Practical Product Management

“Use frameworks to make decisions” is standard PM advice, but no one shows you how to actually use them in high-stakes situations. Most senior PMs end up doing surface-level analysis. They look at… Pros and cons lists Feature prioritization matrices Basic impact/effort scores … Without understanding how to create instant alignment in exec reviews. This leads to long, circular discussions and delayed decisions, even when you’re trying to be thorough. By learning how to properly structure decisions and communicate trade-offs, you can create clarity in 5 minutes that would normally take 5 meetings to achieve.  I want to talk about why most decision frameworks fail to drive alignment in MAANG interviews and exec reviews: They try to capture too many variables They lack clear examples for each outcome They focus on analysis instead of alignment The reason is because most PMs focus on creating comprehensive frameworks. But once you understand how to leverage the 2x2 framework like Google does, you can make complex decisions simple and get stakeholder buy-in instantly. Many PMs think the 2x2 framework is primarily an analytical framework. It’s not. The 2x2 framework is fundamentally an alignment and visualization tool. Its power lies in getting everyone on the same page quickly, especially in high-pressure situations like exec reviews or interviews. Here are the most common mistakes I see: Using correlated parameters. When your axes influence each other (like “user growth” and “revenue growth”), you lose the framework’s power to reveal non-obvious insights. Missing key strategic elements. Just because you can fit everything into four boxes doesn’t mean you’ve captured the critical factors that will drive success or failure. Forcing too many attributes. Adding more dimensions might feel more thorough, but at Google they found it actually reduces the framework’s effectiveness at driving quick alignment. A study from McKinsey confirmed that overly complex decision tools often create “decision fatigue” in stakeholders (source). Not having clear examples. Each quadrant should have at least one concrete example that immediately resonates with your audience - if you can’t find one, your axes probably aren’t right. How to Create an Effective 2x2 Matrix Step 1: Choose Your Parameters Start with mutually exclusive factors. Your axes should be independent of each other - like “impact” and “effort” - to reveal meaningful trade-offs. Keep it comprehensive but simple. The two factors you choose should capture the core decision while being instantly understandable to everyone in the room. Test your axes with real examples. Before committing to your parameters, try plotting 3-4 real scenarios to ensure they create meaningful distinctions. For example, when prioritizing features, Impact vs. Effort works well because they’re independent variables that cover the core tradeoff. Step 2: Create Your Quadrants Once you have your parameters, map out your four quadrants. Make each quadrant actionable. Every box should lead to a clear next step - if a quadrant doesn’t suggest obvious action, revise your axes. Label quadrants intuitively. Use simple, clear language that resonates with your audience rather than trying to sound sophisticated. Create clear separation. Each quadrant should represent a distinctly different scenario - if items could fit in multiple boxes, your axes need refinement. Step 3: Place Your Examples For each quadrant, you should be able to immediately think of 1-2 clear examples. If you can’t, you might need to adjust your parameters. The 2x2 framework isn’t about replacing detailed analysis. It’s about creating clarity for initial decisions and alignment. At Google, when dealing with complex systems affecting billions of users, they needed ways to make decisions quickly while getting buy-in from multiple stakeholders. You can (and should) do deeper analysis after agreeing on direction. Here’s 3 Examples of 2x2 Frameworks We Used at Google: 1. Risk Management ​ X axis: Likelihood of incident Y axis: Potential impact This helped us quickly prioritize which issues needed immediate attention vs. long-term planning. 2. Resource Allocation ​ When deciding where to invest engineering resources: X axis: Strategic fit Y axis: ROI potential This helped balance short-term gains with long-term strategic needs. 3. Product Development X axis: Customer needs Y axis: Ease of implementation This helped identify quick wins vs. long-term investments. What’s Next? Here’s a 5-minute exercise you can do right now: Start with your biggest current decision. Take whatever’s keeping you up at night and try breaking it down into just two key factors. Map your options quickly. Spend no more than 5 minutes placing items in quadrants - if it takes longer, you’re probably overcomplicating it. Test with a colleague. Share your 2x2 with someone else and see if they can immediately understand where things should go - if not, simplify further. Remember: The power isn’t in the framework itself, but in how it facilitates clear communication and quick alignment.

​