An excerpt from the white paper entitled "Business Anthropology and the Culture of Product Managers."

Brand or product management was born from intense, sustained and rigorous trial and error in the market research department at the giant consumer packaged goods company, Procter & Gamble.  In 1931, D. Paul "Doc" Smelser, a PhD economist from Johns Hopkins University and the head of the new unit at Procter & Gamble, called the Market Research Department, hired female college graduates to conduct fieldwork.  He sent them door to door to survey homemakers about their use of all kinds of household products and their usage patterns in a method akin to anthropological customer ethnography.  Within several years, the size of the department's staff grew to around 34 with dozens of field researchers.  The first brand to incorporate these market research methods in the product design process was Camay soap (Dyer et al. 2004).


In a P&G company memo written by McElroy on May 13, 1931 (McElroy, 1931) he outlined what he felt the duties and responsibilities of the "brand men" should be.  He assigned them the task of studying and analyzing the brand history and instructed them to "study the territory personally," both the dealers and the customers. 


McElroy's (McElroy, 1931) memo laid the groundwork for a reorganization and shift from a geographically aligned sales perspective to one oriented around the brands.  This resulted in a fundamental restructuring of P&G to its core (Dyer et al, 2004).  John Pepper (Pepper 2005), former P&G chairman of the board, president and CEO, states "responsibility and accountability for discreet business units were assigned to separate organizations" by Neil McElroy, when he helped create the brand management system in the 1930s (p. 305).   Procter & Gamble (Dyer et al, 2004) brand managers assumed responsibility for the coordination of all activities and tasks involving their brand. Far more than just marketing, the brand managers would also coordinate product development and field sales.  

As a result of this comprehensive training, from McElroy forward, every one of P&G's chief executives would hold the positions of assistant brand manager and brand manager on their way up the executive ladder.  The discipline of brand management forms the very culture of P&G and shapes its landscape.  It has has been emulated in a variety of forms within companies from every sector all over the world.  In a recent article, Tyagi and Sawhney (2010) state that "product management is the most common organizational mechanism to manage products, relative to other mechanisms like a functional structure or key account management" (Howley, 1988; Skenazy, 1987; Workman, Homburg and Jenson, 2003 as cited in Tyagi & Sawhney, 2010).

Shared Challenges

In the 1980s (Dyer at al, 2004) P&G discovered a way to improve upon the brand management system.  Procter & Gamble sought to redirect the internal competition between brand managers, outward toward competitors and the new focus was on teamwork.  David Swanson, the senior vice president of engineering began using cross-functional (read cross-cultural) teams to speed up product development, improve product quality and trim costs.  This cross-functional team system set up what would become one of the greatest challenges for brand and product managers.  

According to Gemmill and Wilemon (1972) product managers are often assigned profit responsibilities for their product(s) but not given authority over the cross-functional team units on which they depend in order to carry out those responsibilities. 



Paula Gray
the anthropologist


"My goal is to use anthropology to better understand human behavior in all of its settings, whether those settings be an isolated village in the Himalayas or a corporate office in New York City."

The entire white paper can be accessed at http://www.aipmm.com/html/newsletter/archives/000437.php Dyer, D., Dalzell, F., Olegario, R., (2004)  Rising Tide:  Lessons from 165 Years of Brand Building at Procter & Gamble.  Boston, MA:  Harvard Business School Press

Gemmill, G., & Wilemon, D., (1972)  The product manager as an influence agent.  Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 (January 1972).

McElroy, N. (1931)  Procter & Gamble company memo, May 13, 1931.

Pepper, J.  (2005)  What Really Matters.  Cincinnati, OH:  Procter & Gamble Company.

Tyagi, R., & Sawhney, M. (2010)  High-performance product management:  The impact of structure, process, competencies and role definition.  Journal of Product Innovation Management 2010: 27

In previous posts (as well as in ProductCamp and conference sessions) I've mentioned the various professional tribes within organizations and the challenging dynamic they present to an observant, socially-curious product manager. I've also suggested ways in which a product manager can thrive in the complex social environment and bridge gaps across the different vocabularies and views that the various professional tribes hold. An underlying assumption in my proposals has been that despite differences, the overall intentions of the tribes basically align to the good of all, or can be encouraged to align. What if they can't?

We like to believe that we operate socially, if not with angelic beneficence, at least with informed self-interest. We inherit this perspective from the Enlightenment, "systems thinking", and widely accepted (at least until recently!) models of the marketplace. As busy and pragmatic product managers, we may hold on to the convenient assumption that, whatever their differences, the various professional tribes we rely on - that the entire company relies on - are rational and will act in their own long term benefit. Given that we are all in the same revenue and profit "boat", no one would deliberately poke holes in the hull, right? No, not deliberately, at least not in the belief they are poking holes in the boat, but perhaps deliberately poking holes in another tribe you rely on. For them, the boat taking on water may be just an unintended consequence of undermining their perceived adversaries.


