We have this mental metaphor that we talk a lot about getting to the next hill. The actual wording is, take bigger boulder beds. I think teams can often get lost crawling up that hill, not really. There's a huge, incredibly beautiful range behind it. But you've over time freighted new teams from scratch that YouTube ate in a new area before the area is mature.
So we did that with a lot of these kind of native audio-visual products like huddles and clips, early in the pandemic, because our customers were demanding it from us. And I think in the AI space, we're trying to hear from customers, what did you wish Slack could do if it had these new superpowers? And let's incubate a couple teams, prototype, give them space to run and pilot and then get something to watch that's amazing, blows people away. That's kind of the formula that we've seen.
Welcome to Lenny's podcast where I interview world-class product leaders and growth experts to learn from their hardwood experiences building and growing today's most successful products. Today, my guest is Noah Weiss. Noah is chief product officer at Slack. We spent the last seven years. Prior to that, he was head of product at four square, which is near and dear to my heart as you'll hear at the top of this episode.
Prior to that, he was a PM at Google and at Fock Creek Software, and in our conversation, we covered the 10 traits of great product managers, how to work effectively with strongly opinionated and product-minded founders, what Noah has learned about working effectively with AI in your product over his last 15 years at Google at Four Square and Mount Slack. We talk about a process called Complaint Storms that helps Slack build better product,
plus what he's learned from Slack's self-service business plateauing back in 2019 and how they turned it around and what they took away from that experience. Also, how he thinks about competition with Microsoft Teams and with Discord. Also a bunch of new data device, which I found very helpful. This was such a great in-depth conversation about all things product and leadership. And I'm really excited for you to hear this episode. With that, I bring you Noah Weiss after a short word from our sponsors.
This episode is brought to you by Sidebar. Are you looking to land your next big career move or start your own thing? One of the most effective ways to create a big leap in your career, and something that worked really well for me a few years ago, is to create a personal board of directors. A trusted peer group where you can discuss challenges you're having, get career advice, and just kind of gut check how you're thinking about your work, your career, and your life.
This has been a big trajectory changer for me, but it's hard to build this trusted group. With sidebar, senior leaders are matched with highly vetted, private, supportive peer groups to lean on for unbiased opinions, diverse perspectives, and raw feedback. Everyone has their own zone of genius, so together we're better prepared to navigate professional pitfalls, leading to more responsibility, faster promotions, and bigger impact.
Guided by world-class programming and facilitation, Sidebar enables you to get focused, tactical feedback at every step of your journey. If you're a listener of this podcast, you're likely already driven and committed to growth. A Sidebar personal board of directors is the missing piece to catalyze that journey. Why spend a decade finding your people when you can meet them at Sidebar today? Jump the growing weight list of thousands of leaders from top tech companies by visiting sidebar.com slash Lenny to learn more.
That's sidebar.com slash Lenny.
This episode is brought to you by Superhuman. How much time do you spend an email each day? How about your team? You may not realize this, but your email tools are wasting your time. Superhuman is blazingly fast email for high-performing teams. Built to work with Gmail and Outlook, teams who use Superhuman spend half the time in their inboxes, respond to twice the number of emails, and save over four hours a week. That's over a month of save time per year.
With Superhuman, you can split your inbox into streams or VIPs, team members, and emails from your favorite products to reduce context switching and make sure you never miss an important email. You can start reminders if you don't hear back so that you can follow up and never drop the ball on an email thread. You can also work faster than ever before with powerful AI features like writing, editing, summarizing, and even translating.
Join the ranks of the most productive teams and unleash the power of Superhuman. Try 113 at superhuman.com slash Lenny. That's superhuman.com slash Lenny. Noah, welcome to the podcast. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to finally get to join me for the long-term listener.
I feel the same way in reverse. I have been really excited that you're finally on the podcast. And I don't know if you know this, but this is actually going to be the last podcast I'm recording before I go on Pat Leave. This is going to play while I'm on break. And coincidentally, you're actually just returning from Pat Leave is what I just learned. And so let me ask you a question. What advice do you have for someone about to enter the beginning of baby life from someone that is exiting that and going back to work?
So first off, I mean, obviously, congratulations. You're about to go on and roll a coaster of emotion, sleep, and everything else. You know, I literally went back to work two days ago. So I think my maybe advice about being in your parents is better than my advice, but I'm being at PM right now.
Here are the three, my wife and I went up to me with like three maxims that we want to be using throughout the first two months to keep ourselves grounded. So first one, I would say a little bit better every day, no matter how many books you read, you know, and how much family ostrich you consume. There's nothing like actually doing it.
And it's a physical thing being a new parent. And so give it a little bit better every day, giving yourself permission to be like that. Didn't go great and that's okay. That's number one. Number two, don't over extrapolate from the early days. Like they are, you know, the fourth trimester is a real thing. These babies come out, they are not fully baked. They can't even support their own heads. So if you try to extrapolate, you would think the next 18 years, they're going to be like the first 18 days.
It's going to be sobering, so keep that perspective. They develop so much every week with Father Simon. And then the third thing, which I got advice from this from a good friend, is you've got to fully get into it as a parent. If there's nothing that replaces, actually, you've got to change the diapers. You've got to do the feeds when they're up, even though they can't talk. You've got to talk to them. You've got to listen to what they're saying and just be fully present near the moment.
I kind of realized for myself and then basically at full visual detox, you said how long it took for me to reply to your emails. I was like, put all the devices away, just kind of be fully with our daughter and our family. And I feel like it was so much more rewarding. I feel really connected with her now after just a couple of months. So it's a crazy time. You're going to love it. It's going to drive you mad at that time as well. And that's all OK.
All right, we're going to be pivoting this podcast into a parenting podcast. This was awesome advice. I wrote everything you just said on this little post it as you're talking. So I'm going to put that up in my inner nursery and see, see how it all goes. One thing that's tough about my career path in this weird life is I don't get a nice pet leave, you know, paid pet leave from a big company. So I've actually been working on
stacking guest post and podcast ahead of my leave so that I can actually, as exactly as you said, just get fully into it. I have six awesome. Yeah, so I have awesome guest posts coming. All these podcasters backlog. So I'm hoping it all works out. That's a start. Yeah. Yeah. On a totally different topic.
your head of product at four square. And I don't know if you know this, I actually built a startup on four squares API, this company called local mind. And for folks that don't know about it, the way it worked is basically let you talk to someone, check in on four square anywhere in the world. If you're thinking about going there, so you could be like, there's this bar of fun right now, what's happening there before you actually
Show up and we ended up selling the company to Airbnb. We ended up not being a big problem for enough people. And that's how I ended up at Airbnb, but it was, it was like quite magical and API was amazing. And so I guess just say, I just want to say thank you for building an awesome product and also API. Thank you for being a developer on top of the ecosystem. I mean, it's interesting with For sure. I will talk about some for later. I feel like I have more lessons learned and more scar tissue from the, you know, crazy up and down.
of what was 2010 to 2015, roughly. And I think there's something actually where you learn more from the things that don't fully work out or don't quite achieve what you want it to achieve. And you actually have a feedback loop where you get a lot of negative signal about like, if that didn't work, that didn't work. What can I actually learn and take away from that? So it's so great. I still love using Fort Square. I think we got caught in the Death Star of Instagram's ascent back in 2012 to 2013.
But, you know, I hope a product like that exists forever in the future and I'm glad you got to build a company landed Airbnb through it to grid story. Looking back at Four Square, do you think there was a path to building a massive consumer app type business or is it just never going to work out? And I know they went in direction of B2B data sort of business. So I guess was there a path or was it just like, no, that was never going to work out?
It's true. I mean, I'm not going to do like 30-minute post-mortem because I probably bore everyone, but I've thought about this. We've all thought about this a lot kind of in the early team there. I think, you know, the biggest, probably lesson learned, frankly, is that, you know, we were really close to Instagram folks early on. They were like big developers on our platform. They used the Forcebury API before they were brought by Facebook. And I think
In hindsight, you were a little bit mistaken to believe that the idea that the atomic unit would be a person talking about a place that they're at, and you have to have a physical place to type to versus a person sharing a moment or experience that they're having in the world. And sometimes I might have a place connected to it.
I think that one change in frame here on what you would say like a customer actually wanted to do, that probably wasn't going to took this away on the social side. I think on the more kind of local discovery side, it's actually what people want to be using the product much more for over time, getting kind of personalized recommendations and
getting tips when you go to a place and all the push notifications. But I think there, again, it was kind of hard to stay ahead. I think specifically at Google, because they had billion plus Google Maps users distributed on Android and iOS. And even though they might only take a couple of years, eventually they would wind up replicating a lot of the functionality. And then I think it was hard to regain that momentum.
