谢谢关注缓慢思考！端午节快乐！
原文来自Benchmark新的合伙人Sarah Tavel的blog。Sarah早年是发现Pinterest的投资经理，后来加入Pinterest作为产品经理和领导发现团队，再后来加入Greylock任合伙人，她因为对产品的深刻理解和对市场颠覆的深刻思考，最近被Benchmark选为新一代的合伙人。如果你信奉产品驱动，文章值得研究。本次先翻译前两条。
I was involved with Pinterest from 5 employees through 650. Here’s what I learned.
我在Pinterest，经历了5名员工到650位的过程。以下是我学到的东西。
When you’re scaling quickly, you get a lot right, but you inevitably get some things wrong. The best companies — like Pinterest — are the ones that learn from those mistakes and adjust quickly.
当你迅速扩张的时候，必然会做很多正确的事情，但也不可避免地会犯一些错误。
最好的公司 - 如Pinterest - 都是从错误中学习并快速调整的公司。
This post is a distillation of the lessons I learned, first as an investor, then as one of the company’s first product managers, and finally leading product for our discovery team — overseeing search, recommendations, our visual search team, and more.
这篇文章是我所学到的经验的提炼，首先作为投资者，然后是公司的第一批产品经理之一，最后领导我们发现团队的产品 - 负责搜索、用户推荐、视觉搜索团队等。
重要的是你度量什么
People often say that what you measure, improves. While true, it overlooks how strategic the decision of
what
you measure is. If you get stuck measuring the wrong thing, you could end up wasting your time on the wrong initiatives.
人们经常说，你度量什么，什么就会改善。
尽管如此，它忽略了度量什么本身是一项战略决策。
如果度量错了东西，你可能会最终浪费时间在错误的举措上。
For example, early on at Pinterest, our newly created
growth team
set its objective: to increase the number of monthly active users. MAUs is a common metric used by a lot of growth teams and social networks, so it made intuitive sense.
例如，在Pinterest初期，我们新成立的增长团队设定了目标：增加每月活跃用户数即MAU。 MAU是许多增长团队和社交网络使用的常用指标，因此它是直观的。
The growth team then created and executed on a product roadmap that poured new users into the top of our sign-up funnel. The problem was that while MAUs did increase, we had a leaky bucket. While the growth team was pouring people into the top of the funnel and the product teams were focused on increasing engagement of existing users, no one was responsible for making sure those new users became engaged, productive users.
然后，增长团队创建并执行了一个产品路线图，把新用户引导到注册通道的顶部。问题是，MAU确实增加了，但我们有的只是一个漏水的木桶。虽然增长团队将新用户引入通道的顶端，但产品团队专注于增加现有用户的参与度，没有人负责确保这些新用户成为有黏性的高效用户。
Realizing this, the team shifted their focus from MAUs to increasing the number of new weekly active pinners (the people who use Pinterest to pin or repin something new on the site that week — Pinterest’s core action).
意识到这一点，团队将重点从MAU转移到每周新增的活跃使用图钉功能的人（即每周使用Pinterest的pin和repin功能发布新图片的人- Pinterest的核心动作）。
With this shift in focus, the growth team’s priorities aligned with what was better for our users (and the company), and weekly active pinner growth accelerated. Now, it wasn’t just about getting new users to sign up, it was about making sure they had a great experience from sign-up to first home feed that set them up for long-term success on Pinterest.
随着这一重点转移，增长团队的优先顺序调整过来了，这对用户（和公司）都更好，每周活跃的使用图钉用户加速增长。现在，不仅仅是要让新用户注册，而是要确保他们从注册到发布第一个自己的图片流有一个美好的体验，这对Pinterest长期的成功至关重要。
This by the way is why vanity metrics are so dangerous to companies. They aren’t just misleading to the outside world— they can start a vicious-cycle. You use a metric because it makes your company (or team) look good, and because you start tracking it, you want it to continue to increase, so you start optimizing for it. This will take you down the wrong path.
