WAV Transcription
===

[00:00:00] All right, Jeff, what's up, man? This is not gonna be confusing at all, uh, Jeff and, and Jeff, but thanks for coming on. Welcome to the show. Amazing. I can't wait for the, uh, the buddy comedy that is the Jeff and Jeff show. At least our voices sound different. But yeah, this is... I'm stoked, man. This is one I've been looking forward to a while, so really, really excited to talk about what you've been doing over at Miro with AI.

But before we dive into that, can you just give us, like, the TLDR? How did you become Jeff Chow, CPTO at Miro? You know, where'd you start from, and what's that path look like? Yeah, I mean, I'll, I'll, I'll make it quick. Graduating college, I just had that entrepreneurial bug, so founded three companies in the Boston area.

Was fortunate enough to sell all three, you know, with varying degrees of success, but ultimately kind of made it through. Landed at, uh, Google, and then ultimately kind of navigated to leading product and product design at TripAdvisor. And I think a lot of that journey was more about having that spirit of, like, ideating on product.

Early 2000s, you did... Product managers or product management wasn't even, like, a formalized conceit, [00:01:00] right? And, and so we, you know, sort of, like, felt our way through the joy of building. Got the bug of working at scale at Google and TripAdvisor, and then I kinda stumbled across the whole idea of, like, how teams are working really well together, right?

How do we get cross-functional teams specifically? And so, you know, it's going from being, like, this kinda cocky founder to, like, wait, actually, if you can organize a team to do great things, that's an amazing endorphin hit for me, and that's where I found my energy source. But then, you know, lo and behold, there are B2B software that is actually built to help cross-functional teams work better together.

And so I joined, uh, InVision to head up product there. And again, story pass around prototyping, uh, et cetera, the kind of the OG of a design tool, and was fortunate enough to work through that experience. Actually led it as a CEO for a while after becoming CPO, and then was able to land that at, uh, Miro.

And so at Miro, I took on the helm of chief product and technology officer. Huge kind of installed [00:02:00] base, huge customer base, and, uh, amazing work to kind of really trying to change how organizations shift their ways of working, and now especially within the AI era. And so, you know, it's a little bit of where my passion is internally, and then also now you're building a product to help that, so very meta, but great, great experience along the way.

Everyone in the product world, I think, knows Miro. It Is about working together, moving faster, and how do you kinda grease the wheels of a company moving forward in product. So we kinda thought one of the best places to look for how are people really using these tools internally, meaning AI and the LMs and models and all that kind of stuff, to move faster.

From the company that helps people in the product development life cycle organize and work together, what has this shift meant for you guys, and what's that look like? It's funny around these areas because it's shifting all the time, right? Mm. And I think a lot of our kinda going in position has been a lot of these shifts are gonna happen, and they're gonna happen even more, and as models advance or new tools [00:03:00] advance, it's gonna challenge the ways you work.

And so this is probably the first massive disruptive shift to challenge our ways of working forever, and a big shift of that ways of working is it's constantly gonna shift. So a lot of our kind of internal focus is how do we create a process that allows us to change and transform constantly, right? And it doesn't feel like massive change management all the time, right?

And so, you know, counterintuitively, we have a very simple process, a very simple framework, kickoff, solutions review, pre-release reviews. These are very simple milestones. We set pace to the next milestone using dates. And you know, a big part of our early tenets was we're not gonna change that. It's the shorthand of the organization.

There's these convergent moments within that, that everyone knows. So you can just say, like, "Oh, we have a solutions review next week." Everyone gets it. They know what to expect. They know, uh, how to, uh, go after that. But within the lines to get there, what's actually presented completely shifted, right? And so, and I think [00:04:00] that's a big thing for us is the empowering teams, but maybe don't have to recreate all of your workflows, rename everything, change all the things.

You know, it's really just about how can we kind of paint within that. And that just allows us the flexibility of some teams have to do it like a classic way. Some teams are now doing, like, cutting edge, all the things different ways. But yet everyone in the entire organization, from us to marketing, go-to-market, sort of has, like, this very stable shorthand that's always consistent.

