Why is defining what product managers do so difficult?
Product management suffers from a bit of an identity crisis. Actually, maybe crisis is too strong a term. Maybe it’s an identity butterflies-in-the-tummy kind of thing. It’s the feeling product managers get when asked to explain what they do. Sometimes it’s an opportunity to express a new found idea about the role, sometimes it’s a roll of the eyes as they know they’re going to sound like they don’t know how to define their own role.
There are lots of industry through-leader definitions though. Things like:
A product manager is the person who identifies the customer need and the larger business objectives that a product or feature will fulfill, articulates what success looks like for a product, and rallies a team to turn that vision into a reality.
Product management is a complex role that requires a balance of soft and hard skills to manage requirements and to deliver quality products that align with the business’ goals.
– CIO
Not the CEO of product
– HBR
But still, as Trilly Chatterjee, Senior Product Manager at the NHS, notes, product managers still have trouble explaining “what product management is and what it does —in particular how it’s distinct from other roles“.
But why? What makes product management so different from other roles in ways that make it difficult to define?
Sure, it’s a highly contextual role that depends on the sector and the organisation, but that doesn’t answer the question, it just asks it in a different way; why is product management so contextual in a way that makes it difficult to define?
And sure, it’s been/going through a change of where it fits in the organisation thanks to the agile movement shifting product management from being a purely business function to often being in the Technology department, but that’s a pretty common change across every sector so that doesn’t explain the lack of definition either.
Maybe there is something that might…
In The Team That Managed Itself, Christina Wodtke mentions the idea that for some roles in an organisation it’s the process that counts, whilst other roles are concerned with results. The people in the service teams of an organisation judge what they do by how well their processes are working, their efficiency. And the people on the business side are less interested in the processes that happen behind the scenes and more about the results. The process-orientated people in the service teams and the results-orientated people in the business teams have different mindsets, motivations, and goals. They almost speak different languages.
Could it be that what makes the product manager role so hard to define is that it is concerned with both? If they were only process people they could describe themselves by the processes they use. And if they were only results people they’d describe themselves by what they achieve. Are product managers process people and results people? Do they speak both languages and translate between the two? And does that mean that they don’t really fit fully in either camp?
What if, rather than being at the intersection of a Venn diagram, product managers are actually the union?
The ponzi scheme of internet attention
Does the hero-worship approach to building an audience on the internet work like a ponzi scheme? Those at the top of the pyramid, who are really well known, get attention from those lower down, and those lower down try to get attention from those even lower down by showing connection to those higher up. Getting attention from someone further up the pyramid results in a boost in audience and rises that person up a level on the pyramid.
Invest in getting someone higher up’s attention and get paid in attention from those lower down.
The ‘idea’ as the fundamental unit of value
I started (another) email newsletter as a means of exploring ideas and with the idea that the ‘idea’ is the fundamental unit of value for all communication, art, work, etc., etc. Ideas cross-pollinate, clash, and grow over time. I want to use the newsletter as a way of sharing some of the ideas I pick up as I read all the random things that I do.
The online learning renaissance… in progress
As the office/hybrid/remote work debate rages, the online education renaissance quietly tries to figure itself out.
Everyone, from individual creators to universities to massive corporations are looking at online learning as a way to connect with a like-minded audience and increase revenue.
Interchangeable terms for online learning
Anne-Laure Le Cunff, in a systematic review of the terms used to describe online learning, points out how interchangeably we use the different terms and offered some definitions for “distance learning”, “e-learning”, “online learning”, and “virtual learning”. She explains each term by associating it to where and how the learning process happens. So, distance learning is about location, e-learning is about device, online learning is about delivery, and virtual learning is about communication. This way of looking at the definitions separates them, but Le Cunff does mention the mixing of onsite lectures and online activities to create a blended learning approach.
Dimensions of blended learning
And a while ago, some colleagues and I did some work into defining the different dimensions of ‘blended learning’. We came up with 6:
- Delivery – Live vs. self-serve.