You know, so much of this stuff is luck and timing and just coincidences of history. I think there was a path, I think, in the end, we kind of lost our social sales and then Google was able to catch up on the utility side. And now the company's built a really valuable kind of B2B API company, which offers a story. I mean, Slack is in some ways a pivot, obviously, from a consumer coming to a B2B company. But yeah, that's my mini postmortem. What could have been with Four Square?
It's interesting how many consumer companies pivot to be to be, because it turns out that's where the money ends up being.
Yeah, and I think the feedbacks that you get from our people willing to pay for the product that you're building is so much faster than can I build a large still consumer business and when they hope to have enough reach to then slap ads onto it. That's a much more of a kind of try to hit a home run and hope it works out, but you don't really know if you're doing it a long way. So yeah, I think BDD is easier to have a more incremental successfully business than a sure consumer.
Okay, so speaking of four square, Dennis Crowley was the CEO and founder, a very strong product-minded founder. I know you've worked with a number of very strong product-minded founders, including Stuart Butterfield, Dennis. Obviously, we just talked about maybe others. I'm curious what you've learned as a product leader.
working with very opinionated founders. And I think this is interesting, not just as like a product leader, working with very product-minded CEOs, but also as a first PM at a startup. You're often put in a tough spot of just like the founders just telling you what to do and you have to go build it versus having a lot of say and agency. So I'm curious what you learned about working and being successful in that position, which is often really hard. But coming, say to folks in general, if you're joining a company and the CEO does the role that is your functional area of expertise,
It's probably the area where you'll learn the most because they're hopefully world-class at it, but also when you leave the most frustrating at times because you're going to feel like you have less agency. And so you just know that going through it. If you go to come in and run by a former marketer and you're in marketing, they'll probably want to have a lot of safe influence over that. And I think just going into knowing that is good.
You know, looking back, I would say probably too many things stand out of what's really worked with both Dennis and Stuart, not just for me, but I think for the teams that kind of work with him as well. The first is, I think as much as possible, I think maybe we'll talk about this a little bit later as well. It's kind of getting to the point where you have alignment on the principles for what it means to build a great product of that company.
Not just about if intuition and tasting gut, but how do you distill that into principles that become the language of the company so that everybody else can start thinking through a similar frame or similar lens when you're designing product? Because otherwise it can feel a little bit kind of Goldilocks every time a team builds at something, they take it to the CEO. So I was like, no, I'm not quite right. Again, no, not exactly that. And then you don't have the language to actually have a more constructive review.
And then doing that as a little strategy as well. I think the product down for CEO is always going to be the holder of the vision for the company. I'm sure at Airbnb, I imagine Brian was very much like that as well. Absolutely. And I think it's actually great to say, okay, the overall vision for the company is if the responsibility of any one team, have everyone buy into that vision, but then to have space for teams to be able to actually do creative work, do explorations because you know that it's aligned with that high level vision.
So if you can get that alignment and you can get those principles as the common language of what great software looks like, I think you can have a really good working relationship. And in the other bit, I would just say is I think when to involve the founder CEO in a project is really important.
And the short version, I think, that works the best is almost like a U-curve where the x-axis is time and the y-axis is level of involvement. I think you want to get the founders, you know, really involves early on, especially this is a big new project to make sure that there's strategic buy-in, where you agree on the principles for how you're going to approach it, where you have the goals and the anti-goals.
getting the accident in the team can run and explore. And then I think at the very end, you want them to really be bought in that, did you build something that's up to the quality of a product company? Is this something that's meant to like customer, like literally taste the soup? What's missing in it?
And I think that most companies that have a maniacally kind of customer-focused founder, if you don't do that last step, it's going to be much more painful after you launch because they weren't part of that co-creation of the team. And so I think that kind of formula winds up working pretty well if you throw it in that kind of alignment principles and stream vision.
That usually sounds nice in theory, but I often imagine you get to that final step. And the founder is like, what the hell is this? This is not at all what I was hoping it be. There's an example of that that comes to mind where you maybe went through that. And then it's just like, no, that did not work out the way we expected. And if not, no problem.
Yeah, I mean, I think that does happen. The issue is maybe the end of the year is kind of like the level of engagement and often that last level of engagement. That's where there's actually the most rapid refinement that you're doing. And I think what's important there is that hopefully you're refining in code and you're not still at like static design mocks because using the software is so different than looking at what the software will do.
visually appear. And so I think what we would want to do with Stuart at Slack, for example, was like, we would get the entire development team, engineers, design, product, user research, and Stuart together in a room, and we kind of almost do like a bug bash together. And the idea was like, we're doing all together, we're trying to make the best product possible, making great softwares really messy, and we're all trying to clean up the mess together.
You know, sometimes you might find things like, OK, this entry point really isn't working. Maybe we have to move this entry point. Maybe a bigger change. But I think often what you'd find is just all those bits of polish and refinement and doing the little delightful things that might otherwise be missing to kind of raise that craft bar and doing a real collective way. So it doesn't just feel like the team says, we want to shoot. And the founder says, no, it's not ready.
Ideally, as a group, you're saying, we want to get it to a bar that's going to delight our users. And here's the gap from where we are today to what we want to show. I think that mentality winds have been a lot more constructive, but that's not always easy to do. You talked about creating these principles, which is an awesome approach of just like creating guardrails for the team. So they kind of think the way the founder and the head of product think. What are some examples of principles you have and had early on, maybe at four square or slack?
I mean, Slack, I think is where we kind of enshrined in much more because we scaled it over so much more than we needed principles. And I think for us, they were really about unpacking just the mission, which for Slack is making people's working lives simpler, more pleasant, more productive. That's the mission of the company. The question is, how does software help do that? That's what the principles are there to answer. So for us, we've got five for principles they've,
They've largely seen the same, some of the language has changed over the last couple of years, but at least for the last four or five years, we've had these. So the first is be a great host, which is all about kind of that level of craft that relates to the saving people's steps. If you're, let's say, a host in Airbnb, it's like putting clean towels on the bed. So no one has to wonder, are these for me? Like that type of foresight. That's actually a value to Airbnb. Exactly. It's like, be a host at Airbnb is one of the four core values.
Right, so maybe we borrowed that, or someone was inspired by it, but be a great kind of sad and aspirational. I love that. Yeah, yeah, it's a little bigger. There's a famous user or design book called Don't Make Me Think, which we sold the title of for our next principle. And that's really just about as people building the software, you know how it works so well, you care about all the nuances and intricacies, and you really want your users to love it as much as you do.
But often, actually, that kind of owner's delusion that someone else will care as much about the software that you built as you do prevents you from actually making something that's simple, comprehensible, understandable. And so one of the core tenets because life is pretty complex under the surface is how do we actually make people not have to think?
How do we not reinvent the wheel if there's existing design patterns to use? How do we actually wind up designing for people who come from any different backgrounds and we kind of cater to their needs in ways that don't make them have to customize them too much? There's a saying we also have which is more clicks can often be okay.
You often have an optimization, experimentation circles, like, oh, every click, remove it. But I actually think in a lot of software, when it's not transactional, helping people understand what they're doing, giving them confidence, helping them have trust in the steps, we've seen them that can actually be a better experience. And that's another example of, don't make it stressful, help people chill out when they're using this offer. That's the idea on that one.
shifting a little bit. I know you guys have been working on a bunch of AI stuff at Slack. And I believe you've been working on AI related stuff for many years. I think at Google, you worked on a lot of AI-related products. I feel like a lot of people are just getting into this and trying to figure out how do we integrate AI and ML and LLMs into our product? And how do we not just waste our time chasing things? So I want to ask you, just in your time working with AI over the many years you've been doing it and share.
a little bit about what you've been doing there. What are some things you've learned about how to be actually effective and build valuable products? And I just kind of fall for the shiny object issue and trap. I mean, it's almost 15 years ago now that I was working at Google in search on what later became called the knowledge graph. So this idea of building kind of a canonical repository of kind of information of people places things in the world and relationships between them.
And back then, it was a lot of the same ideas, possibly the techniques I've got on my armature. So we used natural language processing to extract all this information through the web and try to build this kind of database of facts. And the idea then was, could you take queries people have, like, what are the tallest mountains in Europe or one of the most popular beaches in Southern California? And you know what I should give answers, not just template links.
