Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth - Manik Gupta (ex-CPO Uber, Google Maps) on how to build consumer apps, why it’s useful to be optimistic about technology, creating inflections in your PM career, the changing CPO role, and more

Episode Date: July 14, 2022

Manik Gupta has led two of the most successful consumer products in history—Google Maps, where he was Director of product for the Maps team, and Uber, where he was CPO. After leaving Uber, he spent some time working on a product to help people avoid getting COVID called CVKey, and most recently he took on a role at Microsoft as Corporate Vice President leading many of their consumer efforts.—Thank you to our wonderful sponsors for making this episode possible:• Mixpanel: https://mixpanel.com/startups• Coda: http://coda.io/lenny• Unit: https://unit.co/lenny—In this episode, we cover:[3:55] Patterns for career success[7:19] Why it’s valuable to be optimistic about technology[13:54] Challenges and mistakes through Manik’s career[17:28] How you learn the most about yourself through challenges[20:25] What Manik’s learned about building successful consumer apps[26:18] The importance of company-product fit[30:02] “The consumer stack”—what your company needs to have in place to build a successful consumer product[36:22] The path from PM to CPO[39:19] Evolution of CPO role[44:40] What leads to promotions in a PM career[47:58] What creates inflections in one’s PM career [52:05] How PMs shoot themselves in the foot[55:05] What it’s like to work at Google vs. Uber vs. Microsoft[1:01:35] What he wished he built into Google Maps—Where to find Manik:• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/manikg/• Twitter: https://twitter.com/manikgupta This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com/subscribe

Monik Gupta has led two of the most successful consumer products in history, Google Maps, where he was director of product for the Maps team, and Uber, where he was chief product officer. After leaving Uber, he spent most of his time working on a product to help people avoid getting COVID, called CB Key, and most recently, he took on a role at Microsoft as corporate vice president leading much of their consumer efforts. In our conversation, we cover what he's learned about building successful consumer products, how to structure and hire product teams building consumer apps, a concept called the Consumer Stack, company market fit versus product market fit,

what it's like to be CPU, what he learned working at Microsoft versus Uber versus Google, and also a ton of career advice for anyone thinking about becoming a CPU someday. I hope that you enjoy this episode with Monick Gupta. This episode is brought to you by MixPanel, offering powerful self-serve product analytics. Something we talk a lot about on the show

is how startups can build successful and amazing products. And relying on gut feeling is a really expensive way to find out if you're heading in the right direction, especially when you're raising money, because VCs don't want to pay the price for these kinds of mistakes. That's why Mix Panel will give you $50,000 in credits when you join their startup program. With Mix Panel, startups find product market fit faster, helping you take your company from minimal viable product to the next unicorn. Access real-time insights with the help of their pre-built template.

and know that at every stage, MixPanel is helping you build with confidence and curiosity for free. Apply for the startup program today to claim your $50,000 in credits at MixPanel.com slash startups with an S. And even if you're not a startup, MixPanel has pricing plans for teams of every size. Grow your business like you've always imagined with MixPanel. Hey, Casey Winners, what do you love about Cota? Cota is a company that's actually near and dear to my heart because I got to work on their launch when I was at Greylock. But in terms of what I love about it, you know I love loops.

And Coda has some of the coolest and most useful content loops I've seen. How the loop works is someone can create a Cota and share it publicly for the world. This can be how you create OKRs, run annual planning, build your roadmap, whatever. Every one of those codas can then be easily copied and adapted to your organization without knowing who originally even wrote it. So they're embedding the sharing of best practices of scaling companies into their core product and growth loops, just something I'm personally passionate about. I actually use CODA myself every day. It's kind of the center of my writing and podcasting operation. I use it for first drafts to organize my content calendar to plan each podcast episode and so many more things. Coda is giving listeners this podcast $1,000

in free credit off their first statement. Just go to coda.io slash lenny. That's coda.coma.com slash Lenny. Monique, welcome to the podcast. Thank you, Lenny. It's great to be here, ma'am. I don't know if it's obvious, but I'm quite honored to have you on this podcast. You've had such an illustrious career

as a founder, leading the Google Maps team, as CPU at Uber for, I believe, four years. Now you're kind of a fancy VP at Microsoft on consumer stuff. It's kind of this incredible career and trajectory. And my first question is, looking back at your career, what would you say is maybe the,

one or two main things that you did that helped you get to where you are today, for folks that are maybe earlier in their career of what they should be focusing on. Yeah. Thanks, Danny for having me. I'm also a big fan of yours, by the way. I love your newsletter, and it's been incredible to just see how you have also grown both the set of topics that you cover and this podcast. So just really a big fan.

So, again, thanks for having me. Appreciate that. Let me start by telling you a little bit about kind of my philosophy of this, right? So I recently, I'm maybe a little bit late to the party, but I recently read this book from Morgan Housel on The Psychology of Money. And I highly recommend your listeners read it if they get a chance. And there's a chapter in there. He talks about luck and risk.

And what he says is, you know, when you look at individuals and you think about or you ask them or you think about what they have done that have made them successful, we tend to put a greater amount of emphasis on effort. and a little less emphasis on luck and risk, right? And I think I strongly subscribe to that, which is the important thing when you look back is how much luck played a big part and of course the risk that somebody took played a big part.

So this is something that I've been thinking a lot about myself, which is what are some of the patterns of people who have had multiple careers and have gone through a journey where they've learned a lot and they've contributed and things like that? And I think there are two patterns that stand out both when I look at myself in terms of what I've been through, and also when I talk to a lot of my friends

who have also gone on and done interesting things. And I wanted to cover both of that. So the first one is really about people. It's about surrounding yourself with the best people you can find. It was so funny. I was watching the Warriors game last night, and yeah, Warriors, we won the NBA championship. That's great.

