Alex Rechevskiy recently shared something that caught my attention: "I spent 4 years as a Group PM at Google... making $900k... Friends asking how I "made it." But I was miserable." That tension - external success paired with internal anxiety - is more common than people admit, especially in high-paying product roles.

What I appreciate about Alex's post is that it does not romanticize Big Tech. It also does not bash it. Instead, it highlights a career reality many PMs eventually run into: when compensation peaks, clarity can drop. And if you are not intentional, you can end up optimizing for the wrong thing.

Below is my take on what Alex is really pointing to, why it resonates, and how PMs can build a 5-10 year plan that is bigger than any single title or package.

The hidden cost of "making it"

Alex describes a familiar scene: high comp, equity vesting, the prestige of a top logo, and the steady stream of "you made it" comments. On paper, it is the dream. In practice, it can create a unique kind of loneliness.

"Who do you talk to about career anxiety when you're supposed to be living the dream?"

This question lands because it is not about gratitude. It is about alignment.

When you are doing well, many people assume you are done. But careers are not a finish line. They are an evolving strategy across decades. And the higher you go, the fewer peers you have who can speak candidly with you about tradeoffs, doubt, and identity.

Why the loneliness is real

Alex lists three common dead ends:

A spouse or partner may support you deeply, but not understand the politics and nuance of product work.
Friends might hear a big number and assume any complaint is trivial.
Your manager may care, but they also have incentives that do not perfectly match yours.

That combination can trap PMs in their own head. You start to ask: "If I am unhappy here, what does that say about me?" But the better question is: "What is the job actually training me to become, and is that where I want to go?"

Big Tech scale changes what you can build

Alex points out another uncomfortable truth:

"Google doesn't touch anything under a billion-dollar opportunity."

This is not a moral failing. It is a portfolio strategy. At massive scale, the bar for attention is extremely high. The downside is that PMs who love early bets, scrappy iteration, and smaller wedges can feel constrained.

I have seen this play out in three ways:

Your idea can be good and still get killed. Not because it is wrong, but because it is too small relative to the machine.
You get rewarded for managing complexity, not for creating new markets. Those are different muscles.
Risk gets replaced by process. Process can be healthy, but it can also become a substitute for ownership.

If your long-term goal is CEO, CPO, or GM, you eventually need repeated reps at: making bets with incomplete data, shaping a narrative, recruiting believers, and shipping through ambiguity. Some Big Tech roles provide that. Many do not.

Golden handcuffs: when success becomes a prison

Alex says it plainly:

"Golden handcuffs are still handcuffs."

The trap is not just the money. It is the way money changes your risk posture.

When the package is huge, the cost of experimentation feels huge too. So you delay leaving. You delay starting something. You delay moving into a role that pays less but teaches more. And gradually, your career becomes a set of constraints you defend.

The "peak compensation" illusion

Alex nails the deeper point:

"It's not actually peak anything. It's just a moment in time. Your career is 30+ years."

This framing is powerful because it reframes comp as a snapshot, not a scoreboard. If you optimize too aggressively for the current snapshot, you may underinvest in:

Skills (what you can do in any environment)
Network (who will take your call when you want to pivot)
Strategic positioning (what story the market believes about you)

Or, as Alex puts it, optimizing for one company package while ignoring everything else is like buying the most expensive car instead of the one that gets you where you need to go.

A practical 5-10 year career strategy for PMs

Alex argues that the terminal role for a PM is not "Senior Staff" at Google. It is CEO, CPO, or general management. Whether or not those titles are your goal, the underlying advice still applies: build your career intentionally.

Here is a simple framework I use to translate that into action.

1) Define your destination before you negotiate the ride

Ask yourself:

In 5-10 years, do I want to be building, leading, operating, or advising?
Do I want to run a business unit, a product org, or a company?
What kind of problems energize me when no one is watching?

If you cannot answer these, it is easy to let compensation pick for you.

2) Build a skills portfolio, not a title ladder

Titles are company-specific. Skills are portable.

Pick 2-3 durable skills to deepen over the next year. For ambitious PMs aiming at CPO or GM paths, examples include:

Leading through influence and conflict
Hiring and developing PMs
Pricing, packaging, and go-to-market partnership
Operating cadence (OKRs, planning, execution systems)
Product strategy with clear choices and tradeoffs

Then audit your current role: is it actually giving you reps in those skills, or just giving you prestige?

3) Create an "optionality budget"

Golden handcuffs tighten when you do not have options.

Build options deliberately:

Maintain relationships outside your company (peer PMs, founders, recruiters, operators).
Do small experiments (advising, writing, open source, angel syndicates, community leadership).
Keep your resume and narrative current, even if you are not interviewing.

Optionality reduces fear. Fear is what makes the handcuffs feel permanent.

4) Replace isolation with community

Alex left Google to build a career accelerator in part because "thousands of PMs face this same isolation." That line matters.

Product is a team sport, but careers are often treated like solo games. Find or build a circle where you can talk about:

compensation tradeoffs without shame
ambition without arrogance
doubts without spiraling

Community is not motivational fluff. It is a decision support system.

Why Alex's message resonated (and why it went viral)

This post worked as LinkedIn content because it combines:

Credibility (Group PM at Google, real numbers, real context)
Contrast ("living the dream" vs "miserable")
Specificity (billion-dollar threshold, equity cadence, golden handcuffs)
A thesis (optimize for long-term career, not a single package)

Viral posts often do not say something new. They say something true that people are afraid to say out loud.

Sometimes the best move is walking away

Alex closes with a line that is worth sitting with:

"Sometimes the best career move is walking away from what looks perfect."

I would add one nuance: walking away is not the goal. Alignment is.

If your current role is building the skills, network, and positioning you need for the next chapter, staying can be the most strategic choice. If it is not, the highest-paying version of misalignment is still misalignment.

The real win is a career you can steer.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Alex Rechevskiy, I help PMs land $700K+ product roles 🚀 Follow for daily posts on growing your product skills & career 🛎️ Join our exclusive group coaching program for ambitious PMs 👇. View the original LinkedIn post →