How much influence do Product Managers have in decisions? Depends..

I listened to a webinar by Shreyas Doshi, and it really resonated with me the way he spoke about the influence product managers have in decision-making and the direction of product development within the company. He described three types of companies based on PM influence: PM-dominated, PM-guided, and PM-serviced.

This model really got me thinking because in my career there was a time when I was feverishly looking for an employer that could provide me with a certain kind of environment - one that nourishes teams, enables innovation, and therefore (in my opinion) has the highest chances of good quality products, disruption, and growth. Turns out I should have asked way more questions about the way product decisions get made. Here's what I learnt.

You should listen to the webinar (in the comments below), there are lots of other interesting ideas.

The PM-Dominated Teams

According to Doshi, when the culture is PM-dominated, the product managers are front and center. They call all the shots (and they are expected to), and team members in other functions are often referred to as "resources."

How do you know you’re dealing with this type of company?

• The less competent product managers are taken seriously and have an equal say in all matters.

• The word of colleagues in other functions carries far less weight than that of product managers.

• The product manager essentially acts as a dictator, and other functions are expected to stay in their lane and serve product management.

I've been there and at first I have to say I enjoyed it. But I learnt very quickly that I was completely alone.

When I take a step back now and think about it - for me, this setup essentially means that the PM is responsible for everything, including engineering and design. With responsibility, of course, also comes decision-making power. And so, since the PM decides, the rest of the team loses its mandate to make decisions and is essentially no longer responsible. This approach can lead to teams giving up because they lack a say in how things are done. This, in turn, leads to a drop in team engagement with the problems at hand and subsequently a drop in product quality.

Doshi says that this works well for highly business-oriented products or companies whose bar is relatively low when hiring people for non-PM functions.

To me, the crux of it all is that the product manager can never be as good at engineering as engineers or as good at design as designers. It is an illusion that a dominant product manager can single handedly fix the quality or design problems that the product might have. This approach seems doomed to me if it remains the main operating way for an extended period. Anyone with a successful example of where this worked well?

The PM-Serviced Teams

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are the PM-serviced teams. According to Doshi, in this scenario, the product managers are "housekeepers" in a service role. Another function, like engineering or sales, usually leads decision-making.

How do you know you’re dealing with this type of company?

• PMs do not have a consistent influence on strategic product questions.

• PMs often do project or program management for a significant portion of their time.

• Essentially, their job is to make life easier for the other functions, such as creating extensive Business Analysis documentation.

In my work, I have noticed that these companies, according to themselves, already operated in a Product-Led model, but the success they hoped to achieve did not materialize within their expected time frame. And so another function like engineering or sales (less often design or marketing) took the reins to "fix" the situation and now dominates decision-making.

What I've learnt working in such teams and seeing this dynamic in the teams of my customers is that this kind of setup can spiral out of control and into a blame game if the company does not have a strong grasp of product management principles. I have seen that in these situations, even though other functions are making the decisions, whenever things don’t pan out, they often blame the product manager for not providing enough documentation, not offering good enough specifications for developers, or not creating a strong enough value proposition for sales. Due to their role description (which often does not reflect reality but is straight out of a book), PMs essentially become scapegoats for any shortcomings, despite their lack of real authority. This is a situation where decisions are made, but nobody is truly willing to be responsible. Needless to say, the product quality can plummet in this environment.

Doshi says this approach works well for highly technical products or sales-oriented enterprise products with strong business teams. And I agree, this model has a time and a place where it would excel - the situations where I have seen it used were. But my question is, do they really need a product manager, or would a project manager or an analyst do?

The PM-Guided Teams

According to Doshi, the PM-guided company is where creating and managing products feels like a partnership of equals between the different functions. As he put it, "the PM has decent influence, but does not have dominance." The product manager acts as a sort of a tour guide for the team to build great products while the team can always ask questions and suggest changes to the approach.

Key characteristics of this model:

• Less experienced PMs have lower influence; other functions step up to take ownership (though I guess this can also eventually evolve into a PM-serviced approach if you let it happen for too long).

• Competent PMs have high influence, fostering challenging product debates.

• This environment leads to high-value product discussions and quality outcomes.

This is the environment where I have seen highly successful products grow. It’s the environment I sought for years and now help companies build. I believe the PM’s word should carry slightly more weight if they know their stuff, but they should not dominate due to character traits or a less competent team.

Doshi also says that this model works for most products, but requires for the company to have high hiring standards. I think that is an important point to keep in mind - it's not about the team being PM-guided, they must also be at the top of their game as this determines the quality of the outcome.

I believe that truly successful products are born when every team member, including the PM, engineering, design, and beyond, take full responsibility, bring their A-game and get excited about the problem they are solving for their customers. This mutually carried responsibility with a guided focus is key.

In My Work

Another thought I had while listening was that I've noticed that companies not running on the product operating model, or those running it, but not seeing desired results, often believe that it is a lack of PM dominance that creates low ownership levels. They've observed other companies with high-quality products and efficient, cooperative teams led by remarkable Product Managers. And so they start to believe that hiring the perfect PM who will push their teams to run perfectly is key to improving performance and quality.

So essentially they desire the outcomes of a PM-guided approach but try to achieve them with a PM-dominating setup.

In Conclusion

Reflecting on my previous jobs and the companies I've worked with through Productize, they all fit into one of these three categories. And now I understand why I fit in like a glove in some companies, but was a complete misfit in others. Each approach has its time and place, and I would say that despite my experiences, none of them is inherently wrong. Though sometimes, I question if a Product Manager is indeed needed or if a Project Manager or Analyst would suffice.

In my opinion, for truly effective product development, the PM-guided approach is the way to go. This balance of power, where PMs and other functions are partners, has the best chance to lead to spectacular results. This is how successful products are built: with the whole team contributing to the best of their abilities.