这就是为什么虚幻的指标对公司来说是如此危险。
他们不仅仅是对外界的误导 — 他们可能导致恶性循环。你使用指标，因为它使你的公司（或团队）看起来不错，又因为你开始跟踪它了，你希望它持续增加，所以你开始优化它。这会让你走上一条错误的道路。
So yes — if you measure it, it will improve. But make sure you measure the right thing.
所以，是的 —
如果你度量一个指标，它就会改善。但请确保你度量的是正确的事情。
重要的是组织结构
Most execution problems boil down to two root causes: Wrong org structure, or wrong person in the job.
大多数执行问题归结为两个根本原因：组织结构不对或用人不对。
There’s a lot written about “wrong person in the job”, but org structure isn’t covered as much. Indeed, it’s common for young companies to focus on keeping the organization “flat” and nonhierarchical, or letting it take form organically. But that approach can lead to mediocre execution.
关于“用人不对”有很多分析文章，但组织结构不对很少被提及。事实上，年轻公司往往专注于保持组织“扁平平”和非层级化，或者让组织自然有机地形成。但是这种做法可能导致执行不力。
I’ll give two examples:
我会举两个例子：
Early days at Pinterest, we had a matrixed organization. This meant no team had all the resources it needed to ship a product. The strategic pillars like my team (Discover) were mostly backend engineers. When we wanted to ship a new Discovery feature, I’d have to beg the mobile team to prioritize my project for the next front-end engineer who’d become available, and try to line up timelines so that we’d have the backend and designs ready when the front-end engineer became available (at one desperate point, I made a Gantt chart to help!).
早期的Pinterest，我们有一个矩阵组织。这意味着没有一个团队拥有发布产品所需的所有资源。像我的团队（Discover）这样的战略支柱大多是靠后端工程师支持。当我们想要发布一个新的发现功能时，我不得不请求移动团队优先考虑我的项目，为了下一个可用的前端工程师。我要尝试排时间表，以便一旦前端工程师可用的时候，后端工程师和设计团队也准备就绪（在某个绝望的时候，我甚至使用甘特图排时间）。
This approach made it really hard to build something excellent quickly. When we switched to full stack teams, it was night and day. Everything moved faster, we could prioritize better, we built better products, and everyone was a lot happier.
这种方法使得很难快速开发出优秀的东西。当我们自己成立了全栈团队，就变成了日夜工作。一切都变得更快，我们可以更好的管理优先级，建立更好的产品，每个人都更快乐。
Another example is when at one point, the growth team reported to the marketing team. Result: Tons of coordination overhead. People on the growth team were constantly having meetings with the product team in order to get their strategies and roadmaps aligned. It added a huge number of meetings to our schedules, and made it harder to align priorities with strategy. When we moved the growth team over so it reported to product, it streamlined their strategy, got everyone aligned better — and also eliminated a heck of a lot of meetings.
另一个例子是，在某一时刻，增长团队向营销团队汇报。结果：花费在协调上的时间惊人。增长团队中的人不断与产品团队举行会议，以使他们的策略和路线图保持一致。它在我们的时间表中增加了大量的会议，使得保持优先事项与战略的一致性变得非常困难。当我们将增长团队迁移到产品团队时，战略变得顺畅，每个人都协调的更好了，同时也消除了很多会议。
Lastly, if you have a strategic initiative, you better create a team that can drive that initiative if you want to make any progress.
最后，如果你有一个战略举措，如果你想取得进展，你最好创建一个团队去驱动这个举措。
Org changes are often painful and distracting but they’re absolutely necessary as a company scales. When an org structure doesn’t reflect your strategy or is overly matrixed, it acts as a tax on your company’s ability to execute.
组织变化通常是痛苦的，而且分散精力，但随着公司的扩张这种变化是绝对必要的。
当组织结构不能反映你的战略或过分矩阵化时，你公司的执行力就会大打折扣。
愉悦资本，从摩拜单车到蔚来汽车，等待你的NEXT BIG！
