The Balance of Conforming vs Constructing
Despite so much product management content out there, it wasn't until I read an article on Medium (RIP) that I hit upon something which is the kernel of truth not spoken aloud.
It's something that applies definitely to product management, but also can be applied to anyone trying to design their Category of One.
Some context: product management is a field where its ambiguity has become a bug, not a feature.
And in organizations where there hasn't been a genuine effort to define the function and value, particularly by product leadership, with whom the responsibility lies, the ambiguity will only result in raw misery for the PM's.
Definitions matter.
But it's not just vocabulary. I had an experience where I called out within the PM team to the leadership that there does not seem to be an understanding and alignment of what product management meant.
In fact, there was effectively a rogue organization that was also doing product.
I could align with leadership on the definitions of what product management should be. But we didn't agree on the path forward beyond providing a glossary of terms to align with the organization, which is far more important.
We could align that a rogue organization is problematic; but we couldn't align fully on the actions that needed to be taken (I took full agency of what I could do, but that was an invitation for leadership to also make the hard calls and changes, which didn't happen).
Product Management is a system; and if the system is at odds with the broader system, it's effectively dead.
Now, there's a part of me that says that conforming to an existing culture and set of systems is also important; many organizations treat difference and change as an infection.
So there's balance.
But the priority should be always incrementally moving to be seen not as an antagonistic bacteria, but as the part of the organiism that should be adopted and embraced.
This is systems thinking.
A similar approach is for those finding their Category of One.
Part one is identifying and clariyfing what it is.
But the second is ensuring that there's a system which ensure success (related to Put in the Right Reps but also the operating beliefs and systems (such as the company or ecosystem you are a part of) that recognizes it.
Escaping NPC is like how Neo understood the rules of the matrix and could, as a result, bend them.
Rules is not laws, in this sense; it's the culture beliefs as well as the actual pragmatic systems, routines, meetings, processes embraced by the company. These must be tackled head on to re-inforce what's best for your Category, much as successful Product Management leadership must do.
What does this mean for Product Management and what does it mean for Category of One?
For Product Management, the number one question product leadership must ask and gain alignment with leadership and cross functional teams is: What is the value PM's bring to the organization?
In fact, this is the most important part of First 90 Days as a Product Manager -- is to gain alignment.
You may not like what you hear, but at least you know.
Or you may find people don't know and they are open to listening to a compelling case that meets their needs.
To me, that most valuable part is understanding customers, markets, and the business needs to make a product successful.
The process alignment is to ensure that everyone supports Product Management talking to customers. Not tagging along on a sales call, which has different incentives.
Leadership can make the compelling case for why this matters.
So it is with your Category of One.
Whatever it is that makes you compelling and different should not just be accepted on the front end of your employer or customer. It should be reinforced throughout the process to create sustaining value.
For example, if for an Employer a compelling advantage is you are a Product Manager who can talk to Enterprise Customers, building in systems across the organization to enable this as frequently as possible would be a core system design.
This could mean a regular cadence with sales.
It could mean forming and leading a Customer Advisory Board.
It could mean having virtual road shows where you create webinars to bring them in and then create a compelling 1:1.
It could mean monthly updates to the entire company around what you have learned.
Do you see how this is an example of a self-reinforcing value loop that plays to your strengths (this is one that I know well because it is one of mine).
However, if this does not fall into your Category of One, don't do these things. Find the things that need to be embraced by the System.
What does Conforming mean, then?
Well, the Construction is not meant to be conflict-driven.
The Conforming leads by understanding how are things done and why?
What are the incentives for every major stakeholder.
What are the cultural expectations?
If, for example, there are vocal stakeholders who will get jealous if you do public speaking, you have a serious constraint on your hands; you likely will need to Conform until you can find a way to Construct a way to work with this.
If your CEO doesn't understand the value of Product and would prefer that all of those business decisions are made in Finance, a group she trusts more, you must find a way to Partner with them; not keep them separate and isolated from the product decisions.
Conformance is a fact of life and the degree to which you need to do it prior to Construction depends upon your own tolerance for risk and ability to influence others.
Construction needs to be earned; and that's a foundation skill for anyone trying to build a Category of One.
Some people are so independent and have enough agency that they don't conform at all. They are willing to rock the boat and know there's enough take-it-or-leave-it value that they just Construct what they need.
Good for them.
But this isn't always true for everyone. Your mileage may vary.