Some solid points in this article from Jason Knight. On product-led vs. sales-led (but could also refer to engineering-led) organizations:

To be honest, my strong opinion is that if you have to worry about who’s “leading” anything, then you’ve got bigger problems to worry about than who’s leading. If your entire company is aligned around what’s important and how to get there, then anyone could “lead” you there. This is supposed to be a collaboration, not a dictatorship. If one team “leads” and others don’t agree with where they’re being led, fix that! I generally find that misalignment is one of the most important problems to solve in any struggling company.

Hard agree with that one. I don’t believe in “healthy tension” between product and engineering. Just like I shy away from the traditional hierarchical view of “bosses tell employees what to do”. Whether it’s Product and Engineering or Manager and Teammate… it’s about partnership and helping each other (and the company) grow. We have to reframe this idea that adversarial relationships somehow create better teams and products.

Bit of a clickbaity title, but there’s some good advice for product managers in this article about making sure the organization understands that product is a profit center, not a cost center. This is the most important point:

Directly tie product to revenue. One way to do this is revenue attribution. In most companies, revenue and revenue growth is tied to marketing or sales. Making the point that product provided the thing to sell and the features that draw in customers is difficult to make. Product, in this regard, looks passive, and marketing or sales are actively doing something. It is easier to attribute recurring revenue to product because it prevents churn and increases upsells and add-on products.

This can be harder to do with some products—like a platform product with lots of internal customers. But the work is important. As Mike Fisher points out in Language of Business:

The lingua franca of business is finance. Each discipline speaks its native language, be that engineering, marketing, product, etc. but when they get together the common language that everyone should understand is finance.

And what that means for PMs:

The core message I want to convey is that understanding the language of finance is not just about adding another skill to your repertoire, although that is worthwhile; it’s about bridging the gap between technical expertise and business acumen. It’s about translating the complex, technical projects we work on into narratives that resonate with stakeholders across the board, narratives that clearly articulate value, risk, and return. This skill set enables technologists, engineers, and product managers to not only defend their projects and ideas but also to align them more closely with the strategic goals of the business.

Thanks to April Dunford for this fantastic reminder about positioning (and life!):

My favorite positioning quote is from Dolly Parton, who said, “Find out what you are and do it on purpose.” A great positioning exercise is a structured process that allows a team to get real clarity on exactly “what you are” so marketing and sales can “do it on purpose.”

Come to her article for the Dolly Parton quote, stay for the Beyoncé positioning lesson…

Josephine Conneely shared some thoughts that might seem controversial in The Alignment Fallacy. The basic premise is that the need for full alignment within a team can sometimes hide some deeper problems within an organization:

The need for complete explicit agreements in organisations can reveal a culture which requires you to be on defense (a cover your a*s culture if you will). Alternatively, it can be driven by a culture which suffers from being too collaborative (it happens). Plans which require committee approval get delayed, often never quite leaving that committee discussion stage. Broad stakeholder alignment is a positive thing that should be strived for but there can be limits. High risk, high reward scenarios rarely get complete agreement up front. Instead, they require someone to step up and commit to pursuing that path.

I agree with this take in general, with some nuances I would add to the language. I see alignment as a communication outcome that should happen in any decision-making culture, whether it’s consensus-driven, command-and-control, collaborative, etc. I would say that the situation Josephine describes in the quote above is an issue with relying too heavily on a consensus decision-making style. Importantly, consensus doesn’t necessarily guarantee alignment. How many times have you walked out of a meeting where everyone agreed on a thing and then the next day you’re surprised because it feels like you agreed to a completely different thing?

So I would maybe tweak the language slightly and say the post is a warning against consensus cultures. Alignment is a separate step from the actual decision being made, and an important one. It aims to make sure everyone understands (1) what decision has been made, and (2) what the consequences/next steps of the decision are. That’s needed no matter what your decision-making culture is.

I think this is a really insightful comment (LinkedIn) by Ben Erez about the realities of being a PM in a sales-led organization. It’s worth reading his whole argument because it’s definitely a spicy take. But the crux of it is that sales-led organizations cannot function with empowered product teams (I think everyone who reads this blog knows what I mean by that, but just in case, here’s a refresher).

Here’s a key part of Ben’s argument, and the really spicy part:

I think sales-led companies should embrace the feature factory culture fully; stop evaluating PMs by their strategic contribution (a weight off the PMs shoulders given they never get time for strategic work anyway) and start rewarding PMs based on how many features they ship that the sales leaders care about. This will align the PMs in your org to think and work the way the sales team (and CEO) wants them to work. It’ll kill many unhealthy tensions in the org and get people rowing in the same direction.

Would I want to work in that environment? Probably not.

But most b2b SaaS companies are already sales-led. And there are thousands of PMs in those environments who feel the tension I’ve described. So I think most b2b SaaS PMs would celebrate their company embracing their feature factory and just calling it what it is.

Could this be seen as defeatist? Maybe. But I also think that the “just calling it what it is” part of the argument is really key here. It doesn’t serve anyone—not the product, not the company, and certainly not its customers—to pretend you have an empowered product culture when you do not. So remove the pretense, and just be honest about who you are.

If you want to become an empowered organization, that’s great! But that’s a transformation that has to come from the executive level, and it’s not a short or easy process. So go on that journey, yes! But until then, be honest about what the organization is, make expectations clear to PMs, and reward them accordingly.