But within that, we are pushing hard just like everyone else, right? We are challenging product managers to prototype early instead of writing lengthy documents. We're getting designers to try to check in code. We are having engineers obviously work agentically, and we are really obsessing over those meeting moments of decisioning And given those changes and shifts in, in blurriness of functions and roles, how do you actually make a faster decision?

What are the kinda trade-offs in [00:05:00] psychology around when that does shift? Are we actually slowing down decisioning, and, and what changes? I love the simplicity you guys took on this, is we're not changing these milestones. This process works. It's just gonna help us get from A to B faster, or maybe A to, you know, A to Z faster.

It- it's really interesting to hear that, and I, I love the concept, but, like, to double-click a little bit and just kinda understand what that means, I, I think last time we talked, you, you mentioned basically, like, the checkpoints haven't changed, but what shows up at the checkpoints- Yeah ... has somewhat changed.

Can you give us maybe an example of what that looks like? How does that play out when, let's say I'm, I'm bringing a product through the product org on your team? You're so right that, like, the basic kinda lines of what you're trying to solve for marketing or, or product is exactly the same, right? And we call it the why, the what's, the how's.

Why are we setting about to solve this problem? What is it? And then how are we actually gonna deliver it, right? And I think that doesn't change. So some differences, right? So you would imagine a kickoff early on in a process would ... Classic product rigor, [00:06:00] the muscle we've built over decades of this is, like, even though I have the idea in my head I'm not gonna share it.

I'm gonna abstract the requirements, and I'm gonna be like this clinician that's gonna be like, "I don't want to taint the experiment, so I'm gonna write requirements even though I know exactly what I want to see happen," and that would be easier to commu- communicate, right? But I don't wanna offend the designers.

They'll, they'll, they'll draw it up, and maybe I'll do a lightweight lo-fi like messy wireframe, but I'm not gonna do that. And so we'll have bullets, and I'm gonna facilitate a wonderful discussion where people will drop their ideas too, and then I will synthesize that. I think that's really helpful when you're trying to get teams engaged and you have moments of checkpoints, and you can kind of do it in like a, a waterfall or an agile way, which I...

in my mind agile is just a lot of mini waterfalls. But if you really wanna go fast, right, and like the speed of AI, then what we've found is counterintuitively just share what your idea is. You know, just visualize it. [00:07:00] But it has to be the why not the how, right? And this is a real clear thing. So our product managers prototype an idea, and they will share it, and they'll say like, "This is the problem I'm trying to solve, and let me bring it to life.

Let me tell a story. Let me walk through." Most people actually at that point start getting the requirements better than if they were actually to clinically write the requirements, right? And it is a visual specification basically, right? It's a visual, a PRD. And I think that has actually driven better socialization of like are we aligned on will this deliver impact?

What are we talking about? It's just less structured, right? It's like a, a nice artifact that drives that visual communication. And I think that's been a massive shift because not only are they, uh, sort of, uh, uh, prototyping it, but that prototype is built on a foundation that is closer to code, right? And so then a designer will take that on and start kind of saying like, "How am I gonna work on that?

Let's work on that together. Let's bring it a little bit more to life. Let's actually connect it to our living code." And maybe I can even run [00:08:00] experiments before our solutions review, right? And so you're actually getting this closer to real honest customer feedback before even ever launching this. And then in our solutions review, which classically used to be, and I think we all have lived this, the PRD plus maybe 50 art boards of a Figma file, right?

And maybe you have a product manager reading off of slides and the, then the designer goes through the art boards like it's a flip book, and then 45 minutes pass and we're all a little bit dead in the eyes, right? And so now it's a little bit of like, "Okay, wait, let's actually show you a workable prototype on real data.

We can use it. We actually had five teams play with it already. We got the feedback to validate. We actually have like stronger conviction that this is the way to go." And we actually have product managers vibe code a mock lander, right? Basically like a PR FAQ. A fake kind of like marketing website, and it forces them to tell the story, which is the perfect handoff to PMM or marketing, right?

