Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
00:52:03 · Tom Verrilli
I can get the CPO to approve what we're building." As opposed to this idea that says we're just trying to find out the right answer, and in theory, everyone wants us to come up with the right answer. So we use planning to align the company on what are the really important things we have to solve. That's mostly a resourcing discussion. If we pick the right things, stack rank them all. Ultimately, I'm most accountable for making sure that we have the right resources in the right places to hit things. But I don't know if those are the right places if all I do is delegate to the team to go figure it out, and I'm not actually periodically very deep with them on exactly how does that work? How do our referrals work? Literally, what is the logic that fraud might use in order to invalidate one? Oh, based on address signals. How do we calculate address signals? Is that a Google normalized thing, or is that free text that's put in? And if you don't actually push yourself down to sit alongside your IC engineers and your IC designers and your ICPMs, you don't actually know that stuff. So you can't make good macro decisions without the micro. So increasingly, I think I push myself to I try and be T-shaped. I can go very, very deep when required, but I'm mostly broad across pieces. And I think the idea of just hiring people, and then not asking any more questions and delegating all of the detail just isn't really the most successful model for getting the most out of an organization.
00:53:32 · Lenny Rachitsky
[00:53:32] S1: With a very product-minded founder, CPO classically is a very challenging role for people because you're basically this person between a very opinionated founder and the team building it. What have you found works in creating an environment where you are happy in that role?
00:53:51 · Tom Verrilli
[00:53:51] S0: Yeah. Funnily, that's become most of my career. Actually, I've worked for three founders in a row who are all very product-minded and whatnot. I've got two, which is a blessing actually. In general, I try not to double up. If Grant or Logan, our founders are on a thing, probably doesn't need me. What's the advantage of an extra layer? I think jokingly one of the PMs on the team has referred to it as the two dads problem where you've just got two people issuing conflicting instructions, or somebody wants to review and then you do all this work to present it to me, and then you go back and it gets a different thing. So my first thing is if Grant or Logan are on it, I check that they're watching it, they're accountable for it, and I step out. So there'll be long periods of time where fully half my team can be working on something, and I couldn't tell you day-to-day where it is because it's with Grant, it's with Logan, and that's totally fine. I don't have to be across all of the things they're doing. We just need to make sure that there is somebody doing that bar raising. So we spent much time doing that alignment. I think the second one is, ultimately, if you are a product leader in a founder-led company, you have to understand it's not your company, it's theirs. And you just find the right balance of, hey, are you open to feedback on this? Have you made up your mind? Are you open to a push on this? And you just find that rhythm working with folks. Generally speaking, there's a reason that founder-led companies do so well in our industry. The insight required and the kind of customer intuition to make the thing in the first place and work tends to be really important. And then I just view my job as making sure that we've got coverage on the places where our founders are.
00:55:28 · Lenny Rachitsky, Tom Verrilli
[00:55:28] S1: Awesome. So a couple things you've learned here for building, and I think in consumer, this is especially important, is counterintuitively to how maybe people think things should work, you're finding that the best teams, companies, products end up coming from top-down, founder-led, almost micromanagement is a dirty word to a lot of people, but it's basically being in the weeds is, in spite of how people may feel, this actually ends up being leading to better stuff, better [inaudible 00:55:56]. [00:55:55] S0: Top-down works well if leadership is good enough to be in the weeds and be specifically correct. I think where it falls apart is where you don't actually know ground truth and then you attempt to manage people from above. And that's where I think the term micromanagement comes from. Otherwise, if you're working from the same data and you have it, I don't know a junior engineer or an entry-level designer who isn't stoked to sit there and work alongside the CPO or the CEO and ship something because you're just unblocked. There's no alignment meetings, there's nothing to do. I also find that you can give way better feedback if you're literally in the detail. And I think the nuance is just like, how do you make sure you can do that in enough places? There's never been a better time to attempt to be in the detail on things because you can literally query it in real time.
00:55:55 · Tom Verrilli, Lenny Rachitsky
[00:55:55] S0: Top-down works well if leadership is good enough to be in the weeds and be specifically correct. I think where it falls apart is where you don't actually know ground truth and then you attempt to manage people from above. And that's where I think the term micromanagement comes from. Otherwise, if you're working from the same data and you have it, I don't know a junior engineer or an entry-level designer who isn't stoked to sit there and work alongside the CPO or the CEO and ship something because you're just unblocked. There's no alignment meetings, there's nothing to do. I also find that you can give way better feedback if you're literally in the detail. And I think the nuance is just like, how do you make sure you can do that in enough places? There's never been a better time to attempt to be in the detail on things because you can literally query it in real time. [00:56:40] S1: I think that's such an important nuance here. The story told is so powerful, this idea of Grant just, okay, I'm going to clear my day. I'm going to spend time going deep on this stuff. That feels like a very necessary ingredient for someone at the top to be making micro decisions. Because to your point, if they don't have all the details, they're not making a decision out of real data.
00:56:40 · Lenny Rachitsky, Tom Verrilli
[00:56:40] S1: I think that's such an important nuance here. The story told is so powerful, this idea of Grant just, okay, I'm going to clear my day. I'm going to spend time going deep on this stuff. That feels like a very necessary ingredient for someone at the top to be making micro decisions. Because to your point, if they don't have all the details, they're not making a decision out of real data. [00:56:58] S0: And we can do that because, as I said, we plan what we're doing and then we allocate, and then we're dividing and conquering. So he's probably trying to nail three or four most important things at a time. And he's the CEO. He's going to call the ball and say, these are the four things I own right now. And I'm going to be like, "Great, I'll be over here then." And then within those, what am I doing with the rest of my day that is more important than nailing the five things I've said we'll get done this half? If it's anything other than maybe hiring, standing meetings, any of that stuff, you can just clear it and set the tone for the team that until we understand it, we can't do anything else. [00:57:34] S1: Say somebody is looking for a CPO role or a first PM role, they're kind of similar, basically working for a founder. What would be your advice for them to land in a place where they're happy and not just super frustrated by this kind of middle layer where they just don't actually have any agency?