"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 entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.

You May Also Like