The whole thing started suddenly.
The night before last, I got an interview invitation from a company. I had some personal matters to deal with, so I didn’t have much time to research the site in depth. The company was well known in its vertical, but I personally hadn’t spent much time using its product.
So during the first interview yesterday, when the conversation moved toward the website and its product, I deliberately steered away from that part. Later, the discussion shifted to open platforms, which is an area I know fairly well, and from that point the interview went pretty smoothly. They gave me a take-home assignment: design an open-platform-style prototype for one of the site’s channels. I finished it after I got back, sent it to the company’s deputy product director this morning, and they were very satisfied with it. As a result, I was invited back that same afternoon for a second interview.
That second round seemed to be with the COO. At first it felt casual, just a normal chat, but before long the tone changed. He kept rejecting my answers, one after another, and eventually said directly that I wasn’t a fit for the company’s expectations for a product manager.
I was upset.
From the beginning, it felt like I was being dismissed. In that moment I honestly felt judged before I had really been understood. So I decided I wasn’t going to just sit there and absorb it. I was going to push back—not by arguing openly, but by regaining control of the conversation and fighting for myself.
I know my spoken expression has weaknesses. That part is true. But when I was doing product work before, communication itself was never a problem. The issue tends to appear specifically in interview settings. I think that has something to do with both personality and the nature of product work. There is no single absolute standard for what makes a good product manager. Different people evaluate the role differently, and every company has its own interpretation, so different interview outcomes are inevitable.
On top of that, I’ve spent a long time working in front of a computer and organizing my thoughts through writing. I naturally think in text. When I type, I can express myself more clearly; when I have to speak on the spot, I’m less sharp. Even so, that has never created communication barriers in actual work.
During the second interview, I was asked a lot of questions, but every answer I gave was challenged. Whether I focused narrowly, expanded outward, or talked about learning, there always seemed to be a reason to reject it. The interviewer said he was putting me under pressure to see how I performed, but his conclusion was that my responses were confused, exposed too many weaknesses, and didn’t match the role.
I can admit that my expression wasn’t ideal. But product management covers too much territory for anyone to answer every question in a perfectly complete way, especially in an interview. Many details simply can’t be fully unfolded on the spot. Different ways of answering the same question can lead to different effects. And if someone wants to negate an answer, they usually can.
That’s when I decided to pull him onto my ground.
I started very politely. I told him that in previous interviews, very few people had pointed out my weaknesses so directly, and since he had, I hoped he could explain them in more detail so I could learn, improve, and avoid running into the same problems again later.
That shifted the dynamic.
He began listing my issues and the flaws in my previous answers. As he did, I listened carefully and absorbed what I could. I guided him into walking back through the earlier questions with me, and then, based on those original answers, I supplemented and repaired them. Little by little, I was able to reorganize what had earlier sounded messy or incomplete.
Gradually, I steered the conversation back toward product thinking itself. I started asking him how one actually becomes a good product manager. That was the battlefield I understood.
One point especially caught my attention: he believed I was lacking in the fundamentals of product management. But to me, that concept is far too broad for anyone to answer perfectly.
What exactly are the fundamentals of a product manager?
Is there only one? That seems impossible. If there are several, how should they be prioritized? Why should the first one come first? If they are all equally important, then how long does the list become? And in an interview setting, how many people can articulate every item without missing anything?
Different people will answer that differently. Different fields will define it differently too. It is an extremely hard thing to judge with certainty.
So I held onto that question and kept asking him, gently but repeatedly: What do you think the fundamentals of a product manager are?
From the way he answered, I felt him lose some clarity. It was not an easy question, even for him.
From start to finish, I stayed humble. Even when I was disagreeing, revising my earlier answers, or pushing back, I kept my tone measured. I never confronted him head-on.
Later, I began emphasizing something I genuinely believe: anyone can become a successful product manager if they are willing to put in the effort. Becoming the product manager behind a successful product is much harder. By that point, I had already realized I truly belonged in this field. I had entered the circle mentally, and my interest in the work was strong enough to keep driving me to learn.
No matter how messy some of my earlier answers had sounded, I still had that foundation: commitment, curiosity, and the willingness to improve. And in the end, a product manager’s growth is deeply shaped by company culture and team atmosphere. A successful product cannot be built by the product manager alone, and a successful product manager usually also has strong leadership above them.
By sorting through my previous answers and supplementing them in real time, I managed to change the interviewer’s view of me.
After that, he said he wanted to give me a logic question.
At that moment, I was thrilled. I’m actually very confident in my logical organization and in identifying essential distinctions in requirements and products. I felt this was my opening.
The questions were simple on the surface, but they were really about distinguishing core product characteristics.
Questions: 1、杯子、碟子、碗、锅，请指出这四样东西哪一样与其他三样存在本质不同，并详细阐述原因。 （答案当然不止一种，其中并没有正确与错误的分别，如果你有多种答案，不妨一并写出，然后在其中挑出一个你认为最合适的答案）
2、请指出下面四样东西哪一样与其他三样存在本质不同 （要求同上题，答案多多益善，并挑出最合适的） A：德云社郭德纲相声专场 B：中央一套新闻联播 C：ESPN美国职业橄榄球联赛 D：蔡志忠漫画
3、请指出下列哪种对比的关系与其他三种对比关系存在本质不同（对答案的要求同上） A：三层小洋楼与摩天大楼 B：地方行政长官与国务院总理 C：14寸CRT球面彩色电视机与32寸LCD平板彩电 D：短篇小说与长篇小说
My answers: 1、锅和其他三样存在本质的不同，其他三样为餐具类物品，满足餐饮方面的需求。 2、中央一套新闻联播和其他三样存在本质的不同，其他三样偏向于娱乐方面，而新闻联播则偏向官方权威的信息报道。 3、C和其他三样存在本质不同，其他三样都是层级的跳跃，而C的之间是不同的产品类型，存在技术和体验上的差异，两个不同产品线的商品。
My answers matched what the interviewer was looking for. I passed the second interview, then met with HR. After talking with HR, I left and waited for the result.
Tonight, the offer arrived.
I know I can ramble, but I also know very clearly where I’m weak. In some situations, my ability to express myself orally is genuinely poor. I can sort out my thoughts through writing, but I haven’t trained myself enough to present those thoughts clearly in speech. In day-to-day work, communicating across teams is not a problem for me. But in interviews or speaking-oriented situations, I fall into a blind spot.
Being able to write well is not enough.
I also need to be able to speak, explain, and present. I’ve already made a detailed plan to train that side of myself, and I’m looking forward to seeing how much I can improve.