I have slightly over 5 years of experience as a product manager, initially in France and then in the UK where I currently have residency under a Skilled Worker visa. I’d like to transition to a Global Talent Visa and would be keen to get your feedback on my application.
Recommendation Letters
RC1: Co-Founder and CTO of a well-known UK fintech with >300 employees where I have previously worked
RC2: VP of Product of that same UK fintech, former senior product leader in a FAANG company
RC3: CPO of a French tech company where I previously worked, business angel
Mandatory Criteria
MC1: Evidence that I command high-salary: letter from French tech company indicating promotion to more senior role + contract from UK fintech company proving above-average salary.
MC2: Evidence that I led the growth of a product-led digital technology product inside a digital technology company: letter from Country Manager of fintech company where I worked at explaining the impact that my work had on key metrics and the projects that I led.
MC3: Evidence of speaking at high-profile digital technology sector events: I was invited to speak alongside senior leaders from UK fintechs, regulators and law firms about UK fintechs EU expansion (I was invited due to my role’s focus on EU expansion).
Optional Criteria
OC1: Innovation
OC1.1: Product brief of a feature that I implemented in my role as a fintech PM, including technical diagram and data about feature’s impact on key metrics. This is a feature that my team was in a unique position to deliver by leveraging a key component of our infrastructure. Competitors had not developed this capability so this gave us a competitive advantage.
OC1.2: Screenshots showing impact of feature mentioned in OC 1.1 on user experience, with a clear improvement thanks to the reduction of the number of steps for end users.
OC1.3: Diagram of the flow of funds (payment product) of a product I delivered, helping to understand how the product works and my technical implication.
OC1.4: Screenshots showing impact of product mentioned in OC1.3 on user experience, which shows how the product enabled product-market fit by removing significant frictions for the end users.
OC2: Impact/Contributions
OC2.1: Letter from a senior leader in the UK fintech company I worked for outlining my leading role in a strategic project whose impact on a key company objective was significant. The letters outlines my central role in this cross-functional project where I had to deal with internal and external stakeholders: legal team, regulators, vendors, other product teams, etc.
OC2.2: Document shared with clients outlining multiple product improvements that I led in a market where the company I worked for operated, outlining the specific impact on key metrics.
OC2.3: Letter from a senior manager whom I worked closely with who can attest of my involvement in the product improvements mentioned in OC2.2.
Questions
As you can see, two of my recommendation letters come from senior leaders in the same company. Would you recommend getting an additional recommendation letter from someone at another organization, even if that person’s seniority is lower?
I’m not sure if the evidence for MC3 qualifies. Indeed, I’m not sure the event can be considered as high-profile as it was an individual conference (however it gathered senior industry leaders). My thinking is that it would be a better evidence for “recognition of work outside immediate occupation” but that’s not an optional criteria I currently plan to use as this would be the only evidence.
The letter I plan to use for OC2.1 (impact/contributions) refers to a product I shipped that’s also mentioned in OC1 (innovation). Is that a problem?
In MC, 1 evidence being high salary & another MC evidence being ref letter is not going to be sufficient. You should plan to add stronger evidences in MC. MC is generally used to testify that you’re not just excellent at your day job, but are also widely recognised as a leader outside of your job. So try to supplement MC with publications, blogs, work at accelerators, bootcamps, external market impact of your work (via news articles, press releases etc.) which are not strictly connected to your day job. Aim should be to make it very clear to the assessor that you are “widely recognised” as a leader (besides being recognised at your workplace)
In OC1, you need to specifically make it very clear to the assesor why your product/improvements were innovative. Incremental improvements over existing products may not be considered sufficient. You need to explain what the method you used to enable the PMF can be considered original/unique/innovative and what was original/out of the box about your method.
OC2 is all about external recognition only, so current evidence do not match that. Try to gather evidences related to external awards, op-eds written by you, publications about your work, mentoring, coaching, leading tech initiatives outside of your day job, conferences were you spoke, webinars, advising startups etc.
In MC, ensure you highlight snapshots, attendee size, invite/appreciation letter and any social media post with high engagement about the event mentioning your name : for the speaking event evidence.
Your OC1 evidences are essentially split by 1 story in 3 documents and a second story in another. This is not very strong strategy. Try to collate all evidence for story 1 in 1 document and the other in the second one. You need to demonstrate why was it innovative, your contribution to the innovation specifically and the impact of it along with backing evidence like support letter, news coverage, proof of product in the market and traction. Only self-documentations and internal proofs won’t suffice.
You are probably confusing oC2 with OC3. OC3 is about impact. This one seems more like highlighting your work and involvement however more focus needs to be on quantified impact of your work. Letters are accepted but not sufficient hence only letters as backing evidence to your self-claims is a risk.
@cosmic.wilderness I also plan to add evidence (pictures, social media post and letter) regarging an event that I attended as a speaker alongside senior UK tech executives. Is that an acceptable evidence for MC? I could also add a press release about my previous company’s acquisition, but it does not directly mention me.
Try to collate all evidence for story 1 in 1 document and the other in the second one.
@pahuja are you saying that I could put together multiple different elements as a single evidence? Isn’t that a problem?
