Product Managers vs. Product Owners vs. Reality

For years, the debate over Product Managers vs. Product Owners has persisted. Initially, they were seen as the same agile concept. Some argue that a PO is just a role, while PM is a job title, yet in corporate reality, these roles have continued to diverge. With the widespread adoption of SAFe in large organizations, this distinction became more pronounced, reinforcing the separation of roles. But did this shift mean we lost "the agile mindset"? I’d say no. Instead, we adapted to corporate realities, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

In a corporate world—where digital products are often mature and deeply embedded in complex ecosystems—it is unrealistic to expect one person to handle everything: vision & strategy, roadmaps, market analysis, budgets, backlog management, and direct collaboration with development teams. The division of responsibilities between PMs (strategic focus) and POs (tactical focus) is a necessity, not just a matter of semantics.

Despite what some agile purists claim about the PO being the "mini-CEO" of the product—in the corporate world, this is not the reality. It’s an utopia that we need to recognize for what it is. If we truly consider ourselves adaptive, we need to acknowledge reality instead of clinging to textbook definitions that don’t fit modern corporate structures.

Many of you who have worked in corporate environments have already seen this split in action—PMs and POs exist as separate roles because managing both strategic direction and tactical execution within complex organizations requires distinct areas of focus.

Nevertheless, rather than treating the PO/PM roles as either purely strategic or purely tactical, we should acknowledge that the boundaries shift based on factors such as organizational structure, product complexity, and the maturity of the product (and team).

While debates over job titles persist, one fact remains: the tactical role of Product Owners is often overlooked in mainstream discussions. We have an abundance of literature and training for Product Managers focusing on strategy, vision, roadmaps and market fit. But what about the tactical side? Is backlog management really just an administrative task? Are tactical skills somehow less important than strategic ones? Why do we undervalue the work happening in the trenches? Ignoring this side of product management is a missed opportunity for growth—both for individuals in these roles and for companies struggling with execution.

SAFe acknowledged the need to separate these roles—but it has become too prescriptive, shifting from a framework into a methodology that often fails to adapt to real-world corporate contexts. One of the biggest gaps in SAFe (and other scaling frameworks) is the misrepresentation of the PO as a purely operational role. Yes, the PO is a tactical role, but that does not mean it should be purely executional. Even if a PO is not the ultimate decision-maker for the product vision, they must understand the product vision deeply, participate actively in shaping product strategy, and own the product goal. Without these elements, how can a PO make fast decisions in the trenches?

In the corporate world, I’ve seen many cases where a PO, stripped of strategic involvement, had no basis for making informed decisions. The result? Decisions became purely random—a hit-or-miss game. Or no decisions were made at all, leading to bottlenecks. Or even worse—Engineering Managers, Delivery Managers, or the so-called "Agile Project Managers" started making product decisions (yes, I said it). These individuals, often without the necessary product mindset, end up making tactical decisions that completely undermine the product vision or goal.

Many of my posts will focus on the tactical role of the PO, simply because it’s often ignored in mainstream agile discussions. That does not mean I believe tactical roles should be excluded from strategic decisions. Quite the opposite—if POs aren’t involved in strategy at some level, they will struggle to make smart, quick decisions in execution.

It’s time we stop pretending that the PM vs. PO debate is just about terminology and start embracing the reality of modern product organizations. Let’s stop romanticizing outdated ideals and start building product teams that actually work in the corporate world.

• D. Scope