Of course. And one of the reporters, I think she asked Steve Kerr, the coach, what's the secret? and he goes, well, just hang around superstars, right? That's what he said. And he just passed the mic over to somebody else and said, look, this is a team, it's hanging on a superstar. And that's exactly what it is, right? If you create enough opportunities, especially early on in your career, as you asked, around hanging around people who are doing interesting things and they are doing things which really are different or they're doing things in a different manner and it's exciting,

the right things will happen. And I was lucky in a way that I caught myself, in that situation. I grew up in India, and when I was 16, I got a scholarship to move to Singapore to do my high school and then my undergrad studies. And it just turned out that during those days, Singapore, I mean, it still is, but it was a melting pot for kind of the best and brightest folks that you can get from all over kind of the Asia, diaspora, if you will. And among my colleagues and my fellow students, there were a bunch of really, really smart people. So I just learned a lot from them, right? And that gave me a great start to just go on and do something interesting. And right out of college, I started my own company, and I did that with two of my

classmates. And one of them happens to be one of my best friends whom I grew up with. We also came on the same scholarship with me to Singapore. And we were just part of that ecosystem, and it gave me a lot of opportunities to try out different things in college and so on and so forth. So I think the main thing that I would say here for people who are early in career is just surround yourself with people who are really good at what they do, learn from them. And by the way, play the long game. Once you find someone like, like that, stick to them, right? As long as they want to hang out with you, but just stick to them because you will go on to do multiple things over your career with the same set of people

and the shared trust and experience that you build with A plus people, it's just going to go a long way. So that's pattern number one. I think that has helped me a lot, and I also see a lot of that in other folks whom I talk to. And then the second pattern is, this is something I resonate a lot with personally is I'm a strong technology optimist. There's always a lot of narrative these days around technology and maybe a little bit more pessimism. And I find that bizarre, right? I'm just such a strong technology advocate and optimist because I feel technology is such a strong force for good. I grew up as an engineer myself and I've always been attracted to projects where we can use technology to solve a real human need. I did that with my startup. I did that at Hewlett Packet.

I did that at Google and at Uber as well. And the passion that you get if you're a strong advocate of technology and how it can really help, it just sort of gets you to choose a set of things that you want to do at scale. For instance, when I joined Google in India to work on Maps, it was all about helping millions of users around Asia, particularly navigate their world. And there wasn't a good solution like that, right? So how can you bring technology to really solve those problems?

So I think those are the two patterns, Lenny. One is surrounding yourself with A plus people, and the second is just having very strong optimism and passion about technology. At least if I connect the dots looking backwards, those are the things that have really helped me and a bunch of other folks that I see in a similar situation. And I'm hoping that folks early in their career kind of think through that. I bet there's a big overlap between those two points,

technology optimist and just like superstars. So that's interesting. Yeah, it definitely is. And that's actually really good way. I hadn't thought about that. Right? You're right. Like, I think there's definitely that overlap because folks who are in that more, like, they really get around more together. And, you know, like, I'm also an angel investor and an investor in a bunch of companies. You know, Lenny, you and I have invested in a bunch of companies together as well. And it's like that. It's really about people who have the same kind of frequency in terms of thinking about how the world outlook and they want to go on to do interesting things. I think that's really what thrives the narrative forward. Speaking of technology optimism and technology in general, of the things that you've worked on, what would you say you're most proud of project-wise, product-wise, feature-wise?

Yeah, so again, I've had just the incredible opportunity to be part of phenomenal companies that have created world-changing products and had a small, small, small part to play in that. You know, I always emphasize that. It's not me. It was a team, and I really mean it. I'm not just saying it because I'm on your podcast, but it really is, right? I'm particularly proud of the work that I did both at Google and at Uber. So I'll give you a couple of examples to illustrate that point. So when I joined Google in India in 2008, I started off working on Google Maps.

And I remember how counterintuitive it was for anybody, right? My friends and family, a bunch of other folks whom I talk to, a counterintuitive in terms of like, why would anybody ever use maps on their mobile phone in India? Right. And the reason was because the norm was that, firstly, the country is unmappable because there's no good addressing system. So how do you locate places? And then the second one was there were always people around that you can just roll down your car window and just ask people, hey, I'm going here and can you just give me guidance to directions, right? That was a norm, right?

Like, that's how people navigate it for a really long time. And when I started working on it, I think for me, my belief was, again, going back to the tech optimism sort of aspect is, why can't we? we in India have the same quality maps like we have in the United States. Like, why not? Why shouldn't we do it? Like, why are users here not getting the same benefit and same productivity gain, if you will, and less stress in their daily commute and things like that? So we started building it. We started building the data.

We went ahead and really mapped the country as much as we could, both ourselves and through a lot of amazing work from our users who kind of co-map the world with us. And over time, India became, I think, the second largest country for Google Maps in the world, right, in terms of use it. Of course, a lot of that happened because of Android. So Android took off and Android had Google Maps on it. But, you know, it's just incredible to see how, in a short span of, you know, a few years, it just went up to becoming so useful. And it's not that we were just distributing Google Maps on Android. People were using it.

So people were actually using it to go from point A to point B. So I feel really proud about that. I think the team did an incredible effort. It wasn't even a big team. It was a relatively small team, very passionate about going and doing this, and we made that happen. And then at Uber, initially, before I took on the CPU role, I was leading maps and marketplace. And when I was doing maps and marketplace, again, how do you get the ETA that you see on Uber, when you open the Uber app and you request a car? The ETAs, average ETAs went down to less than five minutes globally, right?

Just think about that for a minute. minute, right? In fact, it was 75 countries, more than 300 cities, I remember correctly, where you could just open the Uber app and get an Uber in average, less than five minutes. And a lot of operational work need to happen for sure. But the technology, the marketplace technology, especially to be able to connect the right rider to the right driver, have the mapping infrastructure underneath it to ensure that the car actually reaches you in that amount of time. I just feel very proud of all the work that happened during that time to make Uber really successful in terms of providing that kind of a service.

And one fun anecdote I'll give you where kind of my world came together and it just blows my mind even today. I remember I joined Uber in late 2015 and I made a trip to India to see my parents in sometime around 2016, 2017. I forget, it was around that time. And I was at home in Bangalore

and I ordered an Uber and the guy shows up, the driver comes in. And I sit in the back of the car. he starts the trip using the Uber app, and then he clicks navigate, and he goes to Google Maps. And I was sitting there, I was like, man, I build these two to a certain extent, right? It was just crazy to think about how two of my worlds came together at that point.

And I still vividly remember that moment where I felt really proud that I had a little bit of a part to play in both those products. That is some unbelievable impact. It boggles my mind how many people have been impacted by the work that you've done and the teams that you've been on, like a billion people in India and everyone in the world using Uber. It's unreal. I would feel very proud myself watching that experience. Something people may feel when they see a career like yours, they're like, man, Monix just killing it.

He's done everything right. Everything just is clicking, always winning. Imagine there's been a few times when you've made mistakes or things have been really challenging. What would you say has been one of the more challenging projects or points in your career? Yeah, no, absolutely. This is really important to talk about as well because we glamorize successes and we don't talk enough about challenges, right? So I'm really happy that you're asking this. I would give you two times, which I had a lot of learning from both of them, but they were pretty tough times for me.

The first time was I had started my own company at the height of the dot-com boom. We incorporated our company in June 99. And then in March of 2000, we sold our company to another company from Norway. And that was the peak of the dot-com boom. And then within a few months right after that, we had the dot-com bust. And it was terrible, terrible. I know we have a pretty bad economy right now. There's a lot of stuff going on.