While I am a huge fan of employing social, collaborative, and semantic clarification techniques to align tribes in the pursuit of a successful product, I have to recognize the limits of these techniques. They can certainly help achieve a shared meaning within a project if the biggest issues are simply misunderstandings. They cannot, however, do much about genuine and heartfelt distrust, disrespect or antagonism between tribes within the same organization. Part of the reason true antagonism cannot be talked away is that it often has a rational basis of its own. For example, incentive programs in many organizations lag far behind their evolving priorities, so that while you, as a product manager, may clearly see the destination, some groups may have no clear incentive to help you get there.

So what to do if you suspect that your success as a product manager is being threatened by a clash between groups that a finely honed team glossary won't fix? Your options depend on your position and your relationships with the relevant executives.

If you are an executive, surely you've got the relationships and influence to deal with it directly, from disciplining and coaching individuals, up to and including re-organization.

If you are not an executive, it is going to be an uphill battle, but not necessarily a hopeless one if you have good relationships with managers and executives. A frank discussion with your own manager may: 1. Alert your them to a problem they weren't aware of, and/or 2. Educate you to contributing factors you weren't aware of. In any case, your first hope is to have your manager, or another management ally, escalate the issue to a level at which it can be addressed. This is only likely if you are perceived as trustworthy and not prone to crying wolf. If you are going to raise the red flag, make sure you that you have good information on both the issue and your recommendation for ameliorating it.

Hopefully you can protect your product and make your work life more enjoyable by bringing attention to inter-tribal conflict in your organization. But if, in spite all your best efforts at lobbying, escalating and suggesting, the organization makes no movement in addressing an issue of this magnitude, you have to reconsider your role. Is the organization serious about how its groups work together? Do they understand the connections between the belief in a common set of goals and the achievement of those goals? Or have the measures of department-level metrics disconnected the organization's fundamental value proposition from its day-to-day functioning? Given how challenging product management is considering the external forces alone, can you continue to thrive in such a situation?

A few thoughts to take with you:

• While a significant part of product management success is driven from your ability to understand, clarify, and communicate product goals across different professional tribes, clarity alone can't overcome genuine antagonism between them.
• If you do not have the authority to address this kind of issue directly, effective escalation requires your thoughtful action, credibility and good relationships with those who can truly address it.
• If those who can address the issue won't, you need to reconsider if you can succeed where you are.

Trevor Rotzien
the product manager

Yes, we walk bipedally, we think in abstract terms and we can do integral calculus, but just maybe we might have something to learn from our primate cousins, the Bonobo.  Bonobos (Pan paniscus), also called pygmy or gracile chimpanzees share more than 98% of the same genetic material (DNA) with humans. 

Frans De Waal asserts in his book Our Inner Ape (De Waal 2005) that Bonobos represent humankind's noblest qualities;  kindness, generosity and altruism.  He contrasts Bonobos who are gentle, loving and, how shall we state this, rather friendly with the more aggressive, territorial Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).  Where Bonobos are considered mellow, Chimpanzees can have contests for male dominance that are so forceful and frequent that males have been described as having demonic streaks (Goodall, 1986; Wrangham and Peterson, 1996).

De Waal further explains how chimpanzees and Bonobos exhibit marked differences in social behavior.  He notes that when studying animal behavior, students are accustomed to ranking individuals from low to high based on their level of dominance within the group.  This task comes easily when studying male Chimpanzees and Baboons or the females of many of the Old World monkey species.  (Side note: the idea of social rankings was discovered in the 1920s in domestic fowl when the direction of attacks among hens was studied - this is where the term pecking order comes from).

In addition to the resulting dominance that arises from conflict, many species exhibit status displays that function similarly to a military uniform that clearly signals an individual's rank.  A dominant male Chimpanzee will make himself look bigger by raising his hair and standing straight upright and the lower ranking subordinate male will grovel about in the dust uttering pants and grunts.  What makes Bonobos unique is their lack of these structured rituals of dominance and subordination.  This offers insight into how unimportant status and rank must be in their society.

I know many reading this may find these displays of dominance vaguely familiar.  Who hasn't seen some of these contests for dominance within teams?  Though we know this dominance structure exists, could teams evolve to lose it?  Could we learn from the Bonobo and drop the struggle to be dominant?  How would that change the way we get things done? If there were less energy and focus on who holds the power, could we focus more on what needs to be accomplished?

The struggle for dominance, status and rank within a team wastes precious time and can be counterproductive.  Though a dominant individual may appear relaxed when their status is secure, they may also resort to aggressive behavior when challenged.  This may turn into outright bullying of less dominant individuals and those individuals may lose their voice in the team. 

As a team leader, it is important to temper the dominant behavior of team members to allow input and participation from the entire group.  Your sharpest team member may very well be your quietest.


