"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics – https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.
There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.
You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.
But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.
Since the dawn of capitalism, life has given children lemons, and they have sold lemonade for extortionate profits.
You, my dear time traveler, find yourself in 2018, a time not just of plentiful lemons, but lots, lots more. It is easier than ever to...
Learn to code (if you like to get your hands dirty) https://t.co/DwowAOZFJu
Build without code (that's okay too) https://t.co/nyK1hnfZrl
Find people to try your product https://t.co/T5Iu5mq6E1
And here's a wonderful secret: if your product fails, it doesn't really matter.

Most things we try don't work. Failure is a fact of life in Product.

In some cases, failure is the best demonstration of your potential.
We look for candidates that can fail and OWN their failures.

Candidates that cannot tell us about past failure are either unable to take risks (bad PM), liars (worse PM), or are some kind of nature defying superhero (probably not within our hiring budget).
A great Product Manager takes risks as a matter of habit. They chase after uncertainty. They learn at every step of the journey.
So there is no excuse 😉

M A K E P R O D U C T S !

More from Tech

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?