Why My Product Manager Mindset Failed in Entrepreneurship.

Discovering the Limitations of My Product Manager Mindset in the World of Entrepreneurship and the Role of Mental Models in Navigating These Challenges.

I earned my Master's Degree in Systems and Control engineering decades ago, and since then, I've developed a strong reliance on systems and models. First technical ones, and slowly others that are not only applicable to technological challenges but also to real-life problems that we encounter:

For example:

1. Think in First Principles: This mental model champions the deconstruction of complex problems into their most elemental components. It advocates for the removal of assumptions and the creation of solutions from the very foundation. Its versatility makes it a powerful approach applicable to a wide array of situations. Notably, it's one of Charlie Munger's personal favorites, as far as I know.

2. Confirmation Bias: This is the inclination we have to seek, interpret, and remember information that aligns with our existing beliefs. Being aware of this bias, which is not an easy task obviously, is crucial for making objective decisions in any setting.

3. Product Manager as a Conductor: During my tenure as a product manager in prominent tech companies, my guiding mental model was that of being the "Orchestrator." This model views the product manager as the conductor of a group of talented musicians, each responsible for a different aspect of the product's development, music to be created. As a conductor, you are responsible for the end product, you represent the audience, your users. Key pillars of the my orchestration model are:

• Collaboration: Recognizing the value of close collaboration with diverse individuals, each contributing their unique expertise (musical instrument) to the product development process.

• Communication: Prioritizing effective communication among different parts of the "orchestra" to ensure alignment and understanding among stakeholders. 

• Responsibility: Taking ownership of the product's success and proactively addressing any issues or conflicts among team members: Are trombones overpowering the cellos?

• Leadership: Providing guidance and motivation to the team, directing them towards achieving the product's objectives. 

• Adaptability: Being open to different working styles, personalities, and perspectives to create a harmonious and productive team.

Many of these principles are undoubtedly transferable to contexts beyond product management, which I found myself applying when I embarked on my entrepreneurial journey.

However, when reflecting on my experience with my co-founder, with whom I eventually parted ways (see my previous post about it), I realized that the blanket application of adaptability, a key component of my product management mental model, was not the most suitable approach. Here's why:

In my role as a PM, especially in large, complex organizations like Google or Amazon, I didn't get to choose my stakeholders – they were assigned to me, or to the project. 

In my experience, team members in the corporate world are often experts in their respective fields, each possessing their unique styles, incentives, and personalities. Success in that environment relied heavily on my ability to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of each team member while identifying solutions that complemented their specific abilities. It was a rare occurrence for me to reach the point of considering a team member unfit for the team, warranting replacement.

Over the years, this approach of "I can manage this personality" became a cornerstone of my professional adaptability. As a product manager in the corporate sphere, my role entailed optimizing the performance of the teams I led. I likened it to that of a conductor, skillfully orchestrating the diverse talents within my team to create a harmonious symphony of success. This approach had proven effective, teaching me to accommodate different working styles, personalities, and viewpoints.

Upon entering the co-founder dynamic within the startup realm, it became clear that my previously effective mindset did not seamlessly translate. Startup co-founder relationships demand a deeper alignment, extending beyond mere adaptability. They necessitate a profound shared foundation encompassing common values, objectives, and approaches to problem-solving.

As issues arose in my co-founder relationship, I initially relied on my experience as a product manager to manage and navigate the yellow flags that began to appear. My background had honed my ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in team members, fostering collaborative problem-solving. However, I soon realized that this mental model proved somewhat misleading in this novel context. Instead of interpreting these "yellow flags" as mere challenges to be managed, I should have recognized them as critical signals necessitating a thorough examination of the co-founder relationship.

In essence, startup co-founder relationships resemble marriages more than corporate teams. They demand a profound alignment not only in terms of skills and work styles but also concerning values, objectives, and approaches to tackling challenges. While adaptability remains a valuable trait, it cannot fully compensate for misalignment at this foundational level. Those "yellow flags" were not just challenges to overcome; they served as early indications of misalignment that had the potential to disrupt our entrepreneurial journey significantly. Identifying this misalignment sooner would have conserved valuable time and energy for both myself and my co-founder.

As seasoned investors and experienced entrepreneurs often emphasize, I should have approached this partnership with a mindset akin to entering a marriage. While adaptability remains a vital asset, it must be accompanied by a strong foundational alignment in terms of values, objectives, and problem-solving methodologies.

To sum it up, mental models serve as invaluable guides on our journey to success, frequently proving adaptable across diverse contexts. Nevertheless, a crucial lesson lies in recognizing the nuanced relationship between these models and their application. While adaptability is a valuable asset, it's equally vital to approach it with discernment, always mindful of the distinctive dynamics inherent to each situation.