"Of the millions of pages written over the centuries about human nature, none are as bleak as those of the last three decades - and none as wrong"

Paula Gray
the anthropologist

As a product manager, have words ever gotten you down? Or, more precisely, has the lack of shared meaning of words used by the team - even ostensibly shared words - appeared unexpectedly and disastrously like an iceberg in the mist?

At the most recent Product Management Educational Conference (PMEC), Paula and I facilitated a session on the importance of a common team vocabulary, and the dire consequences of not establishing one upfront for every project.

Why is it so common for projects to proceed without establishing shared meaning first? The answer is two-fold: The upstream effort is not insignificant, and comprehending the consequences isn't straightforward. At the start, downstream consequences are difficult to forecast and are easy to put out of mind. At the end, it is difficult to evaluate impacts of unshared meaning in retrospect.

Why is it worth it to confront unshared meaning within a project even if the challenge is easy to deflect and the risks are not easily quantifiable? We should deal with this because the dangers are real and we know it. Even without quantitative tools, anyone who has spent any time working on challenging projects with multidisciplinary teams has direct experience of unshared meaning. In your past projects, think of the cumulative effect of every avoidable misunderstanding, of every requirement missed, of every heated debate that burned up hours when in fact agreement had already been achieved, and ask yourself how much of this unconstructive controversy boiled down to a simple difference of definition?

Better statisticians than me may have developed ways to measure the quantitative cost of misunderstandings in the workplace, but my direct experiences offer up more than enough  compelling examples to convince me. I imagine yours do as well. What would you imagine the cumulative dollar cost might be, even if not all projects fail completely?

Certainly the exercises we asked our session participants to undertake were object lessons in just how elusive shared meaning is when specialists attempt to work together. I found it fascinating to overhear the teams struggle, albeit with some success, at quickly generating shared definitions for a series of innocent looking terms: "Product Management", "Customer", "Successful Product", "Timely", and "Freedom". (Admittedly, that last one was a wildcard!).

Along with anecdotes from our work histories, the exercise highlighted why a systematic approach to achieving shared meaning at the beginning of projects is not easy but is so valuable.

Am I simply talking about putting together a glossary for the project? That's part of it, but there's more. What I am suggesting is that once the team is defined, we very deliberately and explicitly recognize the root causes of unshared meaning as a team, admit where our team is vulnerable, and share in the solution.

At the end of the session exercises, Paula and I shared a brief, but rich, guide to establishing a Team Rosetta Stone. The overall process includes:

• Identify Need
• Build Draft
• Provide Access
• Utilize Consistently
• Review and Revise

For much more detail, help yourself to a copy of the handout.

Of course, this process can't stand alone; it needs to be integrated with your project's life-cycle.

Does this challenge ring true for you? Do you have any horror stories to share? What solutions have you employed to achieve and maintain shared meaning and avoid unconstructive controversy to the benefit of your products?

Trevor Rotzien

the product manager

Human beings are social animals. Our lives depend on other humans. Human infants are born unable to transport or care for themselves. Their survival depends on another human's efforts. We develop and learn about the world around us through the filter of other people. Our connections to others are key to not only our survival, but also to our happiness and the success of our careers.

I'm reading an excellent book titled "Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives" (2009) by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler. They delve into the social theory underlying the impact that our social networks have on our lives. The bottom line is that we are influenced by, and we are able to influence, people up to three degrees removed from us. With that thought in mind, now look at your social network within three degrees from yourself. Are these the people you want shaping nearly every aspect of your life? Does this group have enough depth and breadth? Should you expand this group?

One way to grow your social network, especially benefiting your career, is to join a professional association. Once you do, you must decide how to utilize that membership to gain the greatest value. Some people believe an association membership is something that is passively done to them, rather than an active starting point for their own action. Being an active member in a professional association can:

• Open doors to new opportunities
• Connect you with like-minded individuals
• Connect you with respected colleagues holding differing opinions or perspectives
• Provide a venue to share solutions
• Land you your next job
• Even set you apart as a thought leader

It is all in how you use it to your advantage.

You can also gain additional credibility and recognition as a product manager by writing and submitting articles, which you can do from anywhere in the world, or participate in online board or forums. You can volunteer at local or regional events. Or you can volunteer to mentor a "newbie" in the field.

As competition continues to be fierce in the job market, with many applicants from great universities with advanced degrees and experience, one factor that can set you apart is your professional social network. An extensive network is a resource from which you can draw at will. Consider these people your eyes and ears on the ground. Whether you meet in a terrestrial based regional group, or expand to connect globally via the internet, the success of your connections will be based on the amount of effort you put in.

I consider one's social network as a definite career asset. What is your social net worth? Are you wealthy, barely breaking even, or bankrupt?


"While social networks are fundamentally and distinctively human, and ubiquitous, they should not be taken for granted."