Where you're basically, you kind of agree and you build it together. So the artifact has completely [00:09:00] changed. It's instead of 50 slides and like 50 art boards, it's now a workable prototype And a mock lander now surrounded with some contacts, next steps obviously, and a way for teams to engage. These sessions become much more alive.

If it's a synchronous meeting, it's no longer talking at a bunch of stakeholders. We're actually talking about it, working it, using it, reflecting on it, you know, discussing very specific points. So it becomes actually like a generative meeting sessions. Things sharpen and then like the last step is most of this is actually code.

So that distance between a solutions review to pre-release review is actually dramatically shorter and then we can actually launch and, and get it tested. So these artifacts and these kind of experiences have completely, again, same convergent moments but the actual meetings itself, synchronous or asynchronous or like the artifacts delivered are completely different.

You paint a great picture by the way. I love the kinda like the obtuseness of some of it. I'm like, yeah, yeah, that is, that, that was a little crazy that we thought that was the way to do it but it, it was the best we had. But like- Yeah ... [00:10:00] we've all had that team member or been that team member who they can't see what isn't.

Mm-hmm. And so you can have all the, you know, single kinda image, even really well-designed frames that you want. It's the same thing, you run into this in marketing sometimes people when you have like a storyboard of a story you wanna tell or a video and they can't quite get to this is not the entirety of the thing.

This is just still frames that encompass- Yeah ... you know, snapshots. But I'm, I'm curious like the first piece you talked about where the kinda product person comes in rather than having a statement about requirements and all of that, they actually come in with some form of something kinda working. Is that like a, a kind of vibe coded prototype at that point or, or I guess what does that look like for you guys at that point?

First of all, I think it's really important to recognize that every project, every shape of a project is completely different. We have like massively ambitious initiatives that probably has a little bit more rigor. We have some like existing product optimizations that could be a little bit different.

And so really what we [00:11:00] steer product teams to do is use this more as a tool not a tax and don't take it like literally, right? Like this is not academia. You have to actually, you know, the skill of a product leader is communicating, right? Yeah. And you have to use it in the right way. Now, a lot of what people are doing now is actually vibe coding a prototype of what they're trying to communicate, demonstrating it and legitimately it's interactive.

It's not like kind of a prototype prototype. It's grounded in data. It has uh, the experience and we do a lot of it through cloud code but you know there are many different other ways of doing it as well. What they come to the team on the kickoff is that's an illustrative kind of visual way of explaining like why are we doing this?

What it potentially could it be just to bring it to life And you know, I will tell you one of our journeys was people would show up just with the vibe coded prototype and just start clicking around. Not great, right? Yeah. So context setting, what, what does success look like? What problem are we trying to [00:12:00] solve?

How does it connect to some business goal that we have in mind? You're not putting that in a, a prototype, so like setting that up. But that's gone from like 10 slides to like five bullets. And then it's like speed to actually bringing it to life is how people are like, "Okay. Oh, I get it now. That's what we're gonna do," right?

That's how we're gonna kinda push on it. You know, the other thing that we realized going through some of this is there's this experience that people are having right now, especially with like these kind of single player products of like aligning and deciding is the key. But because you've been collaborating with an agent, you kinda have this false confidence that you're like, you're like, "Okay.

Well, this is the idea. I've already been collaborating. What are you talking about?" And it's just with my agent, you know? And your agent's like, "Great idea, Jeff. You're, you're a genius." You, you have like, "Wow, why didn't I think of that? You're so wonderful." And clearly you didn't put the skill, the contrarian skill in, so like literally it's just blowing smoke up your ass.

And so you come to it, and so like what we're realizing is there's actually a human, uh, collaboration element of what we're doing, which is [00:13:00] saying like, no, this is to visually communicate the why and the what, not the how. And let's avoid... Early days it was like ev- like these kickoffs became design crits, right?

