Someone told me that it is an issue that can be solved by having high agency but it is exactly the thing that is penalized first. You can only affect the locus of your influence but when you need to get work done collaboratively it is mind numbing work.
You need to sell, sell and sell. Not the right ideas always win but the loudest guy who is really chummy with the founders. Most founders can't do any better because it serves their ego. Doing things right means accepting that your throughput of ideas based in gut call is bad for the company. Having a system where meritocratic ideas win while "smart" show-sha people who are all talk and no show are fired straight up.
I have myself witnessed the death of culture when the inner circle does as what they want to, and soon the it turns very toxic for everyone involved. I can tell you that right now I am pretty much sure that 4 people will leave within 1 year, even if they were offered a 100% hike.
High agency means that you can only do the best with the cards that have been dealt to you. But even with high agency you cannot expect to solve big problems that extend beyond your scope of responsibilities.
Size is inversely proportional to launches. What you mention is true , but I consider this as a stepping stone to leadership. Large companies would always be resistant to change aka new launches as entropy is high and keeps increasing. Moreover, everyone has their own agendas and those who can’t create, obstruct in self preservation.
What has personally worked for me -
From whatever little I have inferred about your thought process on GV, shouldn’t be hard for you. All power to you ☘️
Accepting your throughput is not the strategic fit for the company’s stage, market condition, existing product portfolio doesn’t mean its umbrella "bad for the company". So chill and go easy on yourself.
Meanwhile it might be helpful for you to read some academic stuff on Strategy to work backwards on why your ideas arent being bought in.
Calling founders ego strokers is sensational and sometimes true as well - that said they have and will always have more info on your company and more wisdom regarding the industry (thanks to founder's position, not aptitude) - so try and decode why, like all PMs do :)
Instrumentation and measurement of ideas is a big problem. If every idea is tried all of teams bandwidth will go into things which eventually didn't turn out to be true. Hence a leader is someone who is more right and wrong and knows how to filter ideas. MVP is a subjective definition and has a cost on user experience.
Companies where real problem is much bigger than people problem won't have time to tell people what to do, essentially having projects more than people will always have autonomy and opportunity. People would have no choice but to perform.
@sos so true.
I've worked at 2 early stage startups now. The founders are absolutely bonkers. Kids born into business families who think it's beneath them to work for someone and accumulate skills. They have an idea, that's all. Based on that idea the...
I'm seeing so many posts where startup employees are cribbing about things like layoffs, work culture etc etc. Doesn't seem like they have perspective on everything it takes to build a startup. I've built a failed startup myself and have...
If you can’t run a business that lets people have a normal life then you’re the one who thinks they’re entitled to em...
What are the unique problems that you faced working as a PM in a startup at various stages vs the ones in corporate?
In July 2002, Google did something crazy:
They hired a 22 year old computer science student and made him the product manager for Gmail.
Gmail engineers were shocked.
Gmail was the most important new project at Google. Its target...