Yes, you should fortify your MC with as many additional proofs of your achievements as possible (pictures, website snapshots of the speaker lineup, how many people attended the conference etc.). A press release will work (even though your name may not be in it) IF there’s someone else (via a ref. letter) / someplace else who testifies that yes, it’s you who led those products. Besides these, you should still aspire to strengthen your MC more and keep as many diverse evidences as possible.
Ok, for OC3, you should add more info related to products you led (besides ref. letters) - any news releases, documentation links of your products which are publicly available, dashboard screenshots, customer testimonials, bi-annual or annual reports mentioning the impact of your products (revenue, active users, retention etc. whichever may be applicable).
Thank you for your feedback! Is having a lot of support letters viewed as a good thing? For example, I might have two support letters for OC3: one explaining my overall impact in a given market and one explaining my specific role in a given project. That second letter will reinforce another evidence which is a collateral sent to our clients about improvements we’ve made to our product, as it will stress my involvement in these improvements.
What do yo think about this strategy? Should I limit the number of support letters? Should I try to find alternative evidence?
I do not recommend this strategy at all as ive seen some applications got rejected for the many letters provided. One reference letter per evidence is sufficient. this is my view, maybe other recommend other way!
I have reviewed the structure of my application and rearranged some of my evidence. Here is my updated application structure:
Letters of Recommendation
LOR1: Co-Founder and CTO of a well-known UK fintech with >300 employees where I have previously worked (Company A) LOR2: Product Strategy & Ops Manager at well-known UK fintech (Company B) LOR3: Head of Product at Company A (my former manager)
Mandatory Criteria
MC1: letter from Country Manager at Company A explaining how I led the growth of a digital technology product (includes strategic initiatives and impact metrics) MC2: proof of high salary at Company A (base salary + stock options) MC3: proof of speaking engagement in event about how UK fintechs can expand in the EU (spoke alongside senior tech leaders) MC4: proof of having significant role in product development of startup (company C) that was acquired (letter from CPO + press release about acquisition)
Optional Criteria 1
OC1.1: proof of playing leading role in development of innovative product that paved the way for new payment method in the EU (letter from senior leader at Company A explaining my involvement + flow diagram of feature) OC1.2: product brief of innovative feature for which I led the development including problem statement, technical solution, an explanation of why this is innovative and impact OC1.3: before/after screenshots of payment flow that I significantly improved thanks to an innovative solution that enabled a new payment method in key EU markets
Optional Criteria 3
OC3.1: press clipping about significant milestone of company A in which I was involved, it’s not mentioning my name but I’ve added an intro explaining my involvement OC3.2: case study shared to clients of Company A where a few high-impact projects I worked on are outlined, it contains a graph showing success rate improvement over time OC3.3: letter from senior partnerships manager at Company A explaining my involvement in a few high-impact initiatives (acts as support for OC3.2)
Hi @howardhughes question about your OC1 evidences.
Are some or all evidences self authored? If yes, how are you supplementing them with external support.
Hi @muks, two of my evidences in OC1 are indeed self-authored (a product brief and screenshots of a flow). The first evidence is a letter from a senior individual in the organization where I worked on those innovative products. Additionally, some of my letters of recommendation reference the work mentioned in those evidences.
I am seeking your thoughts as I am also applying for OC1. IMO evidence shall depend on product and type of innovation. One of my OCs is B2C product so I can share proof of product, some architecture diagrams, another is B2B product for which I can share only their references on company page, and some confluence proofs and supporting the innovation by support letter.
@muks my strategy for OC1 is the following: present clear product briefs and screenshots to show precisely what I’ve been working on. Support it by a reference letter that references that work. I feel like the difficulty is proving that it is “innovative”. In my case, I rely on the fact that the company I was working for is recognized as innovative in the UK tech ecosystem. Keen to get your POV on this.
I wouldn’t use two people from the same company for recommendation letter, best to have a diverse pool of recommenders and references.
When was the speaking event in MC, I hope it is not recent l. Also the reason you were asked to speak shouldn’t be that you are representing you company. You reference letter from organiser should demonstrate you were are asked to speak because of your recognition as an expert in your field . In MC4, dies the press release mention your name?
For OC1, do you have evidence of revenue in multiple companies, do you have a patent?
The reason I’m doing that is that I’m using the recommendation letter from Company C as a support letter for the press release in MC4. My thinking is that it adds weight to my MC by linking my work to the acquisition mentioned in the press release. I could put it back in the recommendation letters to have letters coming from 3 different orgs but I feel like it would weaken my MC. What’s your recommendation?
It was in March 2024 and I think my evidence clearly shows why I was invited (this was not a sponsored talk and I was not exclusively representing my company).
As mentioned above, the press release does not mention my name, which is why I planned to add the letter mentioning I worked on the core product in MC4.
I’m only using examples from one company (UK FinTech) because I think it will be more easily recognized as innovative by the Tech Nation panel. I don’t have a patent.
Reference letter should help support the case. Just because company is recognized as innovative does not mean product or your work you are including as innovative. Try to be more conclusive here.
