Comments on: Who is more strategic?

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:01:36 +0000

Sometimes, I am just thinking through my own thoughts publically.

It doesn't matter who has the perceived more strategic role for the same reason it doesn't matter who gets the job done. As long as the strategy is defined and the activities are completed then the team *should* succeed (assumes a good strategy and the right team).

For me, I am still trying to understand the Product Marketing role. When I started this post I was heading in another direction, but at the end I wound up learning a little more about Product Marketing.

Thanks for your 'lesson learned' reminder. I am going to ask myself that question after each post.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:54:16 +0000

Ha! See my reply to Steve above.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:53:09 +0000

Absolutely! We need everyone on board to be successful. Everyone has different skills and goals and if you have too many “strategic” people then you have not done a good job of hiring.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 09:01:36 +0000

Sometimes, I am just thinking through my own thoughts publically.

Thanks for your 'lesson learned' reminder. I am going to ask myself that question after each post.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:54:16 +0000

Ha! See my reply to Steve above.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Tue, 12 May 2009 08:53:09 +0000

Absolutely! We need everyone on board to be successful. Everyone has different skills and goals and if you have too many “strategic” people then you have not done a good job of hiring.

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:24:51 +0000

Where did the topic of this post come from? And why does it matter who is more strategic? Not saying I have an opinion, just wondering what I ultimately should be pulling out of this post as a learning. And I'm busting your 'you know whats'.

By: bob corrigan

bob corrigan — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:19:37 +0000

Here's my best analogy. Think about how you drive a car.

How much of your attention do you focus on looking at the horizon? On what's around you? On the rear-view mirror? On the radio? On the other passengers? On the barking sounds in your head? (OK, that last one is just me).

The reality is you're dividing your time up based on the needs of the moment, but regardless of those needs, you can't *not* look in the rear-view mirror as much as you can't *not* look far ahead.

A well-integrated organization has specialists who are good at what's next, at what's now, and at what's behind. It's the job of leaders to make sure none of those specialists think they can drive the car on their own, or that their inputs are the most important. It's the integrated view that distinguishes the habitually from the occasionally successful.

By: Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson — Sat, 02 May 2009 11:14:38 +0000

Somehow many people seem to think “strategic = good” and “tactical = bad.” And then when they see the strategic activities (customer visits including win/loss analysis, business planning, product profitability analysis), they go “Oh, I don't want to do that stuff. But I want to be strategic.” Don't we all?

The tactical activities of go-to-market are important; of course they are. Good product marketing should be focused on the product we have today; good product management should be focused on the product we want to have someday. We need both to succeed.

By: Stewart Rogers

Stewart Rogers — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:15:28 +0000

I agree completely. I started this post once and then backed away because I didn't want to play both roles against each other. There is a goal, or a strategy if you will, for the product and it is imperative for the entire team to march together executing, as your say, the strategy and cunny tactics.