Lenny Rachitsky: belief

Transcript context

…I think the reason why so many PMs ask for those middle range questions is because they haven't really gotten deep with their researcher in a way which can leverage it for maximum impact. So if the question is like, "Hey, Judd, you just pointed out a bunch of problems, can you be more solutions oriented?" Well, the solution is simple but not easy to me. It's that we need to restructure the way we make products in a way which integrates research much more fully. It looks like consistent relationships in which researchers, and the work, and the insights they provide are a part of the process from beginning to end. And I think, Lenny, you as a PM, that's how you worked. I remember you, I know who you worked with. You worked with great researchers. But honestly, most product processes are not that way. And so that's when research is a service function. It gets called in right at the end. It's reactive in the sense that a researcher in the room listening and participating in the conversation could have a ton of impact on framing exactly the right question that will drive maximum business impact, maximum product improvement at that moment, and then go do it quick, and get back, and we're onto the next. But they weren't there, the relationship wasn't there. They're not engaged in the project from the beginning. And that's the number one root of the problem. As long as research is a service discipline, I think we're going to be stuck in this spot. When people might be hearing this, on the one hand, it's research has been not as helpful to teams as they thought, and researchers have been spending time on the wrong thing. On the other hand, your advice is integrate research from the beginning, make them more involved throughout. And I think that might confuse people. How should people think about, like, "Research is actually more important? You should integrate them more deeply." There's a vicious cycle that's been happening, is from where I sit, and this is what I hear from many, many researchers and research leaders, which is a lot of companies hired a lot of researchers with great intentions, didn't quite know how to integrate them. And UX research is a newer discipline, so maybe that's not surprising. We're still learning how to use it. "Cool, let's evolve." But a lot of companies hired these people, but they hired them into kind of like a service discipline, very reactive, not in the room, not integrated in the way I said. And so they had less input on the questions to ask, or they're included, but only at the end. And then they're unable to build those direct relationships, to be there in the room to actually drive the questions and insert insights. Because a good researcher is like the repository of insights you need for growth, but they're not there. They don't participate in the decision. So they end up doing research. They have jobs to do, so they do research that is too reactive, it doesn't matter, and then it's less impactful. Executives conclude that therefore researchers are not as impactful and then they get sidelined or laid off and the cycle continues. So I think the short circuit is the constant engagement. If you take a great researcher and you insert them consistently in a product process, I feel confident that researcher will drive a product improvement, metrics impact, growth, all the things that you want to see as a PM and a product leader. It's just that's the exception, not the norm these days.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.