And people are like, "Well, technically, is that the button you'd put there?" And it's like, whoa, are we really doing this right now? You know, and so there has been some change management. Ob- obviously we've been using Miro to support the what altitude are we trying to go at, how do we make sure that we're fostering the right kind of alignment at the right altitude?

But after you get by that, then it's like, okay, people are getting used to it. People are understanding, like, okay, I get it. You're just trying to tell a story. Picture's worth a thousand words. This is way better than 10 minute silent read, you know, in a meeting. This is great. Let's get into it and, and really talk about it.

And you know what's really interesting, and I think this kinda goes back to what we were talking about earlier, is, uh- Everything old is new again. This is not a new thing, right? When I first cut my teeth, I was using Apple's Keynote to mock up in Wireframe, and I used Magic Move because I was really [00:14:00] excited.

I probably spent too many hours getting to a point where I was, like, really passionate about what it was, and I was, like, a product leader and then I would kind of walk up to a designer and be like, "Hey, I have an idea," you know? And the designer would roll their eyes and be like, "Here we go," you know and things like that.

And so, like, I think it's not anything new, it's just now at scale. I would also say a lot of our rhythms of the past are insurance policies because you're putting engineering efforts at, like, month-long projects or if you break it down to sprints, you know, many sprint-long projects and so there is a risk.

And now I think what we have to do is just embrace the fact that actually it goes so much faster you should take more ambitious risks, right? Right. And so, and that's how we speed it up. I guess just to switch gears a bit and, and just kinda go with the flow on that, like, so I think we've all kind of discovered at this point now it turns out that the raw act of just writing code, it was maybe the, the time investment part but it was not the mentally difficult [00:15:00] part.

How has that, you know, kind of affected m- the process here kind of once you realize like, okay, codegen is basically time free but it's still not, we're not moving 100X faster or anything? Yeah. I mean, I would take the earlier point around looking back at a lot of the processes that we've built over time is a risk mitigation strategy.

And you think about, like, even, like, annual planning, OKRs, all the way down to, you know, certain roadmaps It's all about making sure that like, wow, if we're gonna really invest that much money on this project, it better work, right? Without realizing it, you tend to be a little bit more conservative and you tend to be a little bit more, like, safe.

And ultimately it becomes like an optimization culture versus an invention culture, and there's some tension in between. W- what we've realized is that especially how competitive the landscape is right now, it's like you almost absolutely have to be an invention culture. You absolutely have to take some big swings, absolutely have to be ambitious, [00:16:00] and you can't let go of, like, the optimization of the

You can't just have, like, this wonderful demoable AI product and then move on. You have to make it work and it has to be go- really well. So there's a lot of long tail work. And so it better be, like, a big, big customer impactful value, right? And I think that, like, fundamental shift has been pretty profound, at least for us because it's been less of, like, the talking about doing it, the planning about doing it, the strategy and saying, like, actually if we can collapse this down to empowering every team at Miro to try to invent, they have the scope of their mission and problem to solve, right?

So we, you know, we cascade a lot of the, the structure of an organization, but our expectation now is, like, every single one of the people should be obsessed over their mission. And yeah, we'll kind of paint some ideas of h- where the trajectory is, but I want ... We want them to shock and awe everyone around.

Like, "Wow, that is the most creative solve I've ever seen." And they can do it now, right? Like, they're able to do it and they're able to run explorations and, [00:17:00] and so the, the big shift we've seen is just Wildly more ambition. Generally, like extreme diversion. And what I've actually seen, which is like, again, back to my, what, what gets me excited, is my leaders and their leaders are also challenging their team to think bigger.

And I just don't think you've ever saw that before because before it's like, well, we have our OKRs, and we know our conversion rate that we wanna improve, and so, like, maybe that's like five optimizations on the button, you know? And it's like, I think now it's like, okay, but if we really want our customer to really benefit from this, how do we really solve that, right?

And I just... It, like, really frees us up to do what every product person I know gets energized by, like solving hard customer problems. I keep thinking about, and, and what you're saying here really makes sense to me in this framework. We're not actually here to make software, believe it or not. We're here to, to solve a problem.