I think the thing that's really changed and super exciting in the last six, 12 months with LMs and chat GPT and everything else is the idea that now you can take not just knowledge about the world, but actually you have natural language generation where suddenly the computer can kind of talk back to you in a way that feels extremely human. And then the creative applications of that are pretty massive and exciting.
So that's kind of, I guess, the lineage there. I think from over the years back at Google, at Forrefer, we did a lot of personalization and recommendation that Slack, we have, you know, Search and ML that's having to use the product. I think a couple things come out as kind of, I guess, the principles that we've kind of used over the years. Back then, I drew one of the big ones was that the promise of the UI has to match the quality of that underlying data.
which is to say, and I think there's not too one of the failings of the various LMs right now is they all appear supremely confident even when they're completely hallucinating. And I think that's gonna be something that people are gonna have to work on a lot, which is to figure out how to be not so faultless, to acknowledge when you're not sure, because otherwise it undermines the trust people have in the system. Using a lot of transparency about where the data comes from so people can actually build credibility and the tools really important.
And then I think making sure that as you're designing the products that you have, virtuous cycles that are naturally part of the product experience where you can get training data as a byproduct of people naturally using the software and then can make the model that you're building behind the scenes smarter, more accurate, more predictive. So a classic example of that would be, yeah, folks back in the day of their reading system, they actually have a feedback loop from their customers that make the system better at predicting. And I think you are still trying to figure out what does that look like in this world in LLMs.
Something I hope that you're all building at Slack is a way to ask a bot questions based on all the conversations in the Slack. I've been looking for that product for a while now. I can safely say we have a lot of prototypes internally where we are playing this, and I think it's actually funny as a side in one of the original Slack product vision decks back in 2014.
There was our whole strategy with four parts. And then part number four, which was a joke at the time was, then do magic AI stuff on top.
And I know we didn't even know what the state of the AI would be by the time hopefully companies had their collective knowledge and slack. And now we're finally at the period where the magic AI stuff seems finally pretty amazing, pretty magical. So yeah, we're doing a lot of prototyping internally and also trying to work with the ecosystem around this well, because there's so many companies doing amazing work in this space.
So that if you work at a company where you have so much knowledge in your Slack channel repository that you can suddenly get amazing leaps in productivity to help you better do your job because that knowledge is in Slack, but it's sometimes hard to reach. And I think these technologies can make that possible.
This reminds me of something Gustav, the CPO and CTO and co-president of Spotify. Share that they always have a deck and a vision of just like a play button within Spotify. You just play and all magic happens and it's the best music and exactly what you want to hear and just how that isn't actually possible and it's still not possible. And so exactly to your point, you have to like really think about
How does it act like how close is it to the reality? And if it's not actually there, like he's like, he was saying how like, we'll pick two songs that are correct out of 10, just because we don't really know exactly what you want to hear right now. And it's just, there's no point in trying to design that right now, because it's not actually going to be delivering on the promise. Right. Yeah. I think our version of that has always been that.
you open up Slack and suddenly instead of having to read through dozens of channels or find all these mentions that magically Slack could just tell you or that you would care about kind of a summary of all the interesting things that have happened and then like you dig in if you want to like you're very own kind of like personal chief of staff who knew everything that you cared about and met everything that you could read.
I don't think that's going to quite be possible anytime soon, but I think it's about by heading towards that North Star. You went up developing. I hope a lot of really compelling projects for instance along the way. Yeah, man, the more I think about it, the more amazing opportunities exist in Slack. It's like all texts amazing. Okay, there's a lot of cool stuff coming I imagine. Yes. I can't wait. Yes. On that topic. How do you think about
Creating teams within Slack and AI, specifically, are you recommending each team think about how AI can make their stuff better? Or are you dedicating, here's the AI team and they're gonna work on stuff and you guys just keep shipping what you're shipping and keep moving your metrics. Mute unfair enters a hybrid of the two, which is to say we have a kind of central machine learning and search team with a lot of expertise in this field to build infrastructure that everybody can use. And what we've done is,
Because the space is evolving so quickly, like literally every month, like the capabilities are evolving, the risks and train-ups are evolving in time. What we want to do is actually kind of spin up a couple different teams that are focused on prototyping using that common infrastructure, but in specific directions that are all a little bit different. So we've got a common ML, let's say, search team.
And now we have a bunch of teams that are working parallel in different customer problems that we're trying to solve using that shared infrastructure. So I think this isn't the steady state. I think over time, what it'll probably look like is that all the existing product areas, as soon as we know more of the shape of what the technology is capable of, we'll just have AI capabilities as part of their roadmaps, just like every product team is responsible for their mobile roadmap. They don't have
You don't have to source it to someone else. But I think today when things are moving so quickly, you actually want a little bit of a more kind of ad hoc, flexible approach to move quickly. And that's what we're doing. That's kind of what I've been hearing from everyone. I've been asking this question. The search ranking team always seems to be the center of all this. And then it's a few experiments here and there. So that's an interesting pattern I've been noticing. Good to know. I heard that you have a process internally called Complained Storms. And I'd love to understand what that is.
It's something that started, I want to say back in 2019, maybe early 2020.
And the idea a little bit was how do we help as a team look at the software that we build with Fresh Eyes? Because we've been set at Slack for a long time. And Slack, maybe more than almost any other company, maybe like Figma is probably similar. I was listening to the podcast just earlier today, where if you work on Figma or you work on Slack, you also live in Slack and you live in Figma all day. So you can become more of a power user than anyone else on Earth.
And what we're realizing, especially for people trying to build Slack for the next million customers, the people who have never used Slack before, it was becoming increasingly hard to kind of have empathy for what their usage of Slack would look like. How are they looking at it in a more critical way? How are they care less than we care?
And so when we started doing these complaint storms, an idea was really simple, which is we'd get a team together, often steward for myself would also join, and we'd actually start off with other products first, like in adjacent spaces. And we'd say, okay, after group, we're gonna go through the customer journey from the moment you land on the website through, let's say it's a workplace product, getting your first account going, getting the first couple of users on board, getting to the point of value, we're gonna do it,
on one screen, someone's gonna project, and the people are gonna fill in every issue, everything that's confusing, every pain point, not bugs, but ways in which, if you care about a software, you don't work on it, what would actually confuse you, what would stop you in your tracks? And from that, you weren't generating a bunch of amazing inspiration by looking at someone else's product in a really critical way for things you might want to try on your own product.
Once you get to that, then it becomes easier to actually do it with your own software, but it is a little painful. Obviously, it's the same with watching usability tests to look at your own baby in a way that is, okay, I'm trying to find all the wards, I'm trying to find all the problems. But that's one of being a pretty great source whenever a team might think either it's stuck or feels like they reached a dead end in a direction.
is doing complaint storms about the product area that we're in, or using adjacent products just to get inspiration. And then I think it kind of unlocks a lot more kind of creative views in the product space. It's similar to a process that I learned Strypass called friction logging. But I love the nuance here of starting with someone else's product, because I could totally see how that makes you feel better looking at your product and realize like it's not like we suck, it's okay, everyone has so much opportunity.
Exactly. Yeah, I've heard that from Shrek too. And I think it gets a similar place. And I think it's the doing, I think the byproducts is that you also get like calibration on product taste, product quality. And as a team, you kind of develop that together. Again, so much of the principles, it's like, how do you get these things that are kind of hard to actually feel collectively on the same page about how to calibrate? It's another good way to do it.
I'm imagining some PMs might be hearing this and wonder, okay, great. Now the founders and the l'exex have all these things that they want us to fix. I have goals to hit. I got a roadmap. How do you think about prioritizing things that come up in these sorts of sessions for the team and how do they mix and match versus all the other stuff they want to do? Or is it just like they don't actually have a huge roadmap and this is a way to form the roadmap? No, I mean, I think more broadly, I think the way that we think about it or I like us to think about it.
our roadmap for any feature to Met's lack is that it's a portfolio. And it's meant to be a portfolio that's diversified in a couple of different ways, right? I think one is you want to diversify things that are meant to be new capabilities versus making the thing you've already built a little bit better every day, similar parenting. Are there things that are meant to be risky that you aren't sure are going to work but might have a lot of upside versus things that are kind of known bets? And then I think often you're kind of balancing, are you doing things that are
meant to have impact that you're already very confident in versus things that are meant to learn about a new possibility space. And so we think for most teams, this stuff usually wind up tactically filling up that bucket of let's make the existing product a little bit better every day for users. And at Slack, we have this thing called customer love sprints, which is
An interesting way teams are through how to get this on the road map is it's hard to allocate that work throughout the quarter. So what we wind up doing often is have a team do a truly customer love sprint. Almost like a hackathon, but with that kind of burn down list of what we think is the lowest ever highest impact.
change that we can make to generate more love from our customers and whatever that feature area is. And then people are sprinted for two weeks, design, product engineering, and then you have a bunch of things that you saw there at the end. And the goal is to shipple them. So this is sort of like hacks that you throw away. So that's kind of how we want to prioritizing off in that kind of work is
actually kind of making it this really fun total change of pace throughout the quarter to not do big future work that may take months, but to do all these small delightful things that you know customers are going to love at the end. So that's the other way that we kind of figure out how to balance it in.