It was really bad because, you know, people around me, my friends were losing their jobs. luckily we had some funding, so we had secured some of our funding, and we had had an acquisition, so the parent company was pretty strong in terms of their balance sheet, so we could continue to do it. But things didn't get better than it. Like, you know, 2000 went by, 2001 came in, and we kept waiting for things to improve, but they never improved. And so we had to pivot. We had to pivot as a company. My co-founder has actually left the company at that point, right? And I still wanted to be there because I really believed that I can keep moving this company forward. and then I was working with the founders of the parent company.

We pivoted multiple times. We tried a few things. I even relocated back from Singapore back to India to set up an engineering office so that we can get into a SaaS kind of a model versus an e-commerce company that we were. So I tried many things over those two or three years. And remember, this was my first quote-unquote job out of college, right? So I was doing a lot of that, and it was a very tough time.

But, you know, at the same time, I learned a lot. I learned a lot about myself. I learned a lot about managing ambiguity. and just kind of keeping people motivated to a tough time. You know, a lot of that also has to come from keeping yourself motivated because, you know, people can smell fear and kind of pessimism from far, right? Just like optimism is infectious, so is pessimism, right? And so is like if you're not feeling great as a leader, people will see it.

Like, absolutely. People are not stupid, right? So you have to sort of not fake it. You have to really be motivated to kind of stick it out. And that's what I tried to do at least, and I learned a lot in that. So that was one really challenging time for me. And the second one was, man, during Uber, 2017, 2018 was crazy at Uber. Oh, my God.

Like, there were just so much going on with leadership changes, with like the brand issues and reggae. And for me, you know, there were times when I would commute up from my house to the office. And while I'm in the car, you know, I will be listening to some news or whatever. And I'll hear about things that happened at Uber that day from the news before I got to hear from within the company, right? So it was that crazy during that time. So again, a lot of chaos, a lot of churn at the company as well. And it was something where you just have to keep your head down and just keep staying focused on what the core is. And I think that

is where Lenny, the optimism in me in terms of what am I really doing, is this a service that really benefits millions of people around the world? Are we creating true chain? You know, those are things that I just had to sort of dig deep into to make sure that I stay grounded on like why am I here and why I remain to be here and then at the same time motivate my team. But yeah, those were the two really challenging times that I have encountered at least in my career. Those are awesome examples. I imagine a lot of founders are going through a lot of challenging times right now with the market. And I imagine these experiences for you are really important and impacted your ability to take on bigger roles and bigger challenges in the future. Is that how you see it? These are important

experiences to have over time as a product leader and just leader in general. Well, absolutely. Because like I said, you know, you learn a lot about yourself when you go through a situation like this. And you learn both things that bother you or bring you down and things that give you energy, right? It's sometimes counterintuitive to think about this. Like when you're going through a bad time, often then people will say, well, during a bad time, I only learn things which are bad. But you also learn things that are good, right? Which is maybe during a bad time you did something and you suddenly felt relieved or energized. And then you look at that and say, wait, I should do more of that even during a good time, because can you imagine the compounding power that I would get? Because, you know, this stuff is good, and I'm doing this, and I'll feel even even better. So I learned a lot in terms of my own personal energy, kind of things that get me going, things that really stop me in my tracks. And at the same time, how do you work with the team? How do you motivate them? How do you keep your head down and focus versus getting distracted? What are some of the decisions you make around your product? And you're

roadmap. So I'll give you an example. During my startup, when we were going through that, in order to motivate the team, one of the best tricks that I came up with, and I learned this from a bunch of other people also, is you just give a team a win, right? Like winning really, really drives a lot of energy, right? So we had a choice to make between launching something which will take six months versus launching something that we can launch, you know, in a very smallish kind of way, but launch it in a month, right? And we took it. chose the ladder because when we did that, I remember people were giving high-fives to each other. People were saying, hey, you know what, this is great. We put something in front of customers.

We had like, I think, 10 customers who used it or something because we were so subscaleing that feature, but that didn't really matter. You know, so the point was that you get confidence from getting things out, putting it out there, and you feel good about being a builder and being someone who is actually creating a difference. And that really grounds the team and focuses the team that there is some real value here. So, you know, some of those things I kind of picked up, both, you know, going through that sort of turbulent time, I picked up and I have used that even in good times to make sure that we keep building good products. That's such a good tactical to find a win, keep people motivated. Speaking of wins, coming back to Google Maps and Uber,

they're probably two of the most widely used successful consumer products in the world. I don't know if I could think of other products that are used by more people for this long. And then now at Microsoft, you're helping Microsoft get more into consumer on the communication side. And so I imagine you know a thing or two about building successful consumer apps. And so I want to ask a couple of questions along those lines. What are like two or three surprising or counterintuitive things that you've learned about building consumer products? You know, the good news is that there's just because of Twitter and a bunch of other channels, including your newsletter, by the way, I feel like people are very well informed these days, and I love that.

Let me digress for a second, and I'll come back to your question. One thing that I'm observing a lot, Lenny, which I feel very, very happy about, is the quality of learning and insights and frameworks and best practices is so universal at this point. It used to be that, hey, you had to be in the valley or being part of like a small group of folks who are doing things at the cutting edge to have those creative. crazy insights about, you know, how do you find product market fade and, you know, do all that kind of stuff. Today, I talk to people from all over the world for various reasons, and it's

incredible, right? How fast people pick up all these insights and frameworks and then they apply them to their local setting and so on. And I find that to be one of the most wonderful things ever. And I think, you know, folks like you have obviously played a big part because you have global subscribers and you share some of the best practices. But just generally, that's actually a really good thing for the world that people have so much access to clarity of thinking and the best people are actually putting themselves out there, which is great. In terms of the counter-intuitive stuff, I think two things. One is building consumer products is very hard, right? I think people think it's easy because each of us is a consumer, right? We think of ourselves as a good user. We think of

our friends as users. We think of our family as users. And we say, well, you know, if you just build it for ourselves and for our family and friends. And by the way, a lot of great consumer product started that way. So I'm not saying, don't do that. But man, it's hard, right? It takes a long time to get things right because you're essentially trying to get so many things right when you're building a successful consumer product. You have to be able to reach out to a vast kind of heterogeneous set of users, right, who have different needs, who have different perspectives. The go-to-market is always very interesting because you can't force people to use your product. people have to choose you, right? You don't choose them, right? So that's the part where, like, how do you

drive virality? How do you drive that real love for a consumer product? And it has to create, like, real value. And the other thing about time is that in order for you to find product market fit and then sort of scale from there, you just have to try a lot of different things. And there are theoretical playbooks around it, but you've got to just get into it. And going back to the point I was making a little about wins, like get some wins. And so, see their results and then iterate from there. So I think it's just hard and it takes a lot longer than what people imagine consumer products to do versus, let's say, enterprise products or products of other nature.