If the better way to solve it ended up not being software, we should probably think about how we would deliver that. But [00:18:00] for the most part, most of the things we, you know, companies I guess have chosen to do, it's gonna be software. But it... But don't think about it in the terms of how do I write the code to do this, right?

It's, it's how do we solve it? And then we get to, all right, the code's the answer. Let's go figure out the code. On that, like, bigger ambition idea, have you seen something you guys have actually been able to do in the, you know, past couple quarters where you look at it and you just kinda go, you know, two years ago, that would've not been the scale of change we took on to fix that problem?

There's a couple pretty, uh, ambitious ones. I would say there's like two that come to mind. One is, uh, we announced this in our, uh, conference in the spring. We've made our AI solution more agentic, and so that means much more kind of like free flowing tasks. It's doing many multi-step problem solving. It has planning mode.

But what it really does is it removes all of the doing of the work. So you think about, like if I wanna run a retro, I need to create a mural board. Maybe I'll find a template or I have to stub it out. I have to find all of the like notes. I have to like create this, uh, s- uh, system. Now it's [00:19:00] just like, I wanna run a retro.

This is the project Go. And it has the connectors, it's pulling all the context. And the shocking thing that the team did was when you- it actually pulls it together. One thing that it, it does do that humans aren't good at is actually pulled all of the context, right? It has the history of all the work, and it puts it next to the retro.

So teams aren't just, like, talking philosophically. There's, like, data. And to do that as a human, that would take somebody, like, a week to pull it together. And so in a five-minute kind of agentic flow, it produces the right thing that's extremely collaborative, and pe- people can actually do their, their work even faster.

That's a thing that early AI, you're like, "Okay, how is it gonna do it?" The challenges of spatially dropping information of varying degrees of structured data onto a canvas that's real-time multiplayer for many people to use seemed like a light year away versus like, let me just take a bunch of stickies and turn it into a doc, right?

Like, that seemed like a little bit [00:20:00] of a thing. And so the way that happened was one of our AI architects just decided one day to get a bunch of his agents to work and refactor our AI engine in a way, and then demoed it to us. Like, it was basically a Friday. Monday, he's demoed it, and we were like, "Holy crap.

Okay Here we go, you know? And it wasn't a funded, air quotes, funded project. It wasn't a whatever, but ... And that was the moment when we saw it and we're like, "Okay, that's it. We're doing that." And then kickoff the next day, and then a, a pacing to a solutions review, and, and then it actually made it as a headline in our user conference, right?

And so those are the types of moments that I get really excited about because it's not just technology helped create that, but an IC engineer invented it, brought it to the table, and then cross-functionally we were willing to, like, yes, and that experience to say like, "Okay, let's run with it." And then, and then it actually amplified a lot of the

We were already doing connectors, right? Like taking, you know, connections to other different systems. Of, of [00:21:00] course, right? Like that's an obvious roadmap item. But now with connectors and that, you know, the types, the, the fidelity of data that's dropped on the canvas without a human having to produce it themselves was 10 times better, right?

And so, like, these things just amplified each other. Companies that are doing that, you see, you know, A, just investing in someone did something kind of rad and let's double down on that. We have ... Kinda similarly we have, in our tool we have a thing called like Ask Galileo, and it's a, started out as a chat function where you could kind of ask a little bit of stuff.

It was not good. We had it in beta and it was, you know, the, the point of it was like how do you ask questions about session replay data and all that, and how do you kind of like navigate that? It gave you raw answers. It would try to make a chart and it couldn't do that. It would broadly be inaccurate.

And I literally went on like a four-day vacation with my family, and suddenly I'm looking at it and I'm just getting all these messages blowing up where people are going, "Hey, this is great. We released it to, you know, this beta set. Hey, we're pushing it even further. We're pushing it further." Because- That's amazing

in like four days it turned [00:22:00] into, like you said, he built the connectors and he had his like ... Nailed down some of the things where the vision model would actually look at sessions and watch them with high fidelity. It would cite its sources. But same to you said, I, I did something and it, I think it watched something like 1,000 session replays in 90 seconds and the amount of data I was able to pull in.

