At Spotify, product development is organized into small cross-functional “squads” that are
grouped into larger “tribes.” The PM sits in the squad and creates priorities but doesn’t directly
manage engineers or designers, which Spotify calls “aligned autonomy.” The benefit is that the
team itself has more autonomy, but PMs don’t have explicit authority.
At Airbnb, teams have a more centralized structure because specialists (designers, engineers,
marketers, etc) report through their functional department. The company restructured the
traditional PM role so the responsibilities overlap with product marketing and program
management. This means product management is more collaborative and senior leadership execs
have more control over the overall vision. The model makes it easier to coordinate major
launches across functions, but it can also slow down the process and limit PM authority.
Zappos uses holacracy, which is a decentralized setup with “circles” and designated roles instead
of strict boss-employee hierarchies. This means leadership and authority belongs to each role’s
specified responsibility. The system distributes authority and encourages initiative, but since
leadership roles aren’t explicit, there can be confusion and disorganization.
I would want to work in Spotify’s model because it gives PMs enough structure to drive focused
priorities while allowing the specialists to decide how to implement the PMs’ goals. I think it’s
helpful to have PMs oversee the process, but also give autonomy to the people working on the
product itself. The structure reflects the reading’s description of PMs as the people who bring out
the best in a cross-functional team without holding too much unchecked power.
