How I Learned to Share Ownership With My Product Manager

Building a creative partnership takes more than putting two strong specialists on the same project. You can be a brilliant designer, an experienced analyst, or a product manager who seems to have an answer for everything. Working with other people can amplify your expertise—or make it surprisingly difficult to put it to use.I have spent seven years at Yandex, working alongside highly capable people. I have also watched misunderstandings between those people turn straightforward tasks into complicated negotiations.Expertise does not automatically make collaboration easier. Sometimes, it gives each person more reasons to believe they are right.I learned that lesson through a conflict I helped create.I thought I was helping. While working at Yandex Market, I often took the lead in my partnership with a product manager. I answered product questions, defended our decisions, and proposed alternatives. My partner seemed less experienced to me. He needed more time to gather his thoughts, while I was quick to jump into a discussion. So I decided, on behalf of both of us, that I would do the talking.From my perspective, I was helping us move faster.Eventually, we had a conflict. Through several conversations, I realized that taking over was making him less confident. He had fewer opportunities to explain his reasoning and demonstrate his expertise. I interpreted his hesitation as a reason to step in again.We discussed what each of us needed. He wanted to present and defend the product rationale himself. I wanted design considerations to have a meaningful place in the decisions.We changed how we approached product reviews, introduced regular one-on-ones, and became more attentive to each other’s needs within the project.The problem had never been a shortage of ideas. I had assumed that my way of contributing worked for both of us.Bringing the creative pair into product work. That experience made me revisit my earlier work in advertising agencies, where projects often revolved around a creative pair. Two specialists brought different strengths and developed ideas together. When the partnership worked, they could produce strong work quickly. I started applying that approach more deliberately to product management and design.Of course, a PM and designer are part of a larger team. Engineers, analysts, researchers, and other colleagues shape the outcome. But this particular partnership influences many early decisions: which problem to solve, what to explore, and what to test.I recognize three recurring patterns. These are working dynamics, not fixed personality types.The PM drives; the designer executes.The PM defines the problem, chooses a solution, and sets the pace. The designer joins when something needs to be drawn.Work moves forward, but the team uses only part of the designer’s expertise. Questions about usability and alternative approaches arrive too late to influence the direction.A useful change is to involve design while the problem is still being framed. The designer also needs to bring questions and proposals into that conversation.The designer drives; the PM recedes.The designer takes over framing, strategy, discussions, and presentations. The PM becomes less visible, while the designer accumulates responsibility.I know this pattern well.Important tasks can fall through the cracks: who is coordinating with stakeholders, checking business assumptions, or deciding the scope of a release?Clear ownership helps, provided both people respect it. If your partner owns part of a discussion, leave them time to respond— even when you already have an answer.Both people adapt.Each person can lead, question assumptions, and make room for the other’s expertise.The designer might help turn an abstract request into a concrete problem. The PM might bring evidence or constraints that change the design direction.Both need to be willing to adjust. A partnership cannot depend on one person doing all the adapting.Look beyond the halfway point. Compromise is sometimes necessary. Deadlines and resources are real, and not every disagreement needs a new workshop. But I try to avoid settling too quickly for a solution where each person gives something up just to end the argument.Stephen Covey’s idea of synergy and the third alternative offers a useful way to think about this: different perspectives can help people develop a solution that improves on their original proposals.Consider a hypothetical disagreement. A PM wants to launch a complex flow quickly. The designer believes the proposed shortcuts will make it confusing.They could remove a few screens and ship something that satisfies neither concern particularly well.Or they could examine what the deadline is meant to achieve. If the immediate goal is to test one assumption, a smaller, focused experiment might provide the evidence without requiring the full flow.That possibility only emerges when both people explain what matters to them and are willing to reconsider their approach.For me, this is the most valuable part of a creative partnership: discovering an option neither person brought into the room.Make collaboration practical. A few habits help turn that intention into everyday work. Start with questions.Earlier in my career, I often entered discussions with an answer ready. Now, I try to establish a shared understanding first: What outcome are we trying to achieve? Who is the user? What do we know, and what are we assuming? Which constraints are fixed? What would count as success? These questions help the PM clarify the request and help me focus my effort.Make ownership explicit.Agree on who gathers evidence, coordinates with stakeholders, presents each part of the proposal, and follows up on open questions.For me, the difficult part was honoring those agreements when I felt tempted to step in.Write down decisions.A productive meeting can still leave two people with different plans. Keep a short record of what you decided, why, who owns the next step, and what remains unresolved. If you defer an improvement, record what would trigger revisiting it.Explore alternatives together.An art director once told me brainstorming was a waste of time. I have repeatedly found that an hour of focused discussion can accomplish more than a week of messages. Bring a specific question and options to compare. Leave with a decision or a next step.Make feedback actionable.“You push too hard” gives someone little guidance.A more useful formulation identifies the behavior, its impact, and a request: “When you answer questions about my work before I can respond, I lose the opportunity to explain my reasoning. Can I lead that part next time?”That is an illustrative example, but the principle is practical: describe something the other person can recognize and change.Check in on the partnership. Project meetings tend to fill up with project problems. Regular one-on-ones create space to discuss the working relationship itself. What went well? What was frustrating? Where did either person need more support? What should we try differently?Positive feedback matters here, too. Your partner should know which contributions helped. These conversations require participation from both people. One person cannot maintain a healthy partnership alone.What changed for me. Over the couple of years since I started practicing this approach, I have changed how I work. I used to spend much more energy defending my ideas and proving my independence. I took on responsibility and found it difficult to share.Now, I pay closer attention to each person’s strengths. I explain what I can contribute and where I can help. We work out where to combine our efforts and where to trust each other to lead. Our ideas have become stronger, and I have maintained good relationships with my team through large, difficult projects.I still disagree, ask questions, and stand up for what I believe matters. I am not trying to be the perfect or most agreeable colleague. I want the people around me to have room to do their best work—and to build something together that none of us could have created alone.