But to do that, he had to refactor a lot of things internally in how these agents interacted and worked, but he was able to kinda take the swing and experiment with a bunch of stuff that he later told me didn't go the right way. But he was able to take those directions with a l- a lot lower risk because he knew the end goal was this thing just needs to watch a bunch of sessions and tell you the right answer.

No matter what you ask, it just needs to tell you the right thing. That's amaz- And, and that's like one of those things where, like, the shifts in culture, and, and you know, may- a lit- maybe, like, small startups could always do this, but, like, the stereotypes of a medium to larger size organization, you know, you, you start getting into the, you start developing the process barnacles where maybe it's like, oh, here's a big bet, and maybe it didn't work the first time.[00:23:00] 

And then your next thing is not to, like, let's Apollo 13 and throw the scraps on the table and try to solve the problem. It's like, let's have a meeting and talk, you know? But here it's like, oh, actually, because of the velocity and the change, you're able to actually just work the problem, have conviction.

Maybe it's not like a lar- it's one person, you know, and all these other things. And, uh, and I think that is another shift, right? It's like, it's not like, did it work, which is, you know, like, the classic stakeholder question. Right. You know, it's like, let's give you the space to, like, figure it out, obsess over it, and it's

I, I liken it to manual focus camera, right? It's like totally blurry, and you're like tick, tick, tick, tick, and at a certain moment you're like, "That's it." The converse is also true. Yeah. And this is where leaders actually have to have more onus, which is when you say, "No, it didn't work. You know, let's move on," right?

And I think that's, honestly, that's what we're seeing is the next new, you know, challenge for organizations is saying no. If everybody can do something, how do [00:24:00] you say no? If everything is a hopes and dreams, you were almost there, how do you stop and how do you make sure? And so that's all, again, yet another people change that's gonna happen pretty soon.

I'm curious on your guys' side o- over at Miro, like, how do you actually Take that kind of prototype and move it to this is going to be in product and this is going to go into production, or this is going to become a real thing. Yeah. But also, how do you say no? Like, how do you decide we're not going to release everything?

Like, what is the kind of choice metric to figure out what you're really gonna work on? 'Cause you could make almost anything at this point. You could build so fast- Yeah ... and make so much stuff, but you don't want to. I think there's certain principles around ways of working that has always been true, and I would just say the scaffolding of leadership and how, how organizations work has never actually followed that through, right?

And so I think about product organizations as fractals, right? Like an APM polishes a, a small rock, right? And you get them to do it really well, they work with their team. Like, maybe a GPM polishes, like, has a larger [00:25:00] surface area, and there's a larger problem to solve, and they do that. A director has a larger, uh, surface area.

I have the same thing. I'm no different, right? And I do exactly the same thing that the rest of the team do. So we're fractals, and within that, we all have to, like, think about how each of us help create the best product or platform out there. And having that appreciation, there's no like, "Are you a top-down decision or a bottoms-up kind of organization?"

It's actually, no, we're, we're also collaborating at different altitudes, and that's a really important principle and something that we obsess over at Miro because then when we have a solutions review, it's not a gate. We wanna let people cook. But there are moments where my job to communicate stop, start, continue, and my, my directs and then their directs, et cetera, we're all building the same muscle of just being, like, just honest and forthright about, like, "Hey, I hear this.

Here's why it's not gonna work. It's a fifth button, and we have, like, these other project," or, like, my purview, I'm actually looking at this holistic experience that's not gonna work, or the metric I'm, [00:26:00] we're really trying to achieve is X, and, you know, right now we don't have the energy to focus on that.

There's a lot of a million reasons. I do talk about the reasons, what we internally we call the over beers, right? Like, explain it to me over beers, right? You, you need to have a human element where you're explaining it to, like, a normal person No, like weird syntax, you know? And, and then people get it.