So that's one counterintuitive thing that at least I've learned. The second one is the global patterns that you see in consumer products in terms of the, you know, the user interface, the kind of the core things that people do or expect. At this point, a lot of that is pretty universal. So, you know, there's always this debate, right? where people would say, well, you need to have one product for the U.S., another different type of product for Asia, another different type of product for Africa. I think we are past that point. Right.

So that's, again, another counterintuitive thing where people spend a little too much, and I've seen this in many companies, people spend too much time debating that, oh, the users in Market X are different. Well, yes, they are different, but they use the product the same way. Right? So that's the part which I think, you know, and I'm not making an argument against localization. Of course, you need localizations around language, pricing, there are some legal requirements, all of that stuff. Like, obviously you have to do that. Otherwise, you don't even have a right to exist in that market. But by and large, the patterns are very similar.

So you look at global products like even like Facebook or Google search or Maps or Twitter or TikTok and so on. All of them have kind of a similar pattern or similar app for the entire world. And they keep on innovating or localizing at the edges. So that's the other counterintuitive thing that people should know about consumer products. that build for the world from day one, understand that there are going to be some nuances that you'll have to solve as you drive adoption in certain markets,

but don't over-indexed on building like market-specific solutions because consumers have kind of moved on from that kind of a model. So those are the two, you know, in terms of product building, counterintuitive trends, at least I have picked up over the years.

This episode is brought to you by Unit. What did Gustav, Uber, Shopify, and Angelist all have in common? They've all decided to build banking into their product. According to Angel's head of product, banking makes every single feature more interesting. With it, our platform functions as financial mission control for our customers. Without it, we're just another software tool in a big, messy stack.

Embedding banking into your product not only adds differentiation, but also helps you acquire, retain, and monetize your customers. Unit is the market leader in banking as a service, combining multiple bank partners with a developer-friendly API to empower companies of all sizes to launch accounts, cards, payments, and lending in just a few weeks. Unit is trusted by a leading brand such as Angelist, IBM Invoiced to Go, and Roovstock. To hear more about how Unit enables companies like yours to build banking, visit Unit.co slash Lenny to request a demo or to try their free sandbox.

That's unit.co slash Lenny. Before this chat, we were chatting about, you know, this idea of company product fits for bigger companies, how it's kind of like an approach to building new products within big companies. And can you just talk about that idea? Yeah, absolutely. So I've been noodling a lot on this, especially, you know, since I took on my role at Microsoft as well. And prior to that, even at Google, this was always an interesting discussion.

So let's say you are building a new product or leading a new project, if you will, at a larger company. In fact, this also applies to, you know, medium-sized companies. I wouldn't say for startups, but medium-sized companies. And usually the narrative in the room when you're discussing this with your team and with your leadership team would be, okay, we got to go find product market fit. Right. Absolutely. We have to do a bunch of stuff as we just talked about.

Consumer product take time, you know, all of that. But I think there's a question before that question, which is how do you find company product fit? What I define is company product fit, which is, you know, a company essentially is a portfolio of products. and every large company, medium-sized company also has a portfolio, right? They'll have like 10, 20, you know, in some cases, hundreds of products in the portfolio. And every company has unique strengths and weaknesses. This is, you know, pretty tried, but it's obvious, right? And I would encourage a lot of folks when they start embarking on this journey where they're

trying to really build out products and so on, is to ask that question, how does that product, if assuming it's successful, right? If it is not successful, it doesn't matter anyway, but if it's assuming it's successful, does it actually serve the right place in a company's product portfolio or not? And if it doesn't, don't do it. Like, why raise time?

And oftentimes companies would be like, I want to do this because some of the company is doing it. That is not a good reason, right? You should only invest in products or projects for that matter. because you can play to your strengths and you can create some unique consumer, customer value. And by the way, you can do it better than anybody else out there. So that's what I mean by company product fit.

Take that first step and understand, does this even resonate and is it part of the portfolio? Does it make sense? Because if you can answer that question with enough conviction, then your road to the next step on finding product market fit becomes much easier. because you don't have distractions then. Everybody gets it.

Everybody gets this as a strategic effort. You know, you have the right sponsorship at the right levels in the company and you're executing towards it and you're finding it out. And if less than things don't go, well, that's okay. People will step into help. A lot of that will happen because people innately get it that this is like the right product to go after from a company product fit perspective. So that's something that I've been thinking a lot about and, you know, also executing as we move forward.

Is there an example of that gone wrong that you can share, whether it's a company you've worked at or a company you've seen do it badly? I'll have to think through specific examples, but, you know, companies do this all the time where they do these line extensions, right, where they'll say, well, we have a lot of traction in a particular segment and why don't we just go to an adjacent segment? If we just add two more features, suddenly this will be appealing to an adjacent segment. So, you know, a classic example would be, you know, you're doing something for, I don't know, small and medium businesses and you say, well, now I just have to add two more features and now I'm going to go up. market and I'll get you compete in the enterprise, right? Or it could be the other way down too, right? So, you know, you have something in the enterprise business and you want to suddenly go down market to SMB. And in my view, it's hard because, again, the capabilities that you need,

the thinking that you need is something you have to like really be clear about. And this is not to say that it will not fit in the company's portfolio. It's just that when you're making a choice like that, make sure you set it up well to succeed. That's the other part of the equation as well. Speaking of setting it up to succeed, you also have this kind of idea of a consumer stack concept that I think you've been talking about at Microsoft. Can you talk about what that's all about? Yeah, sure. One of the things that I'm doing in Microsoft right now is while I'm working on a lot of the consumer communication products, the other thing that I'm really helping the company think about is how do we get more at-scale consumer products built at Microsoft, right?

And part of this is just distilling some of the learnings that I've had over the years. And I think there are like five things that I would talk about, which I call the consumer stack, which is essentially a set of capabilities that companies need to have a good chance of success at building a consumer product. Remember, nobody can give a playbook to build a successful consumer product. That does not exist because, you know, as we were discussing earlier, it's so fickle and, you know, so many things I have to go right for you to build a successful consumer product. But at least you have a set of capability, so you set yourself up the best. So the first one I would say is around design-led thinking to delight users.

