In the first study, we interviewed 20 Israeli product managers to obtain insights into the social and business values product managers employ in their daily work and the organizational, professional, and personal attitudes related to these values.
3.1 Method
We developed a set of open-ended questions to ensure uniformity in the data collection process while accommodating an exploratory inquiry into personal experiences. Although the interviews possessed the flexibility to adapt to the natural progression of the conversation, they adhered to a structured guide that encompassed five principal domains: the conceptualization of the product manager role, ethical quandaries, pertinent case studies and exemplars, motivational factors and challenges, and criteria evaluated during job transitions or recruitment processes (the full interview questions can be found in Appendix
A.1).
To ensure a diverse range of participants, we used a multi-step approach for recruitment that included peer recommendations, informal networks, and targeted outreach on LinkedIn. Our final participant group comprised experienced product managers from various tech sectors such as ad tech, ed-tech, and fin-tech (see Table
3 for the full details on the participants’ demographics and industry). These professionals had backgrounds in B2B, B2C, and B2B2C products (which we labeled as 2-sided markets in the table), and most had studied computer science. The group had a balanced gender representation, with 12 men and 8 women. Interviewees were not paid and were mainly motivated by wanting to share their personal experiences and professional dilemmas. The Institutional Ethics Review Board approved our study protocol
1. To protect the participants’ privacy, we have asked our participants not to provide specific details about their customers, projects, or companies, which may go against their employment contracts. We have also obfuscated professional demographic details and several details from their quotes.
Our study focuses on Israeli practitioners for several reasons. Firstly, Israel’s significant role in the global software startup ecosystem is well-documented [
22]. Israel has emerged as a central hub for computer software, information and communication technologies, electro-optics, and cybersecurity in the past thirty years. Notably, it boasts the highest per capita startup presence globally, with over 9,300 active high-tech companies as of 2022, including 91 unicorns [
80]. The high-tech sector accounts for 9% of Israel’s total employment and 12% in the business sector, surpassing the OECD average and leading the organization in these metrics [
45]. Our sample includes employees from globally influential companies and emerging startups, showcasing Israel’s dynamic tech ecosystem and its global impact. Secondly, existing literature often shows a North American bias in ethnographic studies of technology practitioners [
3,
26]. By including Israeli perspectives, our study contributes to a more geographically diverse understanding of this field.
We conducted interviews on a video conferencing platform, typically lasting around 60 minutes. With participants’ consent, we recorded and transcribed the sessions. Recruitment concluded when discussions became repetitive across participants. The team of researchers included a student and a postdoctoral fellow who had academic training in qualitative research, led by a PI with expertise in qualitative research. Initially, two researchers individually coded two different themes of the interviews. A third researcher had overseen the coding and participated in discussions when disagreement occurred.
Our analysis, anchored in an abductive analysis framework [
72], combined several rounds of inductive coding. We began inductive coding after the first ten interviews, adding codes as new rows. We examined each transcript as a cohesive narrative, spotting recurrent themes within and across interviews. Subsequently, these themes were discussed and used to tag relevant text segments, employing descriptive coding [
59]. New inductive codes emerged, relating to categories and themes identified during the initial coding phase. By the 16th interview, new insights fit into existing themes without introducing novel concepts. To confirm data saturation, we conducted four additional interviews. For the findings section, quotes originally in Hebrew were translated to English and edited for clarity, ensuring anonymity by avoiding references to specific products.
3.2 Qualitative Findings
Our analysis revealed several emerging themes capturing the essential aspects of product management value work, which can be described in managing two types of tensions: the tension in the perception of
influence they exercise on the design of the product and the tension between
user-centric values and business interests. Through iterative coding, we were able to identify we observed that participants tended to have a consistent approach towards these tensions, which we modeled as four main strategies, which are visualized in Figure
1.
3.2.1 The Influence Tension.
An ongoing theme in our interviews is the tension between the formal position of product managers and the actual influence they can exercise in their organization. Participants had very different, and sometimes conflicting, views of their abilities to influence the final product outcome. While product managers have a formal position of middle management, the difference between their actual influence over people and outcomes is a constant source of tension. Only 3 participants agreed with the saying that “the Product Manager is the CEO of the Product”. For example, P3 said that “I emphasize with this saying, the role is to construct holistically and to make the product stand.” and that product managers are “Responsible for the product life cycle; they are the god of the product, bringing it to the world and killing it if needed.”