I love that. And how often do you do these sorts of customer love sprints? I think teams that work on very user facing products do it at least once a quarter. So I think other teams that work on maybe less user facing might do it maybe twice a year, but quarterly is a pretty healthy cadence.
Wow, I didn't know about that. And that kind of connects to Slack has always been a very delightful product. I remember early on the animations were so awesome. The little twirly, I don't know, pound hashtag thing. And it feels like Slack is always invested in delight. How do you operationalize that? Is it these customer love sprints? Is there something else that's just like we need to allocate some percentage just like make things really fun, even though it's not going to move any metric?
I would say it's a little bit the DNA of the company, honestly, which is that four co-founders were trying to build a massive online role-playing game for many years that was called Litch. Their background was all in building delightful, playful experiences.
Glitch didn't work out, but it all went back straight. But the short version is a tool they had built internally that they then wound up spitting out a company new from, which became SLAC. I think that DNA, we're trying to build a consumer-grade experience that just happens to be for work, is really right in the company. It's also a big part of how we hire, I would say, certainly the majority of PM's designers and engineers who join SLAC had never worked at Enterprise Software Company before.
It's not like most people had worked with Oracle or SAP. It's most people had worked at consumer companies or game companies. And so they bring that focus in spirit. And then the last bit beyond kind of the principles and the complaints from the customer love is that we have this amazing team that we call the C team, the customer experience team.
And they're kind of in some ways the team that is doing our scale to port, but is most often in touch with our customers. And from the very early days, people used to do CE shifts if you worked in products so that you can actually figure out what's frustrating, what's confusing. And we have a really great kind of pipeline for getting the insights from the CE team, or the obstacles, the pain points, the most frequent complaints.
Into the hands of the product teams to be able to prioritize to figure out, yeah, not all these are going to move a given metric. They might not achieve something for the business, but collectively, I think the way that Slack thinks about competition is we obsess it up customers. We build something they'll love enough to tell their coworkers, and the rest kind of takes care of itself.
Speaking of competition, something I wanted to ask you a bit about. So early on Slack was competing against this product called Hip Chat. And that's actually what I used at our startup. And we love Hip Chat. It's so hilarious. Just these memes everywhere and their billboards were amazing. But then Slack ate their lunch.
Later on, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. Discord feels like that was the big threat. And now Microsoft Teams, obviously. I'm curious just how you think about competition and even just what you've learned about working in space where there's a lot of competition and thinking about that long term and even short term.
Yeah, I mean, each of those is kind of like an interesting mini kind of lesson learned about those. And I think the through line for all that I would say is still the maximum that we have in Toronto, which is we're customer obsessed, but competitive or aware. So I think it's a little bit different. I think some companies are like,
Uber, for example, I think was notorious, like, competitor-obsessed and, yeah, they tried to delete customers when they could. I don't think Slack sought out to, like, kill PIP chat. And, of course, where we used, I think it was called Camp Hire back in the day if you had 37 single people. So, the whole generation of those products, and I think...
So I came along, and I think they had a couple of innovations. One was they had a great mobile experience that seemed to cross every client. Search actually worked. And then they brought a lot of the best parts of consumer messaging into the workplace, like the emoji and reactions and all those bits. And I think it turns out that if you're 10x better on a couple of those axes, then you can see a huge change in behavior. And so I think that's what happened with that, moved from the hit chat, campfire, to Slack world.
Discord is interesting. I mean, we keep aware of Discord, but it is so much more focused on the kind of consumer. It really is deeming now for community space. And I think at Slack, the lesson I would have, I think we learned in a good way is we've always really been focused on groups of people who are trying to do work together. And that ends up being a completely different audience to build for than communities.
And so I think that focus has been really helpful, and I think Discord is amazing, and many people love it, and the people who use Discord really use it in a very different way than people who use Slack at work. I think Microsoft obviously has become, over time, the biggest competitor there. I think, you know, the origin of teams really was a defensive move for them to protect Office, because Office is an incredible, very profitable kind of monopoly in the productivity space.
And so I think when they built Teams, it was more of a kind of covering their flank versus Slack kind of on the ascent. I think as Teams has evolved over time, it's become much more of a video conferencing product that competes like Zoom and Google Meet. The people who use Teams is completely different than Slack where you live and breathe and channels and work and kind of worthless all day long. And I think what we've seen there too is that like a lot of our customers, they have to use both.
Most Fortune 500 companies have either off subscription or Google workplace subscription. And all of those customers who use those also use Slack. And we like to say that Slack is this connected tissue that makes all the rest of your tools that much better. So I think there we've kind of taken very much an open ecosystem and platform approach. And we've just been focused on how do we keep building the best version of what Slack can be as a new category of software for our customers. And saying aware of our competitors, but really obsessed on
What are the new ways that we can delight our users as the years go by? So Slack is kind of a big-ish company within now, let's say a big company, but it feels like you still are launching really interesting stuff. You launch huddles, clips, there's this AI stuff coming sounds like. I'm curious what you have done at Slack to enable these sorts of zero to one bets and what you've seen is important to allow for innovation along those lines.
I think maybe we're all self delusional because I think everyone who works at Slack likes to think that we're still at a small startup and I think keeping that spirit alive honestly culturally has been a big part of it. You know, I think good maximum principles early on. One of the ones that we talk about literally one of the actual wording is take bigger bolder bets.
And the idea there is that it's really easy to fall into the trap of just constant incrementalism. You know, the concept, it's a feature team and you have like a petite PI and you feel like your whole life is measured by that similar KPI going up 1% a quarter. And then you kind of lose sight of what's beyond the horizon. And so we have this kind of mental metaphor that we talk a lot about getting to the next hill.
And the idea is that if you're in a mountain range here, maybe in the little valley, you can kind of see what's right in front of you. But you have no idea how tall the mountains are behind. I think teams can often get lost.
kind of crawling up that hill, not really. There's a huge, incredibly beautiful range behind it. So take big of older beds, get to the next hill to see what the horizon's like around you. That's kind of how we think about it strategically. And then it can structurally, the way we've approached it is that we've over time created kind of new teams from scratch that YouTube ate in a new area before the area is mature.
So we did that with a lot of these kind of native audio-visual products like huddles and clips, early for the pandemic because our customers were demanding it from us. They were like, we love living in Slack all day, but we feel disconnected from our teammates. We can't be in the same physical place like what you needed to help us and match where that came from.
And I think in the AI space now, it's a similar thing, which is what we're trying to hear from customers like, what did you wish Slack could do if it had these new superpowers? And let's keep you being a couple teams prototype there and then figure out what can get to real product market fit. And I think when we have those teams, I think the partners give them space to run to give them
kind of get a jail free car for maybe the normal process of, you know, okay, our planning and quarterly reviews and make it feel something that is like the pace of learning is what matters. Like how fast are you prototyping? How fast are you learning from users? And then getting to do that publicly and pilot and then get something to watch that's amazing, those people lay. That's kind of the formula that we've seen.
This episode is brought to you by Vanta, helping you streamline your security compliance to accelerate your growth. Thousands of fast-growing companies like Gusto, Com, Quora, and Modern Treasury trust Vanta to help build, scale, manage, and demonstrate their security and compliance programs and get ready for audits in weeks, not months.
By offering the most in-demand security and privacy frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA and many more, Vanta helps companies obtain the reports they need to accelerate growth, build efficient compliance processes, mitigate risks to their businesses and build trust with external stakeholders.
Over 5,000 fast-growing companies use Vanta to automate up to 90% of the work involved with SOC 2 and these other frameworks. For a limited time, Lenny's podcast listeners get $1,000 off Vanta. Go to Vanta.com slash Lenny. That's V-A-N-T-A dot com slash Lenny to learn more and to claim your discounts. Get started today.
One of the things I love learning about from product teams is their unique rituals and traditions. And I'm curious what's maybe the most interesting or unique or fun or funny ritual or tradition on the product team of things you all maybe do regularly.