Going back to your days at Airbnb, Lenny, I'm sure this is something that resonates with you. Design for consumer products is such a critical part of how you build the right pull from consumers these days. Poorly designed products have no chance at this point. So your craftsmanship and the design capabilities have to be a plus. right? And if you don't have that, then you should really invest in that. And there's not just about having the best designers. Of course, you're sure, right? It's just the thinking, right? It's the attention to detail. It's the attention to how, you know, things are kind of pixel to pixel moving from one screen to another screen and so on. You really have to sweat it out and really be clear in terms of

how it's adding value to a consumer. And that is, I think, a core capability in these days to build a consumer product. So that's like number one. Number two is strong focus and prioritization. You can apply strong focus of credit isn't doing anything in life, but I think it's even more important for consumer products because oftentimes people, when they think about solving a problem, they think about coming up with 20 features at the same time. And it's not needed. You don't need 20 features to solve a problem. You just need one or two features which work really well. You know, this whole concept of critical user journeys, right? Like how do you make sure that if you're solving problem X, any feature that you build in the product, first of your product should have very few features

in the beginning, but even if it has those features, it should be well designed and it should have the focus and prioritization so that you're only getting things for the critical journey so that the user can use it and not get confused. So that's the second one. Most PMs totally understand that. That's their job description to focus and prioritize. But I feel like a lot of times that PMs do get very confused and distracted because the number of ideas that people have is so large that they want to just throw everything into the product.

And that doesn't work. So you have to keep a very high bar for focus and prioritization. That's capability number two. Number three is having the right metrics and instrumentation. So this talks to the data aspect of the culture, which is, if you don't have the metric with regards to what you're optimizing for at the initial state of the product, middle state of the product, late stage of the product, you're just not going to choose the right things.

And how will you measure success? How will you convince yourself, your team, and broad stakeholders that this is actually working or not working, right? So having the right metrics is important. But you know, it's incredible how many times people have the metrics, but they don't instrument them, right? And they'll have all these debates because the product is not instrumented properly. And everybody will talk about the same metric, but they'll have different nuances in terms of like, oh, what does it really mean? What is a daily active user? Okay, daily means, okay, I understand it's on a daily basis. What is active? And there'll be debates about what is active. Pick a definition, instrument.

instrument it, codified, no confusion. So that's number three. Number four is more on the engineering side, which is how do you get to a very high ship velocity and the ability to experiment and learn fast? At a broader level, especially during the initial phases, if you're not learning, you're really not doing anything well. You've got to be learning, right?

You've got to be learning, good things, bad things. It doesn't matter. You've got to be learning, right? So having the experimentation velocity, having a building culture where engineers are able to check in court, see the results. and then quickly come into one of the release and stuff like that, I think that's really important for a consumer product, right?

And finally, underpinning all of this is just having strong talent, like assess your talent, right? Your product talent, your design talent, your data talent, your engineering talent, your marketing talent, you know, all these functions. You just have to have a talented pool of people who like to build stuff, right? And they are the people who understand and have the empathy for consumers, right? So to me, I think these five kind of capabilities,

and as a leader or a product leader or an engineering leader or anyone who's basically responsible for running products in small company, big company, medium-sized company, it doesn't matter. If you're in the consumer space, my thinking here is that if you look at these five categories and five capabilities, you should really have a report card and say, okay, how do I rate these?

Like if I want to look at my own team, what do I think about design thinking? What do I think about strong focus of prioritization? Are we doing an A job? I'd be doing a B job or doing a C job or D job. And I would argue that if you get to an A job over time, because not everybody will be at A on day one, but if you get that over time, I think you will start seeing results, which are very meaningful. So that's how I've been thinking about the consumer stack. Awesome.

I was going to ask how you operationalize this. And it sounds like it's going to turn into Monix Consumer Stack scorecard. And bigger companies can leverage this at their own company and kind of show their manager, hey, we're moving really slowly. Maybe this is an area we should focus before we bed big on consumer. Yeah. I'm trying to operationalize this myself, right, like right now in my current job. And I have used some version of this. I mean, this is not something I just came up with.

Like, it's something that has been in my mind for a while. I've used it in some shape or form. But during my break, especially before I joined Microsoft, I think this sort of came together for me as something a little bit more tangible that I can use. Then I started applying it. So I think it's been pretty interesting to see. Awesome. I'm hoping that this proliferates through larger companies and becomes a thing that

that we can read back to this chat. Shifting a little bit to the CPO role and the VP of product role that you've had at a few companies, in theory, this is kind of the end state for a product leader. Like every PM, if they stay down the PM career track, they'll become a CPA or a VP product or a head of product somewhere. So a couple questions here. One is, do you have a sense of how many PMs actually stay on this track and end up in one of these roles versus like move on to some other role or place?

Yeah, that's a great question. I would say that the percentage for a CPU in particular, right, like you're having a C title and being a CPO, I think that percentage is still relatively small. And this is just my sense. I haven't done the numbers to kind of give you a more accurate kind of picture here, but I think my sense is relatively smaller because I think a large part of it depends on how companies are organized.

So, you know, companies can be organized functionally, companies can be organized through business units, and oftentimes these days it's a mix of both. If you look at any company, they'll have some C-level functional executives, but underneath them, they'll have GMs. And the organization design is just such an evolving field always. And as they say, like companies will go one, they'll swing the pendulum one way and then say, oh, over time, it's not working. Then they'll swing the pendulum the other way. And then they'll keep kind of going back and forth.

So I think the percentage for CPU and particularly in my mind is probably not as big as what people think it is. because, like I said, because of the way the companies are organized, I think the interesting thing here is I am just seeing personally, having been a CPO myself and also like talking to a lot of people in my network and just observing a bunch of different companies, I think the CPO role is evolving, right, or a head of product role is also evolving. And I think a lot of it is morphing more into the GM model, right,

where you're running not just product management, but also perhaps PM and engineering and design to a certain extent and data science too. So you're essentially becoming the overall technical product leader at the company. And the reason why I feel that is happening is because it's all about accountability, right? It's about who has the single-threaded leadership model where this person can make all the decisions when it comes to trade-offs and running the roadmaps and, you know, all of that kind of stuff. it's not ideal, by the way, in all cases, because what that means is for somebody to be doing that,

that person has to be really, really good at all those other functions too so that everyone who's in their organization, respects that. Otherwise, people feel like I'm a second-class citizen in this kind of model where this person doesn't know anything about whatever my function and so on. So it's harder, but I do feel that

for optimization around decision-making, around having a single-threaded leadership and accountability, I feel like that's kind of the direction where the product leadership role itself is going more and more, at least based on my experience. So is your sense that maybe CPO might kind of fade away as a title and GMs become the common path across companies? You know, if you were to sort of push me on this, I would say that's probably the direction we will go, right? I think it's interesting to also think about CTO, right? If you look at the CTO rules versus SVP of engineering or a VP of engineering, I think it's an interesting debate too, right? like what's happening with CTO roles.

If a company is organized purely functionally, I think there is absolutely the right call. But as companies are changing and thinking about, how they get, you know, drive more accountability and more business units and so on, I just feel it probably will become more GM oriented. That does not mean that a VP product is going to go away or the VPNuring is going to go away.

