When I first started coaching product managers, I made a mistake that many fall into. I assumed that performance could be measured the same way, regardless of whether someone was launching a zero-to-one experiment or running a million-dollar product. It didn’t take long for that assumption to break.
Some PMs who were brilliant at early-stage discovery looked lost when scaling became the priority. Others who thrived in structured environments struggled when asked to operate in the chaos of ambiguity. What I eventually realised—through hard-won experience and a few painful review cycles—is this:
You can’t fairly evaluate PMs without understanding the stage their product is in.
Table of Contents
The Problem with One-Size-Fits-All
Too many companies try to evaluate every PM against the same checklist. They build a single career ladder, a rigid set of competencies, and a universal OKR framework. On paper, it seems efficient. In practice, it leads to misaligned expectations, poorly informed feedback, and missed opportunities to grow the right talent in the right way.
It’s not that PMs don’t need structure. They do. But the structure must reflect where the product is, and what it needs most at that moment.
That’s where the 3X framework, developed by Kent Beck, becomes so useful.
The 3X Product Lifecycle: One Role, Three Realities
Every product moves through three fundamental stages:
1. Explore – Early-stage experimentation
This is the messy beginning. The product is still struggling to gain traction.
- Goal: Maximise learning and find product-market fit
- Execution focus: Fast iteration, not polish
- Metrics: Mostly qualitative
- PM strengths: Curiosity, comfort with ambiguity, speed over certainty
2. Expand – Growth and scaling
The product now has some market fit. The job is to grow.
- Goal: Accelerate adoption and reduce bottlenecks
- Execution focus: Operational excellence
- Metrics: Hybrid (qualitative and quantitative)
- PM strengths: Systems thinking, collaboration, prioritization at scale
3. Extract – Mature product optimisation
This is where most of the business value is realised.
- Goal: Optimise margin and efficiency
- Execution focus: Throughput, stability, incremental wins
- Metrics: Predominantly quantitative
- PM strengths: Strategic clarity, process rigour, cross-org influence
And here’s the kicker: the expand and extract stages may deliver most of the revenue, but they rely entirely on the insight and execution done during exploration. The foundations matter.
A Better Model: Insight, Execution, Impact
Instead of evaluating PMs on a generic rubric, I’ve found it much more helpful to assess them through three specific lenses:
Insight
How deeply do they understand users, the market, and the domain?
Can they turn that understanding into meaningful product proposals?
This is where great PMs distinguish themselves early. A PM who generates crisp insights and frames problems clearly sets up the entire team for success. Without insight, execution becomes guesswork.
Execution
Can they drive high-priority initiatives with quality and velocity?
Are they effective collaborators, communicators, and leaders?
Shipping matters, but it’s not just about hitting deadlines. It’s about solving the right problems with the right level of completeness and alignment.
Impact
What outcomes have they driven, both within the product and across the company?
Do they leave things better than they found them?
In the early stages, the impact is hard to measure with revenue. You look for leading indicators: signed deals, positive signals, engagement lift. In mature products, the numbers speak louder.
Applying It: Match Evaluation to Product Stage
To make this practical, I weigh the three areas differently depending on the stage of the product:
| Product Stage | Insight | Execution | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explore | 50% | 30% | 20% |
| Expand | 30% | 40% | 30% |
| Extract | 20% | 30% | 50% |
This simple table changes the conversation. Suddenly, the PM who didn’t ship a major feature in Explore but uncovered a breakthrough user insight gets recognised properly. Or the PM in Extract who delivered sustained margin improvements without flashy launches stands out for the right reasons.
Tips to Use This Framework Well
- Be transparent: Inform PMs early about the stage their product is in and what matters most. Don’t wait for the performance review season.
- Mix inputs: Use peer reviews, your own assessment, user feedback, and business data. None is perfect; all are partial.
- Look for patterns: Some PMs spike in insight, others in execution. Reward those spikes, but help them round out over time.
- Adjust as the product evolves: Don’t lock someone into an “explore” mindset when their product is shifting toward scale.
Final Thought: Performance ≠ Potential
Misjudging a PM because the evaluation doesn’t fit the context isn’t just unfair. It’s wasteful. You lose morale. You miss out on growth. You might even drive your most promising talent to leave.
A better framework doesn’t just help you evaluate PMs more fairly; it also enables you to evaluate them more fairly. It allows you to coach them more effectively.
And that’s how great products—and great careers—get built.