One of the things that we do, which is always a little bit funny, Amy, it's more of an emotional thing rather than a practical thing, is that at all hands will often wind up taking specific tweets that people had about their product and Twitter. People say the craziest thing sometimes, and sometimes they're like,
really heartwarming like customer love, but often it's just the meanest, most frustrating complaints that people have. And it's honestly meant for us to just have a pulse on like where people actually saying and feeling the wild and not thinking too seriously, but keeping that sense of, you know, I think that the distance you have from your user as your user base gets more and more diverse and larger, I think can kind of make it harder to actually develop the product because you're not designing for yourself anymore.
And so I think all the ways that lead help to people grounded in like, what are actual users actually saying? That's, that's one big way. The other that reminded me of, which is actually probably better. Maybe you delete that last one because it's kind of boring. No, that's great. We're not deleting nothing. Fine. You know, usability. So I'm a believer in, you want to be data, you know, inform, but you don't want to be,
So data-driven that you actually don't have a pulse on what real people feel when they're using your product. So we're really big into user research, not as it gives you the answer, but it helps at least pose a lot of questions for you when you watch us. I'm going to have to use the software.
And historically, it's really hard to get PMs, little and engineers to actually attend user research sessions. And so what we want to do, especially in the pandemic when we first want to promote, is now we can dial into usability sessions. And to make it really interactive for the team, what we would do is have people live in a thread, write their real-time thoughts. So people have to use that. I can't believe they missed that. Oh, that gave me this idea from seeing how they were doing that to do this other thing.
And so then you wind up having the PMs, engineers, designers, and the user, researcher, all in one slack thread, like live, responding, reacting to your ability session.
And then suddenly that thread becomes actually the best kind of source of truth for the research report that then gets rid enough. But I think most importantly, it gets the team, almost at the complaint storms, but actually watching someone else do it. Like in the shoes of an actual human being, trying to use the thing that you thought was so brilliant, and yet has all these flaws. And it's humbling, it's filled with humor, and also I think really constructive for the teams to do it that way.
I was going to ask where they actually share these thoughts and in Slack makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I mean, it turns into a report at some point, but literally just link back to the original thread and then you have like, you know, 100 people's reactions as the, you know, report is kind of ongoing. If only there was a AI tool to summarize all of your thoughts. We've got a prototype for that. Hopefully it will work well enough. That actually would be a useful for customers too.
You tweeted once about how I think maybe around the time you joined Slack around 2019 that the self-service business of Slack basically plateaued and it wasn't clear why. I'm curious just what that period was like and how did you kind of get to the bottom of what was going on and turn things around? Yeah, it was actually a couple years after I joined, but it was a point when I was kind of focused on the self-service business because we had this period with Slack where
I would say maybe 2014 to 2017, where it was almost all self-service. And it was just growing like game busters. And then we started spinning up a sales team and an enterprise team. We started focusing mostly on that. And I think we kind of, you know, we saw the team that was working on self-serve, but it was primarily the company focus was all driving enterprise deals, kind of getting to that next level of maturity. And then in 2019, I think we started to see that when we look beneath the surface,
The, you know, fundamentals of the self-service business weren't looking as healthy as they used to be. I think kind of the biggest thing as we kind of dove into it was a little bit toward talking about earlier with the motivation and the playing services. It was getting harder to under some of the next generation. It's like customers really want in the process.
And whether you're thinking about this as crossing the chasm or moving from early adopters to the needs of the more majority or later adopters, I think we're at that point where not every technologically sophisticated commander Earth was using Slack, but most were. And we were getting into a market that customers just had different needs, had different levels of sophistication.
And so we get a lot of these research. We look at all these cover curves, which you can imagine suddenly they're like, how they're not as healthy as they used to be like, what's going on?
And I think we got a bunch of insights from it, but I think really what we want to change about how we're operating was instead of to continue to try to optimize the things that kind of worked over the last couple of years, we said, okay, let's kind of throw the whole roadmap away. And instead, let's come up with a bunch of hypotheses about what could be new levers that can actually help based on the insights that we now have about the next set of customers. And we're going to try to quickly learn
which of these levers are real and which of these are just totally off the mark. And, you know, we kind of had to say for the next like six months, we're probably not going to drive any impact at all. It's only going to be about learning, but at the end of that, hopefully we wound up finding a couple of different levers that had years of room to run. And that's what wound up happening. We wound up kind of doubling the rate of our new paid customer growth in the year and a couple of years after that and kind of re-accelerating the self service business. And I think it really came from stepping back
Being humble, not feeling like we deserve to have every company that would sign up and then figuring out how to optimize for the learning so that in the long term you could get the impact. But knowing that for the next couple quarters, we're going to sacrifice impact for the sake of learning. And I think there's a good muscle to build, but it was definitely not easy to do at the time. Well, the story begs the question, what are the levers that worked, whatever you can share?
One of the big things that we're kind of focusing on is what we talk about is comprehension and desirability. So the fundamental challenge I think for new users or new teams using a product, once you get past the kind of tech early adopters is, do they comprehend what this thing is for? Do they understand how it works? And then desirability is, why should they care?
You know, most people at work are not like, hey, you know what I want to do today is start using entirely new tool and convince all my coworkers to get on board. That is not like part of your job, your job has goals and measurements and everything else. So really deeply understanding that and how do you push on that and that new user experience.
It sounds maybe a little ludicrous, but Slack I've always had a free email product. Obviously, there's a free tier that you can use. But we had never actually figured out a trial strategy where we actually gave you a taste of the paid product. Either we're on the free tier or we had to pay for the paid tier. And that one of being one of, I think, the ripest means is figuring out how to give people a taste of the full previous Slack experience so that they would never want to go back. In doing that in a variety of different points in the customer journey,
And actually, the other biggest thing we call the one out is we really need to figure out a new North Star metric for motivating the teams across Slack. At that point in time, we basically had paid customers and then we had creative teams, which is like the very, very beginning, very, very end of the journey.
We did a lot of quantitative research of data science and one of them coming up with a new metric we called successful teams Which is a little bit you know a lot of companies have this like Facebook's and I'm looking at number seven or whatever it was Where what we found was that if you could get five people Using slack the majority of the work week to just communicate at all That would be a successful team. They're gonna be 400% more likely to upgrade over the next six
And that seems like a very low bar, like five people to use Slack throughout the work week, not even every day. But it turns out that if you could get that level of critical mass, kind of the rest would take care of itself. And you want to motivate not just the team that's focused on self-service, but all these other feature teams across the company to drive more new successful teams, knowing that if we can move that, which is much better than the funnel, but now it's top of funnel entry.
then it would actually drive afraid to pay customers in this revenue long term. And that was a huge turning point for how we rally product teams around. We would actually drive that self service business. Man, this feels like its own podcast just to analyze the things you learned down this journey. And there's so many takeaways here. One is just the importance of an activation metric that is predictive of retention. So it sounds like you landed on five people in a company like DAU basically for a week, something like that.
That's awesome. And then the other interesting takeaway here is I'm actually doing a bunch of interviews with founders of the most successful B2B companies. And interestingly, they all, not all, maybe half are like, I still don't think we have product market fit. Like they're like a billion dollars valuation growing like crazy. And they're like, I feel like I product market fit with the current users, but I don't with the people I want.
And that's what you're describing, right? It's like the new, you stopped having product market fit with people that you wanted next. I think it's exactly right. I think of like product market fitisms, like you keep stacking these S curves where you get product market fit in a small group. And then you certainly reach like exponential growth because you can crack that whole group that type of audience. But then you start declining because you start hitting the ceiling of like, we've got in, I don't know what it might be, every development team in the US to be using this product.
And then you jump up to the next S curve, which is like, how do we get technology savvy teams that aren't developers? Or how do we get people who are, you know, even large enterprises who are outside the US and these each kind of be, these are the new curves that you have to build product market fit for. And I think it's just all a huge exercise in
like being self-critical, being humble, not presuming that you've practiced things forever and keeping kind of a very beginner's mindset of what is the next audience need? They are previous audience, didn't need it all. If you think about the pie chart of what you had to change to make it work, how much of it was like messaging, positioning, onboarding optimization versus like product features? I would say maybe 60, 40 in the sense of
The early journey, I mean, not just obviously positioning, messaging, but like the entire experience of like unboxing slack, if you will with your team. You know, we called it the day one journey, but extended to really kind of like day 30 in reality. And it's a single player and multiplayer experience. It is really complex. But then I think what we realized was you can make that incredible.