I think those roles will still stay, right? But like the C-level title, reporting into the CEO but just running that one function, if I look at, you know, over time, maybe that role is, you know, not less prevalent than what we have right now. Do you think that's partly because there's this kind of weird overlap between CPO and CEO,

and there's often tension of who's kind of leading the product? Is that something you've seen? Yeah, I think that's definitely an interesting one as well. I mean, if you think about it, just based on my experience, what does the CPU really do, right? Like, what is their job description, right? I think it's useful to kind of think through that. And generally speaking, and again, you know,

we can always talk in general, because that's how you should think, because every company is unique. But generally, you would say the CPU is responsible for driving the product vision for the company, right? And that product vision cannot be divorced from the company vision, right? Oftentimes, this is actually what also creates conflict within the leadership team where the product vision is, you know, people are coming up with like these grandiose plans, like, oh, we'll do this, we'll do that, but then it's not really grounded in the reality

of where the company is, right? So anyways, it's around product vision and making sure it's coherent with the company vision. And then the second big part of a CPU job is execution of the roadmap on the priorities. And people sometimes think that, hey, I get to a C level position. I don't have to worry about execution. Absolutely not. If you're a product, like if you're a CPU in particular, and even the CTO and a head of engineering, execution matters a lot, right?

The operational excellence, because things are so complex. I mean, look at, we are in a situation where a lot of people are working remotely. There are all these sort of different tool sets. there are all these different technologies that are coming up. You have different kind of competitors. So execution is super important. And if people don't understand that that's a big part of their job, when they get to the senior level, I think they're mistaken.

So the execution is another one. And the third is, for a CPU, it's especially for a tech company, because you are really driving the product roadmap, it's a very leveraged job, meaning you have to really work with all your other peers, you know, whether the marketing person or the salesperson or the business unit person and so on, and just make sure that you're really even deeply connected in terms of what is really needed so that your product roadmap is how things are going to actually come to life, right? So it's a very cross-functional on steroids kind of job, right, in that sense.

So in terms of the CEO, CPO, I think the important thing, again, is, and this is actually advice I've given to CEOs of some, you know, companies as well, when they first start looking for a VPO product or a CPO, and this is almost like a questionnaire that I give them, right? things like, you know, first question I asked the CEO is, what do you want to do? That's the most important question, right? Because a lot of times the CEO has either been the technical founder or they have been the product founder.

They can be a sales founder too. All that is fine. But like, what do you want to spend your time on? Because if you are going to get a CPO or a VPO product and then still want to like own the product roadmap and own the execution, then don't do that because what is that person going to do, right? So that's the first sort of question that I tend to sort of, you know, clarify between a CEO and, you know, who's looking for a CPU or VP of product.

And then the other thing is, it's really about, are you trying to optimize for process? Are you optimizing for strategy? Are you optimizing for team building and attraction? I think that's a really big one. Sometimes you have to get the right level of leader to attract more talent to the team because people say, oh, this person is working there. Now I want to go work in their organization, right?

How do you think about engineering and data science and design? How do you think about GM and operations? So, you know, there are a bunch of all these things in terms of the design that you need to do before you decide whether a VP product CPU is somebody you want to get and what kind of person you want to get. And I think that's where the intersection of the work between this, especially for a tech company, the CEO, the CPU has to be, and even the CTO I would throw in the mix. That has to be very clearly articulated. Otherwise, it creates a lot of confusion.

So those are some of the things at least, you know, that I observe from different patterns and different companies that I work with and also guided and advised, those are things that always come up. It's interesting how much similarity there's to that experience as there's to the first PM at a company. It feels like they have to have the same conversations with the founder.

What do you want to work on? What am I going to take on? How do we avoid stepping each other's toes the whole time? That's actually, I never thought about it that way, Lennie. I think that's a really good point. You're totally right. Obviously, you know, if you're a bigger company, then you're looking for a VP product

or, you know, if you're a super big company, then you're looking for CPR, but you're right. Like the first product hire that you make as a founder, you pretty much have the same conversations to ensure that they're clear swim lanes and accountability for that group. Interesting. I want to make sure to ask you as kind of a big deal leader of product at larger companies.

I'm curious, what do you look for in PMs that are looking to get promoted or just like deciding somebody's ready for a promotion or ready for more responsibility? What do you look for and what should people kind of focus on if they want to come across as promotion material. I'm a big fan of looking at both the what and the how, right? So what did they accomplish and how did they accomplish? Because they are a package, right? And if you just look at one versus the other, then I think you end up making a mistake usually.

So on the what, I think the what is usually more objective. And what I look for, and again, it depends on the level of the person. So, you know, don't kind of calibrate someone based on, you know, the early in the career, you have to sort of think through that, that they're in learning phase, they're more senior than you have to, of course, collect with them differently. But ultimately, if I were to boil it down on the what, it's really about real demonstrated impact.

Right. An ideal example is someone who had a strong product hypothesis. They rallied a bunch of people around them. They may not have come with the hypothesis. That's fine. Like, somebody else could have come up with it. It doesn't matter. But they believed in it.

They rallied the team behind it. They drove towards it and created impact. Right? And the impact not necessarily always has to be positive. It could also be a lot of stuff that we learned, but we learned from it and then we moved on and we did the next rev. By the time we did the next rep, we were smarter about it. So clear demonstrated impact from an end-to-end product cycle is to me

is probably one of the better indicators of readiness for someone to take on more and you basically want to give them more because now they have a pattern of doing things properly. Right? So that's one. On the how, I just love people who are able to create both energy and create clarity. Like PMs, take off the flip side, PMs who don't create clarity, it's such a time sync, right?

And the team struggles so much. I'm sure all of us, when we think about back in the day, maybe we were in that position at some point, but we also worked with folks who were always confused, right, and didn't really summarize or didn't really follow up or didn't really create that level of clarity in terms of what we need to do and so on. and how broken that felt.

So people who can create the clarity and then have the energy around them to get things done. I think that's the how, in my opinion, which is really important for determining somebody's career trajectory. And then the last thing I would say

is followership, really important for PMs, right? Like, do people want to work with them? Do people at some point as they go up and become more senior, do people want to work for them? Right? And, you know, ultimately,

people make choices. And if you have a bunch of smart people and they're making smart choices and they're choosing this person to follow or to be with and, you know, kind of work with them and reach out to them and you keep hearing things about, hey, you know, so and so wants to work with this person because this person is amazing. There's a ton of value in that, right? So those are the three things that if I would really boil it down, not looking at a certain level. I think I always look for those attributes. Those are awesome. So simple and clear and succinct. And I like the way framed it as followership versus leadership. There's a lot of PM attributes leadership. And there's something really nice about just like a way to understand that is how many

people are following you and excited to work on the things that you're kind of trying to get them to work on. So that's very cool. Along the same lines, when you think about PMs that had kind of an inflection point in their career, do you find that there's anything correlated with something that leads to a large inflection in the progress of someone's career, where they all of a sudden start doing incredibly better? I've gone through a few inflection points myself and almost always there have happened because, you know, something in the organization changed, so I got a shot, right? So there's always that like luck factor going back to the first question that we discussed, right? But generally speaking, I think the inflection points happen

in two places. One is when someone has really successfully changed the dynamic or the trajectory rather, of a particular product. That's a huge inflection point, right? And that doesn't happen very often, right? To be fair, but when it happens, you know it, right? You know as a leader, this person worked on this, and they actually let this change, and now we are playing a different game, right?