However, most participants have acknowledged that the product manager’s power is a sort of “soft power” [
79], because, almost always, they are not the direct managers of the people who develop the product and that they need to employ sophisticated tactics to carry out their work. Our participants often describe a need to persuade or coerce both their superiors and their peers, mainly developers, to carry out their vision of the product. For example, P2 talked about the downside of not being a direct manager of people:
“The CEO leads the team directly. The Product Manager, though, is in a tricky spot. They’re responsible, but they can’t just order people around. They have to lead without having that direct authority. We’ve got to come up with inventive ways to motivate folks.” (P2)
Similarly, other participants, such as P18, described the need to convince and provide justifications in the design phase to make the product manager’s vision come to life: “A Product Manager collaborates with their team and doesn’t have the final say. Just like any team member, they need to persuade others.”
3.2.2 The User-Centricity Tension.
The second tension participants reported is in conflicts between business interests and user-centric values. Several interviewees had seen themselves as central players in tension; for example, P4 said, “Product managers have superpowers, and it’s their choice whether to use them for good or otherwise’. These conflicts arise mainly in meetings in which requirements for software product features are analyzed and prioritized. In these situations, participants have mentioned conflicts between revenue and social values such as transparency (P6, P18, and P20), user manipulation (P9, P11, P12, P15), infringing on user privacy (P2, P13, P14, and P20), not repairing accidental user actions (P1 and P3), delaying payments to customers (P9), and user addiction to the product (P9).
In analyzing how our participants navigated these conflicts, we observed that a minority involved simple revenue trade-offs between the company and its customers. However, the majority of conflicts presented multifaceted ethical and business dilemmas. The conflict often revolves around design choices that achieve short-term profits while neglecting user-wellbeing that can then jeopardize long-term business goals. For example, P3 described how they could influence:
“We used long term KPI [Key Performance Indicator] – we must save ourselves from ourselves.” (P3)
Such complexities were particularly pronounced in multi-sided markets, where the consumer is not always the primary stakeholder, which may be the service provider. In such scenarios, various types of users engage with the company in distinct ways, financially and otherwise. Specifically, participants P10 and P20 highlighted instances where they grappled with prioritizing the needs of paying customers over those of non-paying users. In situations requiring product managers to balance the interests of different user groups, finding a clear-cut solution to the conflict proves elusive.
Most conflicts revolve around user needs and well-being. However, two participants mentioned the tension between automation and traditional businesses, where automation can deliver a competitive offering to users, harming and wiping out traditional services. This tension surfaced with two participants (P4 and P17). P17 has surfaced the same tension and described that they could “break the market by introducing much lower prices” with technology. P4 reflected that “I overcame this tension by setting a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) that measures the portion of customers that have historically used the traditional service”.
3.3 Strategies of Product Managers
Product managers must formulate a strategy that aligns with their personal beliefs, organizational values, and professional standards to operate effectively amid these complexities. A strategy is a pattern of decision-making actions, which ’develops out of a continuous, interactive learning process involving managers throughout the organization’ [
21]. The theoretical framework was inspired by Floyd and Wooldridge’s typology for middle-management decision-making, which broadens the idea of a strategy beyond high-level executive decisions to encompass the influence of middle management [
81]. We adapted the framework to the type of decision-making product managers need to make as middle managers, with respect to the amount of power they have in the organization (influence) and their attitude towards the users (user-centricity). Each strategy allowed them to position themselves in a way that best fit their values, the values of their organization, and their own position in the organization. To implement that strategy, product managers employ specific tactics to influence others to implement their product vision and explain their positions to development teams and management.
Through iterative coding of our data, we discerned four distinct strategies that product managers employ to navigate these dual tensions. These strategies manifested consistently across various responses from the participants. They highlight both commonalities and divergences in the viewpoints of our interview subjects. Strategies are not mutually exclusive, and product managers may mix and match different approaches depending on the context. Generally, each participant favored a primary strategy, which enabled them to align their actions and decisions with their professional orientation, role, and status within the organization.
3.3.1 Activist.
The Activist strategy prioritizes social values, particularly the well-being of users, over business interests and a stronger perception of influence. Activist product managers will report on prioritizing and actively fighting for users’ well-being, social values, and professional norms when facing conflicts between business interests. For example, P3’s quote “It was clear to me that we would not charge for our service in advance, only after the customer gets the expected outcome. Risk vs. trust” is an example of having a firm belief about how to resolve a design conflict that encourages trust in users but adds some additional financial risk for the company.