But if fundamental parts of the product were missing that would make it comprehensible to the next audience, then you're going to have problems. So like, it sounds maybe...
impossible to remember, but Slack used to not have Wissiwig message composition. You used to have to use Markdown. And so making Matt Wissiwig was a huge boost, making mobile work offline. So it worked no matter where you were in the world was another big one. All the things I'm configuring your sidebar and notification to that as you scale it, you should just like it didn't become overwhelming. Those are some of the kind of foundational product investments that we wanted making.
So that next generation of slot customers could get value and not be overwhelmed or adopted by it.
Maybe one last question along these lines. People look at Slack as kind of the, maybe the first major product led growth success story and they always look at the Slack and like, oh, we just want to grow like Slack. Let's see what they did for people that are studying Slack's journey and success. What do you think Slack did right early on that maybe people don't recognize or don't appreciate enough that founders today should be thinking about more so versus just like, let's just make a freemium product and. Right. I mean, maybe the most telling thing is,
When Slack started, it's really when I joined, so I don't think a word or acronym product growth existed. So it wasn't like we were really good at taking this plate muffin applying it. I think it was more that whole term of art became a thing as many, many other kind of free and SaaS products kind of took off. You know, I really think
not to be repetitive, but I think the core it really was building a product that customers loved enough that they would put their own social capital in the line to get their coworkers on board. And that was easy enough to use and get the value from that without it for talking to a salesperson. You could put a credit card down or expense it if you if you wanted to for just your team. And I think
When people think about this product growth notion, I think there aren't really two very different audiences. I think Slack was able to crack both. One is when your team is small and your company is small, it is the entire company if you're an SMB. And I think that's almost like Slack's sweet spot when the original pitch deck came to investors. They said, Slack is still companies of five to 50 people.
At the time, the biggest company I imagined using Slack was 50 people, because I don't know how this is going to work beyond that. It'll become pandemonium. Obviously, that was an initial, I think, real, real, strong product market fit.
But the other bit, which then was what powered the enterprise business was teams of five to 50 people who worked at larger companies. And I think what went up happening was that you would have teams independently at a company like IBM or Disney or Capital One or whoever it might be or Comcast discovering Slack, using it for themselves because they thought it just makes their working lives similar or pleasant or more productive. And maybe not even know that they must have a company that's using Slack.
And then by the time you didn't scale their enterprise sales team, truly, the exercise initially was just take customer domain, sort by number of active users, and call them in the order of that, which is, hey, by the way, you have a couple thousand people actually using Slack in your company. Do you want to think about a broader deployment or controls or analytics? And so I think that was it. That's a consumer-grade experience that customers love enough to get their coworkers on.
pay for themselves, and then at enterprise companies like having a bunch of different flowers sprouting so that eventually you could roll up an enterprise wide kind of deal. And then it was all the tactics, but I think that was where it started.
The way you described it at the beginning of make a product that people want to share with their colleagues reminds me of a, I was just listening to an interview with Seth Godin, who's a marketing legend. He has a new book. He's on every podcast. And he had this really great quote that the products that win are ones that you want to tell your friends about.
And it's a really simple concept and basically it's like, it's word of mouth is how you have to win. But I think that's so true in like every successful company I talk to ends up being like, we just want to build something people want to share with their friends. Even if it's growing in some other way, SEO paid feels like that's always at the root of it is you just like want to tell your friends about it because you love it. And Slack, I think is a great example of that. I think it's true. And I mean, obviously there are categories of
enterprise software that isn't true for security or data management. Yeah. Like I think they, if it's an awesome security product, you're like, Hey, you got to check out this like century or whatever, or sneak. Yeah. Like, um, good friends, advances, you know, Christina, and I thought you gave me a lot of stories where whoever would have thought on like a compliance company would be something that people raved about to their other startup friends like, Oh my God, you don't want to deal with like socks compliance. You got your advantage. It's amazing. So yeah, maybe that is true. I think
Especially in this day and age where all the marketing and acquisition channels have been so saturated, people are optimizing so much. I think it's really hard to like scale big enough business if you don't have some amount of word of mouth and customer love, trivial growth. I think it's hard to scale it on like we're going to just play the cat game and hopes that the numbers work out.
I remember Slack rolling out at Airbnb and all the designers getting so excited about it, creating their channels. And everyone's just like, what the hell are they doing as this thing? And then it did exactly what you're describing, just spread. And everyone's just like, whoa, this is cool. And they're all telling each other that I use fully this to them and spread like crazy. I love that. Is there anything else on Slack that you think would be interesting to share in terms of what makes it a successful product team, product business before I move on to another topic?
The other thing I think is maybe a little bit interesting in terms of how we develop product. And it's a really different change over time, which is that obviously the easiest person to build for is yourself. And the next easiest is people who look almost exactly like you or have similar preferences and sophistication. And I think in the early years of Slack, that's basically what we did. I mean, it was like really just trying to build for small, technologically savvy teams in terms of you could build a pretty big business making a great prop for them.
Over the years, obviously that's changed. And so one of the things I think that we've done, which has worked really well, one obviously is we figured out how to do experimentation in a SaaS product, which is not always obvious because the metrics are much longer term, then you know, you'd land that at a checkup page and then you'd check out. But I think the other thing is we figured out how to scale up getting real customers using Slack in the wild for new functionality. And so we have this really robust program that we call kind of our pilot program where
We have thousands of different customers that have all signed different agreements now where we can actually roll out to progressively larger user bases. Because Slack is a multiplayer product, you often have to roll out real net functionality to a whole company or whole team. Because otherwise, you can't use huddles by yourself, for example. And then we have a really great cover for actually getting feedback from those customers, but through Slack Connect itself, through surveys. And this winds up being kind of a lifeblood
feature teams where you can by the time you actually launch a big net new feature for Slack have gotten so much customer feedback from people actually using in the wild to get work done and so much more confidence in what you're building from the metrics and the service that we do that you can guarantee it's going to be a hit but you can be really confident not because it just worked well internally which is no longer that predictive but because it worked well for a thousand different companies
50 different countries and 20 different industries. And so I think early on, SaaS companies don't need to figure that out, but I think as you grow and as you have more diverse customer base, as you said, all these SaaS founders who said, hey, you got to keep re-establishing product market fit. I think that is a programmatic way of being able to do that with your product development process. It's pretty interesting.
Any tips for how to choose who to include in this group if someone wants to build something like this for themselves? I think the two most important things are you want a lot of diversity in terms of industry, company size, location, and so on. And then if you want to pick people who are actually motivated to want to be part of the development process and have a slightly higher risk tolerance.
Not every company wants to actually be beta testing new functionality that might get removed. So making sure we have kind of a, there's like champion network that we built with people who love Slack enough that they're willing to put up with a load of pain in that reference period or willing to have something that they tried to use. And then we decided actually we're going to fill that feature before we ever shifted to everybody. So diversity and, you know, pin tolerance.
This reminds me of something else. The CTO Stripe shared it of how they build new product, which is they pick a couple of customers that need a problem solved and they just build it with for them essentially and with them. And in B2B generally, it's a lot easier to build something people really want because they are very motivated for you to solve their problem and they're going to put in the time and there's like, you don't need thousands of people involved. You just need a couple. Yeah. I definitely think those are the things where
If you could do it away and they say like, I can't live without it, like the classic like, not like, you know, do you like it? Sure. But can you, can you work without this thing? If the answer is definitely not, you built something that probably a lot of other countries will want to. All right. I'm going to shift to a totally different topic, which could also be its own whole podcast. But let's just see how it goes. So you're with this, I'd say famous blog post on product management called the 10 traits of great product managers. And
I want to just try to go through this list briefly and just see how it goes. I don't want to, you know, this could be an hour of conversation, but I'll just kind of run through it because I think it'd be useful for people to hear. And I think these are all 100% true, even though you wrote this number of years ago at this point. And just let's just see what comes up and then I have a few follow up questions on this list.
These traits are kind of came after I wrote this other thing, which is like the five minutes to that product management, which are all the things that people think product management is and why they switched to the job and they're disappointed by. And then I was like, let me actually write a positive version of this, which is the things that the job actually is about. It's not a career ladder. It's not like the, you know, here's the structured interview things that you should interview for. But I think it's the actual job of product management. What is it about? What does success look like? And I don't think they're really in a particular order in hindsight, but
I'll read it over. So live in the future and work backwards. I think it's very much kind of the idea of as a PM, it is one thing that you're responsible for. It's kind of having a longer-term vision and time horizon. So having a carve-out time to not just be what we do in the next two weeks, but six months, a year, two years from now, how you reverse yourself in that and then bring ideas back, bring inspiration back to the team.