We are playing a bigger game, we are playing a different game, you know, all of that kind of stuff. So, in other words, what I'm saying is the inflection point for a career is correlated strongly with the inflection point in the product, right? And if you can connect those, the cause and effect, if there's causality and not just correlation, if there's causality in that, I think that absolutely means that, hey, you've got a winner, and you really want to bet on them and give them a lot more to do because they have the ability to do it. So that's one.

The second is, oftentimes as people go up in their career, they start managing teams, right? So they become a manager, and then you become a manager of managers, and then, you know, you become more senior. And that's kind of the organizational sort of trajectory that happens. And one reflection point that I've seen is when you go from being a manager, a first-line manager, to becoming a manager of managers, and if you're able to navigate that with very strong effectiveness, then you know, if you're their manager or if you're their leader, you know, okay, this person has got their act together, right? Because managing ICs is so different from managing managers. because then you now need to create a structure.

You need to be able to determine how much you delegate, how do you coach your managers to do the right thing, right? So if you see somebody making that transition effectively, and you know, I have to get them some time, but you see that, and you know that they are actually doing it, and again, a lot of followership, a lot of other things are happening, good things are happening, then you know they're at that inflection point

where they're ready to take on more. So both product inflection in terms of real output and this sort of management prowess inflection in terms of being able to effectively lead going from one step to another, a manager to becoming a manager of managers. I think those are the two places where I feel like if I see somebody doing well, I know they are ready to kind of put more on to them. So do you find that second piece is kind of this filter for PMs that do well in this manager

manager role and go on to do better and better and then a lot just kind of fall away because they can't handle that? Yeah, I think so. Maybe I'm a little bit more traditionalist on this point. I know there are other schools of thought on this, which I respect, which is there are a lot of times where people are like, well, oftentimes the best PMs are PMs who are ICPMs, right? And they just have this crazy, incredible, unbounded energy and they don't want to waste their time on management and whatnot and do that. Because a large part of a PM's

job, by the way, is managing by influence, right? PMs typically don't have large organizations. In fact, one of the most leveraged teams in almost every company, right? Because, you know, you talk about PMNs ratios, PM design ratios, you know, they are never 1-H-2-1 or 1-H-2-5 or 1-6, like sometimes can be 1-issue 10. At Google, it used to be 1-H-2-8 to 1-issue 10, right? So I personally see that transition. If somebody is making that transition successfully,

and they're getting good scores out of it and delivering the product and the output of the team is significant, I definitely see that as a good filter criteria for someone whom we can better. Do you find there's common kind of habits or pitfalls PMs make to kind of shoot themselves in the foot in their career, especially early on. Oh, I see that all the time. So there are a few of the things that I have picked up.

And by the way, I was guilty of doing this too early on and I learned the hard way. The first one I would talk about is you are early in your career and everyone kind of expects you to just manage things and kind of manage the process and all of that, make sure that trains are running on time and all of that. By the way, it's really important for early in career PM to understand that that's actually big part of your job, right? Like, let's not over glamorize a PM. A large part of being a PM initially is just basically doing whatever the team needs

you to do. But I think one of the pitfalls of that is if you start putting process over progress, that's a problem, right? What I mean by that is you want to introduce process into almost everything that the team does and not be flexible on shipping things out there and, you know, all the things that can come in the way of progress. So if process is helping progress, great. But if process is hurting progress, you should not be the person saying, no, no, no, no, we can do it because I'm just so married to the process because as a PM, that's what I own, right? I mean, as a PM, you don't write code

typically. You don't write design specs. You write product specs. So sometimes you feel like, what is the kind of set of attributes that I own, especially early in career PMs? And you're like, I own this process. I own this weekly stand-up meeting or I own this sprint planning or whatever. And then you get so married to it that you kind of forget the fact that, hey, you know, that's just a means to an end, and the end is what you're going to be actually measured on, right? So that's one mistake that I see people making early on. The second one is, like, becoming really too self-centered, right? It's all about me, not the team.

I'm the PM. You know, there's this myth that keeps going on. The PM is the CEO of the product. That's like one of the, you know, most incorrect things in the world, right? The PM is an enabler, right? I said earlier, it's a leverage job. So, you know, your job is to, like, really make the team successful. you have to have the product thinking and the roadmap and all of that.

But sometimes this can go to their head. Then people become too self-centered and that's a red flag. And then the third one would be just not admitting your mistakes or learning from them. Early in career, the only thing you should optimize for is learning. Sure, you'll make a lot of mistakes. You know, you don't know much yet. You've just sort of come into this journey and you should be humble and you should be learning and you should be saying, oops, you know, I screwed up over here.

And that's okay. That's fine. And by the way, if you work in a company where that is not accepted, you should not work in that company, right? Like, what's the point? Right? You should really be optimizing for learning and learning from other people. And people should be saying, yeah, don't worry.

It's okay. You made the mistake. Learn from it. Don't make the mistake again. That's fine. But that's the kind of culture you want to choose for yourself, right? So those are the three kind of pitfalls that I see people get into, especially early on in the career.

You touched on how different companies work in different ways and look for different things and different PMs. And something I wanted to ask you is just to kind of chat a bit about the difference between working at Google versus Uber versus Microsoft kind of like as a PM and also just generally how product is built differently at these companies. It's something I'm trying to do with this podcast as much as possible. It's just kind of give an overview of what product is like at different companies. And you've worked at three of the biggest. And so I'm curious to hear what you can share around that. Yeah, it's actually really interesting.