- Medium – Virtual vs. in-person.
- Availability – Wide vs. narrow.
- Pastoral support – Team vs. partner.
- Platform – Owned vs. third-party.
- Content – Owned vs. partner content.
We use these dimensions to design blended learning experiences that best achieve the outcomes of the learners balanced with a pragmatic viability. So, for example, one aspect of a course could be live, virtual, tailored to a particular audience, with support provided by our colleagues, on a platform we built, using content provided by a partner. And another part of the course could be the same except for the content dimension is changed to use content we’ve created. The number of variations offers lots of flexibility for creating learning experiences and comes from the recognition that a ‘one size fits all’ approach actually means it’s unlikely to fit anyone.
What the two models have in common is the means of delivering communication. Le Cunff calls it synchronous/asynchronous and we call it live/self-serve, but essentially we’re talking about the same thing: are the teacher and the learner present at the same time. This is question for lots of course creators. Pre-recorded video courses don’t rely on the presence of the teacher and so can be available at a time that suits the learner and scale in a way that live teaching can’t. Live video sessions create social connection between teacher and learner and offer the opportunity for the learner to ask questions in real-time and so perhaps achieve a higher quality learning experience.
What type of knowledge gets transferred
The decided between these formats is in the nature of what is being taught. Back in the fifties and sixties, Michael Polyani talked about the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit, or implicit, knowledge is the things we know but can’t explain. It’s knowledge that can’t be formalised or codified to be written down. Explicit knowledge can be codified, and so transferred between people via means like pre-recorded videos quite easily. Even the medium of live video sessions struggle to convey tacit knowledge but if done well, with discussion for fast feedback, live video lessons can effectively provide the foundations for later experiential learning where tacit knowledge is built.
The difference between explicit and tacit knowledge transfer is the difference between teaching someone to fix a bike or ride a bike. How to fix a bike can be written down as a set of instructions, whereas how to ride a bike can only be taught through offering suggestions and guidance and changing that feedback based on the experience of the learner. Problems occur when there is confusion about the subject and content of the lesson, and the medium and method it is taught. Using pre-recorded videos, for example, to teach someone how to ride a bike is unlikely to reach successful outcomes for the learner. And not through any fault of their own, but because they are trying to gain tacit knowledge via explicit knowledge transfer. Getting these aligned is essential for effective online education.
The learner’s approaching to learning
Pedagogy is the method and practice of teaching, of conveying information, transmitting learning content. It’s the dominant practice in the majority of educational establishments across the world. Most of the people providing online learning, by whatever means, and whether they know it or not, are using a pedagogical approach. They have the knowledge, and their intention is to convey that knowledge to the learners. But that doesn’t mean it’s what the learner wants.
In contrast to pedagogy is andragogy, a term used to explain the differences in how adults learn compared to children. An andragogical approach to education recognises that learners have experiences that can provide useful learning content, that they want to learn things that are applicable rather than merely for the sake of learning, and that they should be self-directed in achieving their learning outcomes.
Thinking about the difference between the two approaches, it may be less useful to think of them less as what works for children and what works for adults, and more about how learners approach learning. A pedagogical approach can work well where learners don’t know what they need to learn. In order to achieve some educational outcomes they rely on an expert to define the curriculum, choose the content, and deliver it in a way that helps them engage. An andragogical approach might work better where learners have some experience of the topic and want to participate in defining what and how they learn.
Understanding the application of these different methods and practices is important for the online learning creator seeking to engage with their learners in the most appropriate and relevant way. Teaching a new technique to a group of experienced experts is going to require a very different approach to teaching an established body of knowledge to those completely unfamiliar with it.
So, when is the renaissance?
Perhaps calling this a renaissance might be over-cooking it, but the online learning space still has a great deal to think about and figure out to avoid a ‘lift and shift’ approach of just taking how education works offline and trying to make it work the same way online, it’s important to question many of the concepts and assumptions our understanding of education is built upon.