I'm going to just going to throw a common status. You're going through just that to them. So I love that this is like exactly Amazon's like approach of like work backwards, working backwards process at Airbnb. This is actually like the main thing Brian want pushed everyone to do is just think about the idealized product of like a, a magical world where all this is totally solved and then work backwards from that. And then all Graham talks about this too, right? Just like live in the future and build it.
I definitely riffed off at least a lot of everything because I remember reading an essay of, you know, everyone thinks that you can get sort of ideas by like, I don't know, sitting at their co-founder, laying in Dolores Park, looking at the sky and like conjuring up the next unicorn or something. Definitely not how that works. You have to actually like immerse yourself into problem space and try to imagine what the future world looks like. And then what's missing for people to get to that future state? So yeah, I agree.
I also saw a great tweet by Shreos the other day about how if you're working at a company with good leaders, they're never going to be sad that your vision is too big and too ambitious. If there's some reality to it, then often they want that. Let's think bigger. How do we change the way we think about the future of all this stuff?
Yeah, I mean, that was when I was at Google, the thing I took away most from any review of Larry and Sergey was, they would ask like, how could we get like 100 X the scale? Or how could this work for this? Would seem like an outlandish use case, but would I push the team to think much further into the future? Yeah, I think definitely the founders always want.
That's what Brian Chesky always said too, just like, how do we 10x this? What would it take to 10x this idea? Yeah, so awesome, okay. Okay. The second one, which is maybe obvious, but thinking about how do you actually amplify your team? So how do you facilitate ideas? How do you create energy? How do you create momentum? A PM role I think can be a little bit unsatisfying you for usual where you create things yourself, opposed to you or the one who's amplifying what the work that's being created by everyone else is. So you have to kind of get into that.
We're a facilitator mindset. What I think about here is a lot of teams like don't want PMs other team or don't like PMs or don't think PMs are valuable. What I find is that just means your PM is not good because if you have a good PM, they're just going to help you do the best work of your life.
They're going to help you clarify things, prioritize well, unblock you, all that stuff. Totally. And we should find out who wrote that expression early on of like PM should be in ECOs. I think that's the most dangerous piece of advice ever, the history of product management. Because I think that is how you end up having PMs who try to act like dictators instead of kind of the leaders and facilitators. Because if you're acting like that, yeah, you can completely reject the exam never want another PM again.
Yeah, like so many UPMs are just like, I'm finally going to have the power. Finally, like if they move from engineering or some other role, and then they get there and like, oh, what the hell? Yeah. It's like the convince everyone of all these things I want to do. Then actually, I'm going to skip inside a different direction of the word of this post. But the fifth one that I wrote on there was your job is to facilitate the pace and quality of decision making. And that is very different than you are the person who makes all the decisions.
And in fact, I think one of the things that PM struggle with early on is how do you actually get the team to be able to make high quality decisions quickly without you kind of arbitrarily playing tight break all the time? And it's a soft art to be able to do that. But I think that is actually how you have a really healthy team dynamic. Instead of PMZ who want to say, okay, now it's my turn to get to make decisions. It's definitely not what the job is about.
What that makes me think about is I taught a course on product management at one point that I've paused for now. I've just like, like the core job of a PM is to figure out what's next for every single person on the team. And you're this, there's this meme or GIF of a dog on a train and he's just laying in the tracks as the team is moving forward ahead of them just one step at a time. And to do that, this is such an important part of that is just help people make decisions and unblock them.
Totally. I'll kind of combine two of these together. So one is, you do have to have a pecable execution. This is kind of more of a baseline thing, but I've never seen a PM who was disorganized or didn't do follow-up or wasn't clear about expectations or timelines. It's not high in Maslow's hierarchy of kind of PM enjoyment, but I do think it's like a baseline expectation. The thing I think is more enjoyable and probably
The most important thing in the long term is focusing on impact, primarily to the customer experience, but also to the business. And I think there's that same growth solves all problems. I think impact solves all like PM issues, which is if the team is consistently building things people love and changing the direction of the business, everything else is an input.
And so I think that focus and understanding as you point out, laying the tracks is like, what direction do you need to go as a team to actually drive that impact? That's probably the single thing that PM can most control. I love that. I always recommend exactly that. If like, if your career is not going as well as you'd hoped or you're not getting promoted, it's usually you're not delivering impact, whatever that means to the company, like it may be moving, moving a metric, maybe in building great product that the founders really love.
Yeah, main pack can mean a lot of different things, but it's so true on the execution executing impeccably bucket. The way I think about that is as a great PM, you need to kind of have this aura of I've got this. Anytime someone put something on your plate, it's not going to fall off. You're not going to forget about it. You're not going to let it ball drop that if the more you can create this aura of like, I got this, the more responsibility people are going to give you, the more impact you'll end up having, the more people want to work with you and all that.
Yeah, Ben Horowitz was a board member back at four square. And I just remember each other saying very new to like of, you know, good leaders need to say what they're going to do and then do what they said. And if they can't, then they need to follow up and explain why. I mean, that's like the amendment. And I think that is kind of a good execution looks like that. Last point is so important. Like you may not be able to do all the things in your plate.
But just telling people, hey, I'm not going to get to this thing. Let's reprioritize is such a small thing you could do and really creates that or if you got this, they're not going to forget about this thing asked you to do. Yeah, you're kind of the, you're the shock absorber for the team. You're the thing that builds people's confidence that things are running smoothly and you'll get over the inevitable, you know, speed bumps and whatever else. So.
I'll combine two or three of these that are kind of related or just more examples. I said, write well. Like, I actually think, so should you get two more senior positions, writing is the only scalable way of having influence on a larger and larger product word.
There's a book called On Writing by Stephen King, which I recommend to literally everybody. You know, Stephen King, you're like, you see, he's not maybe the most like literary, like critical, acclaimed author, but he's a prolific author who publishes things that people love and tell their friends about.
And here's a rich workbook on like the practice of writing high quality, high volume production. Before you move on, I'll throw out a couple more books that I found useful in my writing. One is actually called unwriting well. So that's kind of funny that they're so similarly titled, which basically every chapter is just another way to cut more from your writing, like more and more.
parts you should cut. And interestingly, I do have a lot of guest posts on my newsletter, and I find 90% of the time if I just cut the first paragraph of what they first took a crack at and jump straight into the thing, immediately gets better. And this book talks a lot about that.
Another book that is amazing for writing better is nobody wants to read your shit by the guy that wrote the art of the war of art. Forget his name, but that book is awesome. And it's just like nobody wants to read what you're writing. Here's how to maybe make it something people want to read. And then recently I read one called several short sentences or something like that. And it's all about just writing short sentences. And that helps a lot. So there you go. Three more recommendations. OK, I got to read the last year. I haven't read those, but they sound perfect.
Okay, maybe I'll throw a little or, let's say, we talked about this earlier, but actually what this was many years ago is like optimizing for the pace of learning and knowing that long term that's a thing that's going to drive impact. I think it can be hard if you're a PM for a feature team, you're part of a big company, I'm not making this up, you're on the AdWords team at Google and you're responsible for that.
you know, big input selector or something. It probably is a whole team, honestly, now at this point. You've got such a set of blinders on that I think it can be hard to think about, like, what else could this team become? What else could you drive beyond the thing that's right in front of you? So I'll try for learning, being willing to take those bolder bets, knowing you can be wrong in the short term, but that you'll learn new levers that will be really full in the long term. It's a portfolio approach, it's a product, but I think a really important one.
I was just interviewing a product leader at Asana, Paige Costello, and we're talking about how she's often the youngest person in the room, and often manages people that are much older than her and more experienced than her and asked her just, how do you do that? How do you succeed in that sort of environment? And what she's found is just
Being the person that has the answers and the insights in meetings, people obviously run to her and like, hey, what do you think of this? Cause she just knows what people are going to need. And so I think that's exactly what you're talking about here is just be the person that knows the most about the problem, the customers, the space. Yeah. And then I'll remind the last two, just because I know I'm time, but the combination of error data fluency, which is not to say that every PM needs to be a statistician.
It's great. I mean, you've had a lot of great posts about how to understand some of the basics of experimentation, correlation causation, and statistical significance. That's all great. But by data fluency, I think it's more actually you were just saying, which is like, you know enough about the insights about your customers that can then inform making higher likelihood product bets.