I mean, all the three companies are so different. So Google, the DNA, the core DNA, of the company was very much engineering, right? And in fact, there used to be a framework which was around technology insights drive innovation. So it was always about what is the best tech we can come up with, which is going to indeed drive innovation and sort of have a longish view so that the market will get there. Right. So that was the Google philosophy, always, right? And as a PM, your job at Google, and it might have changed in the last six, seven years that I've not been there, but at least when I was there from 2008 to 2015, especially working

in Google Maps, it was all about how do you take good long-term bets, grounded in strong technical insights, and then use the power of Google search distribution to really get your product out there. Right? That was it, right? Like on the Maps team, our innovation was pretty much around, crowdsourcing everyone's location signals for traffic. Huge, huge accomplishment, right? We have the best traffic models in the world. And then being able to do this crazy route optimization for driving directions, right? And then on top of that, we have the search stack, which came from Google search anyway, right,

so that you can search for any address, any business, and so on. So anyway, so as a PM, it was partnering very closely with engineers and, like, really amplifying the engineer's ideas and so on. And I think at that point also, a lot of Google PMs are very technical, very, very technical, because that was just part of the course. It was expected that you will be able to at least have engineering discussions, a large part of what I did as a PM at Google, especially initially was getting into the technical details with my engineers and really geeking out on what we can do. So that was the Google kind of model. By the way, one thing I should say about Google before I go to Google. And Google as a PM, at least all the way up to the time, even when I became a director, I never had to think about.

business models, man. Like, never, right? It was fascinating, right? You were in this sort of weird state where you could just build and have the consumer traction and all of that, but you never thought about P&L, you know, never thought about revenue and so on. And then I landed at Uber, which was very different. Uber was very operations, very business driven, very PNL. In fact, one of the most incredible things that Uber did was they had a dashboard which every employee in the company could look at and it had like last week's revenue, last week's, you know, a number of trips that we did and you could slice and dice it and, you know, all of that. I think that changed over time as it became a public company and so on. But like the point was that it was really in your face

all the time. Like when there were weekly newsletters sent out, it was all about growth. It was all about business, you know, all of that kind of stuff. So it was very operational and business. So as a PM over there, it was a lot about managing a bunch more stakeholders, right? with the operations teams, the marketing teams, the policy teams, and so on, and kind of how do you sort of work with them to deploy your product into each of these markets? And of course, then a large chunk of your work was still working with the engineering team.

So it was different in that sense. And I think at Uber, the other thing was it was also much more of a real-time business, right? I mean, Google was also real-time. Google Maps was real-time. Billions of users were using it. But Uber was like every day, you know, there was something going on in the market

and you had to kind of keep on that hustle, right, in terms of like, how do you sort of make sure that your sync competitive, your product is working well, there are no outages, you know, all of that kind of stuff was really important. And then finally on Microsoft, I mean, Microsoft has been around for quite a while, right? And the company went through so many different things. And then over the last several years, especially under Satya's leadership, it has done so well, like incredibly well, right, in terms of how the company has changed the culture, the kind of products that they have in the market, the traction they have in the market. And I think I would describe Microsoft as both first and foremost, it's a very strong tech company.

Like, the engineers here are incredible. Like, oh my God, I am so privileged to work with some of the best engineers that I work with in my career. And at the same time, there's a lot of legacy, right? There are a lot of products that I've been around for a really long time, which is good and bad, right? The good part is that they have seen pretty much every pattern there is to see. And in fact, they came up with a lot of those patterns themselves. The bad part sometimes can be that change is hard, right? So how you sort of convince people

that we're going to go down a different path? So as a PM, a lot of it is around bringing outside in perspective, bringing clarity of like, hey, this is how it has actually worked somewhere else, being a special example, trying it out and, you know, see how that works. And the final thing I would say about it is, the company is so grounded in trust. If there's one word that I would say about Microsoft is trust, right? They really care a lot about customers.

Customers trust Microsoft a lot. I've been in some of the customer meetings myself. And I can totally hear what customers say. Like, it's all about trust. They expect, you know, resilience. They expect the products to work. And they expect that when they have a problem in the surface and Microsoft will take care of it. Right.

So they've built that over time. Right. So a lot of that kind of goes into your mind as a PM when you're working in that company, that a lot of the stuff that we're doing here is to really help our customers. Going back to your point about company product fit, like these cultures and the way they work just fits perfectly with the thing they end up building. And I wonder which one comes. first. It's true. And you know, that's a whole other conversation we can have at some point,

but I have a lot of thoughts on that. But like, I'll just echo what you just said, which is, that's the reason why it's so important for companies when they embark on new initiatives, right? To be really, really thoughtful that is this the right area for us to get into because, or rather, what are the conditions and the reasons why we're getting into something? We have to be super clear on that because if the starting conditions are not right, then you will just trash the team, right? The team will keep working on something and people will never find the right internal fit.

So that's super important. You worked on Google Maps and Uber, which I imagine you still use often and maybe billions of people you use every day. Is there a feature that you wish they built back when you were on the team or that you think should be killed that annoys you about either of those products?

Wow, okay. This is a super interesting one. So I don't know if that's something that I could have built at Google Maps, But one of the things that's interesting is the self-driving technology has just not gotten there fast enough. And I feel like the best and brightest actually worked on it and are still working on it. And it will get there. I'm a big believer.

But of course, the timelines have shifted for various reasons because, you know, it is a really hard problem. It's actually really interesting to see what Cruise is doing right now, you know, in SF. They have started the pilots and so on. So I'm really happy to see some progress happening. I know we've been doing a bunch of this already. But it would have been amazing. You know, one of the things that we used to talk about all the time at Google on Maps was how would we design a navigation product when people are in cell driving parts, right?

And we have some really interesting ideas at that point. But, you know, we never got to it, not because we didn't prioritize it, but, you know, the technology isn't there. So I still kind of keep a close watch on that and see at what point are we going to get there. It's going to take years. But it's just such a different pattern. right? It's like computers talking to computers, algorithms talking to algorithms. And then there's a human in the mix in terms of like serving the human at the end, but it's like the human is not initiating that much. It's just like kind of stuff is happening around it. Right. So anyway,

so that's one thing that is like unfinished business, if you will, right, in my mind, right? And hopefully as the technology comes together, you know, that will happen. Amazing. Monique, you've been extremely generous with your time. Just two last quick questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to reach out maybe or learn more about what you're doing. And then how can listeners be useful to you? Yeah. So you can find me on Twitter. You can find me on LinkedIn. Those are the two places. I have not been very active on both those recently. I've not been active as a contributor, but I'm very active on those two platforms as a consumer. So if you have any questions, if you have any thoughts, I would love to hear from you. So please send me a note. In terms of how listeners can be

helpful, I just want to learn what's new and what's out there, right? I've had the privilege of being in these incredible companies. The reason why I'm still doing what I'm doing is because I still want to learn. And if there are better patterns out there that you're seeing particularly around how to build products, I would love to know if there are other ways people think about finding product market fit, because that's such an elusive thing that I just keep thinking a lot about. So if you have some techniques, some tips, some best practices that you have learned and it has worked for you, please, please, please reach out to me.

I would love to learn that because it's so important for us to, keep having that conversation. Awesome. It's always such a pleasure chatting. I always learn a ton, and this did not disappoint. So thank you again for being here. Lennie, thank you so much for asking all these questions and giving me the opportunity to share my learnings over the years. Thank you. Absolutely, my pleasure. That was awesome. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the chat, don't forget to subscribe to the podcast. You could also learn more at lenniespodcast.com. I'll see in the next episode.