[Profile review request] Talent - Product Manager >10 YOE

Stage 1
1

Hello!
It would be great if you can review my profile and share my chances.

Background:

I’m already based in the UK.
10+ years of Product Management and Product Management Leadership experience working for a FAANG company, for a large e-Commerce company, for a renowned IT hardware company, and for an unicorn startup/scaleup.

LOR1: CPO whom I worked with in the e-Commerce company
LOR2: MD whom I worked with in the IT hardware company > 5 years ago
LOR3: VP Product of a security company I worked with 5 years ago

Other options for LOR
LOR4. CEO of my current company (Unicorn startup/scaleup)
LOR5. CPO whom I worked with in the IT hardware company > 5 years ago

Q1. Should I replace any of the LORs with the options?
Q2. It surely depends on their content but profile wise, do they look solid?

MC

MC1. Led the successful growth of a product in an e-Commerce company. LOR1 to backup.

Evidence 1: Screenshots of the product and growth in adoption of the product

MC2. Contributed to an industry-wide non-profit initiative outside the UK (outside my work)

Evidence 2: Letter from the COO of the organization I contributed to
Evidence 3: Details about me in their website as a volunteer

MC3. High Salary

Evidence 4: Glassdoor and my payslip

OC

OC1

  • While the innovative product I worked on exists in a generic way, it didn’t exist in my industry [not company, but industry].
    Evidence 5: Screenshots of feature adoption over the last 6 months.

  • Innovation I worked on in a FAANG company
    Evidence 6: My payslip when I was there
    Evidence 7: Mention of the feature in a report published by the company.

Q3: Due to data security issues, I don’t really have any metrics here. Would that be a constraint?

OC2

  • Two evidences for mentorship - one with a startup 5 years ago, and another more recently as part of a mentorship program (outside my company)

Evidence 8: NDA with the startup I mentored - related to Product Management
Evidence 9: Screenshot of my profile from the current mentorship program I’m part of

Q4. I’ve seen here in the last about the number of people mentored counting… How exactly do I show that I have mentored people? Through email screenshots?

OC3

Q5. Can I use MC1 or MC3 listed above here?

Q6. While I have public speaking experiences, they have not been from the recent past and I don’t really have any solid evidences handy. Will this affect my application significantly?

Q7. Should I drop OC1 or OC2?

In addition, general comments about how my story and profile looks will be great. Thanks!

2

Bump!

Can someone help please?

Thanks!

3

Q1. Should I replace any of the LORs with the options?
Yes, I’d replace the ones older than 5 years with your more recent options

Q2. It surely depends on their content but profile wise, do they look solid?
The profiles look good

OC: you need to choose two optional criteria and you mention 3.

OC1: if the product already existed as a generic solution you may find it hard to explain how your application of it is innovative.
Working in a FAANG company isn’t in itself innovative - you need to detail your innovation and back it up with media mentions / reference letters.

OC2 (8): I assume the NDA doesn’t have details about your work? Can you replace it with some other evidence?
Is the mentoring program a structured one? Do you have a long track record there?

Q5: you can’t reuse evidence between criteria - each evidence need to be unique

Q6: How long ago did these take place?

Q7: you don’t mention any evidence towards OC3, how would you drop OC1 / OC2?

4

@hsafra Thanks for taking time out to respond.

  1. That would mean I’m either replacing LOR > 5 years ago either with a repetitive LOR (already getting an LOR from someone whom I worked with in the same company) or from my current company (which is discouraged). I’m wondering how people who haven’t switched jobs apply.

OC1 - No, the product didn’t exist but the concept did. There are complexities brought about by the industry where the concept is applied. Again, very difficult to explain without sharing more, I suppose. This criterion is, intentionally vague, as I see it.

OC1 - Second evidence - This has nothing to do with just working for a FAANG company but an innovation / a specific problem solved in the industry which competitors haven’t solved.

OC2 - It doesn’t have details but the details I have are email exchanges and WhatsApp message exchanges. How would they be looked at - as evidence? Yes, it was a structured one and I mentored them online and in person for a few months.

Q5. Q7. Yes, I understand that. My question was if I should use that in MC or if I should abandon OC1/OC2 in favour of OC3 [which is super strong and is part of LOR]

Q6. >5 years ago

5

You wrote about the second evidence:

And that was what I was referring to - you need some corroboration that you worked on this feature - otherwise it’s just you working there and a feature being published. Does the publishing mention you be name?

OC2: emails & whatsapp messages can be used for evidence but you need to make them into a consistent story about your engagement there.

Q6: don’t submit evidence for event more than 5 years ago - it’ll be ignored.

About OC1 vs. OC3: generally speaking it’s usually easier to show evidence of impact on your workplace than innovation which is more vague. If you have a string OC3 I would lean towards using it.

6

I think your evidence don’t look sufficient for exceptional talent.

Mandatory just shows, the product you built, you should get a second letter to confirm it as don’t assume that the assessor will make a link between your LOR and evidence. What kind of industry initiative did you participate in, what evidence are you showing for this?

It is not enough to show product screenshots, do you have Google patent for this. Are you a founder or senior executive, if not you have to demonstrate you are working in a new digital field. How is this a new digital field? For evidence 7 I am not sure how this article proves innovation, besides did the article mention your name?

For mentorship programme, is it structured with a selection criteria?

7

@Francisca_Chiedu Thanks for taking time out to respond.

MC1 - Yes, will get that additional letter.
MC2 - It’s a digital initiative for integrated healthcare in a developing country. Evidence - Letter from the COO, and my name on their website

After considering, I won’t be applying with OC1 - Innovation as the link might seem tenuous and difficult to prove (since the report published doesn’t mentioned my name - It doesn’t mention anyone’s. It’s not just an article but a comprehensive quarterly report)

Regarding the mentorship programme, there are three evidences:

Two are letters from organizations (where I didn’t work) who selected me as a Product mentor for their employees, and it was a structured program - involving online + offline sessions.

The third is a mentorship program where I applied and was selected by the company running this mentorship program.

I have evidences in the form of letters, emails and WhatsApp conversations on the impact of these sessions.

Let me know if they make sense.
Thanks!

8

If you have email inviting you to be a mentor, letter from the organisation and a platform that shows it is a structured programme and possibly picturing sessions. This should work.

1 Like