The company mission and culture may sometimes support the Activist strategy and sometimes derail it. For example, P10 and P18 reflect a decision made in the user’s favor at the company revenue’s expense. For them, the fact that this type of event did not even start a discussion relates to the company’s mission and culture:
“In our business ecosystem, I was faced with a dilemma: Should I prioritize the experience of our end-users, that of our paying partners, or the company’s revenue? I harmed the company’s revenue to improve the user experience while still working within our partners’ boundaries. The decision seemed straightforward. In hindsight, it might’ve stirred debate, but no one raised concerns. Given our company’s steadfast mission to serve our users, this kind of decision isn’t typically questioned. Harming the user for revenue just doesn’t sit right with us.” (P10)
However, activist product managers often face challenges in promoting this approach in companies whose side is stronger than their values. They often report on their need to actively fight for social values and user well-being in the design and feature prioritization of the product. P15 reflects mixed feelings around applying a feature that felt wrong to roll out and the unsuccessful organizational case that she and her colleagues have tried to make in order to cancel it:
“For the user, this is a small price; for the company, this is a huge profit. When this request came from the management, the team initiated a ‘war’ against it. We felt uncomfortable; it just felt wrong. There were discussions about not releasing it, but finally, management put their foot down.” (P15)
Activist product managers may use a variety of tactics to push for social values. These tactics may include creating and advocating for Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that prioritize long-term goals, as is highlighted in the following quote:
“You cannot be an asshole to users and get revenue in the long term. I would not present $8M vs. “doing good”. I will show the complexity, actual cases from the Customer Experience team, and cases of how we can damage revenue by choosing an immediate charge.” (P18)
Another tactic is to become a “gatekeeper” for a specific set of values and use user research to advocate for user voices. For example, P3 works in a company that optimizes revenue first. Being an activist in this type of company requires a thick skin. In his words:
“We had a few dilemmas: balancing customer value and harmful experience [to users]. The decision was that this product is viable only if the organic content to ad ratio is high (70% compared to 30% by default). Ever since, I have been a gatekeeper for this decision. I need to act as a silent stakeholder because the users’ voices are not heard.” (P3)
P3’s perspective demonstrates an understanding that while being less aggressive in the short term may result in lower revenue, it will ultimately lead to higher returns in the long run.
Outside regulation and the currency of high ethical standards are also often used to pressure or persuade the company towards a certain design:
“Nobody understood [the regulation]; I studied it, interpreted it, and deeply understood its implications for our customers. Based on it, I made a conscious decision on what to apply and what not in terms of privacy. Being customer-focused, I wanted to provide transparency while complying with regulations. It was much more expensive from a development aspect but was important to me.” (P14)
In this story, P14 tells of how her being the single source of knowledge allowed her to make decisions aligned with her activist approach with no questions asked.
3.3.2 Empathetic.
The Empathetic Strategy is employed by product managers who place social values, user needs, and professional standards ahead of business interests, although they do not consider themselves as influential as activist product managers. While they cannot fully veto decisions that compromise user well-being, they leverage soft power tactics to lessen the adverse effects of such decisions. When articulating their choices, they frequently underscore users’ autonomy in interacting with the system. For instance, P15 discussed her involvement in an A/B testing process that could potentially manipulate customers. She elaborated as follows:
“An idea came from the CFO [about a feature that can be added to the product]. We thought to ourselves - well, people are not that stupid – but it actually showed an increase in revenue. Back in the day, numbers were ’the king’, and we didn’t think of anything else but the data. We’ve set it for a few months, but it felt wrong because it’s against the norms.” (P15)
The product manager deemed it appropriate to release the feature, despite its potentially manipulative nature, trusting users’ discretion to avoid misuse. However, when the feature was measured as successful, it was hard to argue against it. When users’ wellness is not aligned with revenue, empathetic product managers will feel obligated to stick with the managerial terms. In such cases, empathetic product managers will attempt to address the harmful decision by educating users afterward rather than completely reversing it, as described by P20:
“A feature that harms some users and benefits others, I won’t ignore it; I will test it carefully and I will work with the user who got harmed to adjust it.” (P20)
In this example, the participant is aware of an ethical ’red line’ that goes against their values. However, they feel they lack the means to avoid crossing this boundary, so they try to adjust and make minor changes to the feature.
