenue, but also want to ensure good customer satisfaction. We may disagree on the relative importance of those factors”. I specifically recall a leader I worked with with whom I philosophically disagreed on the overall direction of my product, but could still have very productive conversations about how to think about the space. We were not trying to persuade each other, but rather use those conversations to enrich both of our thinking. Third, As you lay the framework and get to the crux of the disagreement, try to think of the “what needs to be true” statement. If two reasonable, capable groups of people look at a problem and get to a different conclusion it may be because they put different “weights” on different considerations. You can then enumerate “A is better than B if X, Y and Z are true. Otherwise B is better than A”. Example: Driving revenue up by X is more important than driving customer satisfaction up by Y if we believe that the change in customer satisfaction will lower attrition by XX and drive increased spend fro existing customers of YY”. Then the discussion can be about the conditions, not the goals. Fourth, when the discussion does move to goals, look at counter metrics. “Grow metric X while keeping metric Y within certain guardrails”. I’ve seen this technique used a lot at Meta. Last - Escalate. I encourage my teams to escalate disagreements so we, as a leadership team, can unblock them. If the work above does not solve the challenge, at least it allows for a very structured discussion among the leaders of the conflicting parties.

Ultimately Product Management is about people. I do approach stakeholders differently, but it’s based on who they are, rather their role. Some stakeholders like to be consulted ahead of time, some prefer being briefed in bigger forums where they can gauge the reactions of others. Some like structured approaches, others react to the anecdotal evidence. Some may have specific trigger points on specific topics. Part of my role is to understand those differences and be able to navigate through them.