They're like, "I got it. Okay." And this is a lot of where we are focused a lot of our energy on, is the isms of all organizations are still isms, and in fact, they're getting amplified. If you have a, a manager that's just a pass-through leader that, like, doesn't wanna make a decision, that's just extremely more amplified now than it ever was.

And so everyone plays a role to row the boat faster. We have to row the boat in the same direction, and we have to create these new practices to support that. And the last one is cascading decisions, right? You know, you can imagine these are really hard. And so, like, a lot of what we're doing i- and it's very meta for Miro because we build it into our [00:27:00] product.

It's like, you jam on a board, you make a decision, the agent then cascades that communication in Slack, you know, to other agents of that decisions, you know, et cetera. These are the pain points of slowing organizations from meeting their full potential in the age of AI. I feel like a big thing AI has done is just amplify everything.

If you're kind of bad at your job, for lack of a, you know- Yeah ... more descriptive term, it makes it really, really clear that you're not that great at it. If you're really good at it, I feel like I've seen people get so, so, so productive and can do so much incredible work. But similarly, like looking at product teams for instance, the best product people I've ever worked with understood deeply go-to-market or design or kind of were- Yeah

more than one thing. They weren't just people who kind of wrote PRDs. Marketing too. To be great at marketing, you needed to have kind of more than, like, one little thing you were good at. Everyone talks about the future of product being like design product hybrid people or engineering product hybrid or like G- or, you know, PM GM hybrid.

I- Yeah ... I don't think that was ever not true. It just [00:28:00] Once again, has been amplified. Uh, I guess, am I way off base there, but also how has the team changed over there? What's kind of evolved? 100%. It's, it's always been a, a challenge. It's always been a kind of a skill. Our, our mental model is very simple at Miro, and, and honestly how I've kind of led product teams in the past as well, is that there's three very simple muscles, right?

You have to be the most creative problem solver, you have to be the best empathetic communicator, and you have to set pace. And that's ultimately the why, the what the hell, right? Like, you know, uh, problem solving and communication, that's articulating the, the problems, you know, the why. Problem solving and pace is breaking the problems down to solvable chunks so that you can iteratively ship, et cetera.

I think that's just the skill that will endure the test of time, and you need to solve that. You need to be good. I think, you know, a lot of leaders kinda chase the unicorn, and it's like, I wanna do that, but I need them to have, like, the best product instinct and have the best business instinct and whatever.

And I think that's where it's different, right? Like, there's gonna be people who are amazing [00:29:00] at the craft of building, like, the most delightful product. There'll be others that are great at the problem solving. It's like real business outcomes, and how do you kind of communicate with go-to-market leaders and marketing to kinda make that so.

And I think there's space for all of them. It used to just be like, who's my jazz musician product leaders who are, like, really creative, but they couldn't execute, and then classical musicians who are, like, really great at executing but couldn't invent anything new. I don't think that's true anymore, right?

Like, I actually think it's now just like, "Hey, do you get energized by building the most delightful product and seeing millions of people use it and just getting your kicks out of it, or do you get energized by, like, closing big seven-figure deals and activating an entire sales organization to do that?" I think those are, like, really unique muscles within that, and I think whatever organization needs, you're gonna find that flavor.

But being very specific around let's not gaslight people to say, like, "If you can't do both, you're horrible," celebrating the kind of [00:30:00] T-shapedness of a, an individual is, is really the key now. Yeah. I, I love that. I feel like we've gone from, you know, the three, three channels to cable, and now it's a, you know

Discovery Channel's not bad compared to, uh, MTV. It's just what do you need? So- Yeah. Well, Jeff, I know, uh, you got a lot of, uh, CPNT owing to do. So, uh, we gotta let you get back. But I real- I mean, this was fantastic. Thank you so much for, for coming on. Hopefully, you can come on again at some point. Love to hear more about what you guys are doing kind of as it evolves.

All right. Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate it. Thanks, Jeff. Bye.