As part of the motivations to prioritize social values and user well-being, participants have quoted career and hiring considerations. Several emphasized the value of being involved in products that have a societal impact. P15 mentioned that in her last job hunt, she was looking to “find a product that [she] would potentially be the user of. That will have a good cause.” As an illustration, P5 stated that “I will never work again on a product that does not do good” and declared that “I would never hire candidates that used to work in gambling companies”.
3.3.3 Institutional.
The Institutional Strategy is marked by a minimal focus on user-centricity, prioritizing business objectives over social values, coupled with a low sense of personal influence. Product managers adopting this approach often express strong trust in their company’s processes and goals, assuming that these will neither harm users nor violate laws or regulations. They commonly delegate the responsibility for ethical and value-based discussions to other departments within the company, most notably legal teams or specialized councils. When questioned about the importance of incorporating social values, P5 responded as follows:
“There are numerous procedures in place to ensure that only ethical decisions are taken. We have strict protocols, and there are definitive legal gates to ensure compliance with privacy standards.” (P5)
Our interviews showed that this approach is predominantly adopted by individuals working in well-established companies. These respondents were generally more reserved in sharing details, often speaking as if they were official spokespersons for their organizations despite assurances of anonymity. They emphasized the company’s established protocols and systems, which alleviate their personal responsibility for making ethical decisions. For example, P11 discussed how product management operates within the framework of their current organization:
“Money drives the company to hire top talent and create quality products. However, as a PM at [company], we don’t have any revenue targets. There are no revenue goals at all in the entire org. The revenue org is separated. Our only goal [for users] is ‘time well spent’.” (P11)
In this scenario, the participant works for a large corporation. He noted that the product and development group is distinctly separate from the sales division. While the sales division is driven by revenue objectives, his department operates independently and is measured by ’time well spent’ on the platform. They are not accountable for, nor measured by, any revenue-related objectives. This quote illustrates how organizational processes and metrics can alleviate the burden of “ethical decision-making” on product managers. This allows them to rely on institutional mechanisms to represent social values rather than on their own.
3.3.4 Hacker.
Product managers who embrace the “hacker strategy” display low levels of user-centric focus but a high sense of personal influence. Their primary objective is to increase revenue and maximize company profits, often at the expense of user well-being. While cognizant of ethical guidelines, they tend to give precedence to business imperatives, even if it means overstepping ethical boundaries. They manage the tension associated with such choices by focusing on personal accomplishments, industry recognition, and the entrepreneurial spirit often associated with startups. To meet their goals, they value deep insights into customer behavior and technology and are often willing to explore ethical ambiguities and take calculated risks. This approach prioritizes organizational profits over user needs and interests. P1 encapsulates this mindset, noting that he frequently operates close to what he describes as the ’ethical red line’:
“Business values often take precedence over ethics, especially when it comes to pricing, payments, and data. We have a rule: if a practice we’re using were to be made public, could we defend it? If we couldn’t, we wouldn’t do it.” (P1)
To achieve their goals, hacker product managers are willing to operate in a gray area take risks and may use tactics such as manipulating costs and payments in favor of the company. A tactic that was evident in some of our interviews is using cynicism as a way to justify their actions. These motivations and tactics demonstrate a prioritization of personal and corporate success over ethical considerations and the needs and interests of others. The justification tactics used by hackers focus on cynical view on how the industry works, e.g., “ this is the way the world works.” (P12), and mentioning of the competition the firm faces from other companies. In our paper, we use the term “hacker” not to denote a technical capability but as a characterization of behavior. Within this framework, a “hacker” product manager is identified by their readiness to operate in close proximity to ethical and legal boundaries to optimize business value. We recognize that this approach may not always conflict with optimizing for user value, appreciating the nuance in the motivations of product managers. If a product manager’s primary motivation is to maximize user value efficiently, they would align more closely with the characteristics of a clever and efficient activist rather than a “hacker.”
“I came up with a feature that rounded up the cost for the [user] while rounding down the payment to the [service provider]. The business team loved it. But when we rolled it out, the [service providers] found out and were furious. We had to shut it down. Fortunately, it didn’t hurt us much because [the service provider] hate our app anyway.” (P12)
These motivations and tactics demonstrate a prioritization of personal and corporate success over ethical considerations and the needs and interests of others. The justification tactics used by hackers focus on cynical view on how the industry works, e.g., “ this is the way the world works.” (P12), and mentioning of the competition the firm faces from other companies.