
PM RANT: Launching anything in a big company is an "impossible task"...
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 -
- Map out the hierarchy of stakeholders 1&2 for each unit/ sub org that this goes through.
- Try winning over 1 in each sub unit / org and get whatever dependencies resolved. There would be cases where you have to play 1&2 or 1 against 2, vice versa and take their skip level into confidence at the slightest misstep.
- Always target Sales/ CS alignment first and work your way backwards. This helps in executive level escalations , which helps remove roadblocks faster as new revenue/ retention revenue is on the line.
- For dumb chummies of founders, I’ve seen what works best is public humiliation on company values / output. They can have the ears of the founder , but a public company/stakeholder value driven argument that leads in their humiliation would ensure that they don’t work against you. Founders also have company as a priority, not a person, no matter how chaddi-baddi they are with chummies.
- Selling is really hard, but once you’re able to find spots/ areas that you can sell to varying internal stakeholders, you can sell more effortlessly next time, as you know what buttons to push.
- I’m an IC who doesn’t like this side of PM’ing , but learnt the hard way that this is an opportunity not an impediment.
From whatever little I have inferred about your thought process on GV, shouldn’t be hard for you. All power to you ☘️

This answer is actually very nice. Really appreciate it. ❤️
Tactics are downright amoral but the ends necessitate the means

To be ashamed of one's immorality: that is a step on the staircase at whose end one is also ashamed of one's morality.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Interesting. How do PMs at big orgs (FAANG) remain fulfilled then? Have they done something different than what Indian Product based companies have done? Or Is it the money, brand, the perks making them stay?

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.

Agreed, agency has to be deployed but if the environment isn't set up in the least for you to do good product stuff then it makes sense to find a much better place (exceptions are probably GPM and above, because org change is a realistic possibility then)

Running 🏃🏻♀️ is a bad option
Most PMs at big orgs are not fulfilled. Creating impact full products elude them. Many work years on diff products, none of which see the light of day.
Too many teams a play. Too many strategic bets at play.
They just write fancy stuff on their LinkedIn and try to sell it off to their future employer.