The four attributes I've identified in the best "product guys" are these:
* They "get it" - they are master analyzers in their field. This lets them critique quickly and effectively. People who don't "get it" are hard to take seriously and those who do are sought after for their thoughts.
* They're passionate - they are clearly energized about their field and its possibilities. When they criticize work, it motivates even better work, rather than throwing a wet blanket on it.
* They have a definite critical opinion - they know what they're looking for and criticize freely. They don't temper their critique to be accepted, to seem friendly, to look sophisticated or to make more money.
* They focus on the right things - they offer specific criticism, picking apart something for its strengths and weaknesses. They aren't satisfied with just telling you their general opinion -- they start in with "Here's what I didn't like..."
It took me a while to realize that PG is not just an insightful thinker but an all-star product guy. Then again, I think that's also because he has focused so intently on developing as one. Maybe he was merely good when he started YC but by now he's a master.
I also think it's amusing how wildly deprecating the title "product guy" is for the tremendously valuable ability displayed by people like Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, John Lasseter or even Paul Erdős.
I think the last thing you mentioned hits it on the head ( wildly deprecating the title "product guy"). Seems to me that were there an engineering discipline that included understanding customers, we'd have some awesome engineers. Right now the current engineer + mba model in education doesn't seem to quite fit that. Maybe product people just are inherently autodidacts.
Comments
The four attributes I've identified in the best "product guys" are these:
* They "get it" - they are master analyzers in their field. This lets them critique quickly and effectively. People who don't "get it" are hard to take seriously and those who do are sought after for their thoughts.
* They're passionate - they are clearly energized about their field and its possibilities. When they criticize work, it motivates even better work, rather than throwing a wet blanket on it.
* They have a definite critical opinion - they know what they're looking for and criticize freely. They don't temper their critique to be accepted, to seem friendly, to look sophisticated or to make more money.
* They focus on the right things - they offer specific criticism, picking apart something for its strengths and weaknesses. They aren't satisfied with just telling you their general opinion -- they start in with "Here's what I didn't like..."
It took me a while to realize that PG is not just an insightful thinker but an all-star product guy. Then again, I think that's also because he has focused so intently on developing as one. Maybe he was merely good when he started YC but by now he's a master.
I also think it's amusing how wildly deprecating the title "product guy" is for the tremendously valuable ability displayed by people like Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, John Lasseter or even Paul Erdős.
I think the last thing you mentioned hits it on the head ( wildly deprecating the title "product guy"). Seems to me that were there an engineering discipline that included understanding customers, we'd have some awesome engineers. Right now the current engineer + mba model in education doesn't seem to quite fit that. Maybe product people just are inherently autodidacts.
Paul Erdos product guy?
I think of Steve Jobs and PG as brilliant creatives who are great entrepreneurs.
When I think "product guy" I think "used to be mediocre programmer guy".
Okay, I think "product guy" may have become a purely disparaging term.
I have seen "product guy" as just a role that denoted a leadership of creators involved in new product development, whatever the field.
I guess there needs to be some other term for it then.