And that data can be quantitative. That data can be survey-based. It can be from doing 100 meetings with customers yourself. Those are all types of data or inputs to me. So being really fluent. And then combining that with great product taste, I know it's like a controversial statement. Now, I want to say that there is taste for product. But I do think
In all the love of the framework to me, analytics and everything else in the field, the product, I think people sometimes lose sight of it's a creative field. It's not on its own, but you get all the inspiration from art. And I actually think there's a, there's a, there's a, it's called like creative selection. I forget the exact name of it about some of the early like iPhone development teams at Apple and working with C job there. And I never worked at Apple, but I actually think it's the best book I've read about.
that just iterated the creative work of building new products, and what it means to have taste, which is to say you've developed someone out of intuition for what people will likely love before you're able to test it. So anyway, I think taste plus fluency in data, that too is a combination, is a pretty powerful combination. Let me ask you just a couple questions about this list before we get to a very exciting lighting round, and I can let you go.
Of these 10 attributes, say you're a new product manager, if you had to pick two or three that you think are most important to get right and focus on in your early career, which would you say they would be? I think for early on in your career, what I would say is getting great in execution, it's a thing that you can lose control. Then I think building that news for impact, even if the impact is more local, because that's how you actually will demonstrate momentum and build credibility.
And then actually, even early on, getting really fluent on the data and the research side so that you can have insights that you can read back to your team. Those are, to me, the most slammed up ways of becoming someone who starts to build credibility as a product manager in any organization.
Awesome. That's what I always tell NPMs to just get really good at execution because that creates that aura of this person's just killing it. They're just shipping on time. People know it's happening. They're hitting dates, things like that. Yeah. The last question is just say you're a senior, more of a senior product leader, say, I don't know, director.
Are there three other attributes you think are ones they should focus on most or may be awesome? I mean, I think this is where the pace of quality decision making starts a matter a lot more because you're so understandable sometimes for like teams of teams and you're helping to facilitate high quality decisions, often ones that have a lot of uncertainty or risk or ambiguity. So how do you keep the organization on block, not just a team moving well?
I think the living in the future and working backwards, I think the more senior you get, it's always going to be the product founder who is responsible for the ultimate vision, but you become more responsible for the medium and the longer-term strategy to realize that vision. And so becoming just someone who can dedicate more of their time to be out of the fray of the day to day and think more about the longer-term strategy that you want to pursue.
In the last one, and we talked about this earlier, but I think being a really good writer, it is just the highest leverage usage of your time if you want to influence an organization, at least for one that doesn't just spend all day meetings. But I think it's really hard to dedicate the time to it because you're probably spending most of your day in meetings. So it's the antidote to that, to kind of scale your ability to influence the product direction and maybe even the principles and how you develop product at a company.
Well, with that, we've reached our very exciting lightning round. I've got six questions for you. Are you ready? Let's do it. What are two or three books that you've recommended most to other people? These are made not be the most unique, but I will say that which is.
individual and by claiming Christians in whether you're working in a large company and you're suffering it or you're working to start up and you're trying to outflank it and come to it. I still think that and the individual solution in the following are the best books on product strategy to read. If you're moving to one of the leadership or management position, I think radical candor by Kim Scott is just incredible and worth everyone reading. Frankly, if you're a PM and you're doing kind of soft kind of
influence. I think it's really important. And then the third one, which is made a little off the beaten path, there's a book called Leadership and Turbulent Times by Doris Goodwin, who's a kind of presidential historian. And it's this amazing book that looks at four of the most notable presidents and
how their leadership style evolved when they were in really critical hard times in their presidency. And I just think it's actually the best book about leadership style and how do you evolve and how do you deal with crises, which I think it was maybe later on in your career, but I look at an inspiration from not just reading books about tech and product. And I think that's one of the best ones. What is the favorite recent movie or TV show you really enjoyed? The obvious answer, which
sure many people would say would be succession. I'm not going to ruin anything for the finale, because people haven't seen it all, but they're writing the Shakespearean level drama with it all. It's just incredible. And just part wrenching that you wind up kind of losing most of the characters that you can't take is not out of it. The one that's really less common, and I watch right when we started paternity leave,
is the bear. I don't know if you heard about it. The restaurant. Yeah. Yeah. I'm a sucker for like incredible cinematography and just like what they do and basically the single room of this restaurant and kitchen and just the piece of it. I think it's just like an incredible piece of art. I don't know if it's the best show ever, but it is really moving like emotionally like jarring piece of TV.
Also quite stressful to watch. Very sure. I would not relax to it to go to sleep in. But awesome. OK. Favorite interview question that you'd like to ask candidates? You know, that would depend a lot, I think, on obviously the senior level and things like that. But I think the more gentleman I always let that people is, what unfair secrets have you learned to improve the velocity and energy level of a product team?
Am I saying unfair? Are you in secret Asia? I mean, like, not something that you probably read on, like, the media input that, like, what did you learn? How did you learn it? And how does it work? And how do you apply it? You also just get amazing, interesting, like bits of inspiration from asking that. What is a favorite product you've recently discovered that you love? This will also serve for a recommendation for you, basically, or you've not thought about parenting advice. Because none of the products I've learned or loved recently have been like software.
But they're all maybe software enabled. So the Nanit, which is like the kind of weird name, but it's just like AI enabled camera for basically, you know, watching your day as they sleep. It's like incredible looking to like sleep analytics and like really helps you be a less neurotic parent. I would highly recommend it. The SNU, which is basically like this amazing device that can help soothe your kid when all they need is like a little bit of like
that, you know, soothing while they sleep so that you can sleep a little bit more. You can tell the scene here is sleep. And the last one is, it's just going to go up a baby that has this whole like elaborate stroller system with interchangeable parts. And honestly, it's just like an incredibly well-designed piece of like hardware that works down the car. So yeah, I think I've re-appreciated really well-designed, like, her products that are not necessarily hardware from Apple. And that has been what being new parents is about.
I have all three, also a huge shout out to the NANET team who sent me a NANET and all the stuff around the NANET. So thank you. I'm not going to name the specific PM who sent it to me because I don't remember his name off the top of my head. But thank you, NANET. Yeah, it turned out there was a whole world of baby tech, which I had no idea. I mean, it makes sense that you never know about your parent. And now I'm obsessed.
One tip that we, for Nanit, so my wife and I have been playing with different names for our kid and we have been changing.
his name in the nannet so that any time we go into the room, it sends us a push. Hey, and there's activity in the room with the name so that we could kind of feel the different names. I love that. Yeah. My wife and I did something to remember where we had like three or four or final name contenders and we didn't use the nannet for it, but we've just picked a week and said on Monday, we're going to like refer to the future baby by that name for the entire week and like give some, you know, personification to it and that help us out. Get down from four to one. So yeah.
What a ride-ranging set of pieces of advice we got on this podcast. Two more questions. What is something relatively minor you've changed in how you develop product at Slack that has had a lot of impact on your ability to execute? By far, the biggest thing which is more of a cultural shift is that we stop spending so many cycles on design explorations of like static mockster walkthroughs and said, how quickly can we get into prototyping the path in real software, even if it's messy and you throw it away? At least for something like Slack.
Like, you got to kind of live and touch and smell the software. You can't just look at it. And that's been a huge unlock for avoiding spending months on design debates and just getting to, well, how does software feel? That's what matters.
Speaking of Slack, final question, what is your favorite Slack pro tip that people may not be aware of?
Obviously, you have the sidebar, it can be unruly, but you can customize the sidebar into sections. In each of those sections, you can have settings like show and read-only or sort by recency or sort by alphabetical, whatever it might be, and you can collapse the section so you don't see it all at once.
So I think having a well-managed side bar, which doesn't actually take that long, it's like this amazing thing because then all this inbound is structured in an order and grouping that fits how you want to view your working life. So customize inside bar. And the second thing is just use the quick switcher for everything. Just hit applique and just start typing.
and it feels like they're playing a video game, just hopping around, channels, people, files, search, pretty much all the actions you can take or none as well. I think most SaaS products now have borrowed that pattern. So, you know, you can use it in other software, but it works particularly well in Slack.
No, I know the last thing you needed was to record a podcast your first week back to work. I so appreciate you making any time. It feels like we're two ships passing in the night from pet leave into new pet leave. And so two final questions, work in folks finding online if they want to reach out and learn more and how can listeners be useful to you.
I will confess that I haven't used Twitter in months, because I was doing digital detox, but still, I think at no of these were wise, is a pretty good place to find me online, and whether they're anywhere else. Still, I'd love to have people like Slack feature requests, especially about things that you wish were possible, or that would get the rest of your company to join on Slack, because you love it, but you can't convince them. Those are always golden nuggets. Awesome. Noah, thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for having me. Bye, everyone.
Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
