Let me start with a simple analogy. Think back to your school days, cramming for exams. Why did we study? The answer is straightforward: to be prepared. To be ready for the moment of truth when we had to show what we knew. And yet, if you look closely, the act of studying varies wildly. Some students need hours of preparation, others just a glance at their notes. The amount of studying required is personal, dependent on prior knowledge, and the stakes of the test. It’s never one-size-fits-all.

Now, imagine a scenario where the professor asks you to turn in your study notes as part of your grade. Suddenly, studying shifts from being a means to an end, to a performance in itself. You start focusing on how those notes look, color-coded, neatly highlighted, prepared as much for the professor’s eyes as for your own understanding. You’re not just studying to know the material anymore, you’re studying to show off that you studied.

This is where I see many product companies go wrong with user research.

Much like those professors grading study notes, companies have started treating user research as a box to check—a performance to show that something was done. Product managers or executives, the ones responsible for making decisions, often aren't the ones "studying." They're delegating that to researchers, and when it comes time for market performance—the real exam—they expect the research to bail them out if things go wrong.

Here’s the fundamental problem: you can’t offload the responsibility of learning. In product development, the ones responsible for making decisions should also be the ones doing the intellectual heavy lifting. User research can’t be outsourced in the way that companies often think it can. It’s not about getting someone else to study for you, and then expecting to ace the exam. If you want to build a great product, you need to know what you’re talking about firsthand.

User research, when used improperly, becomes an excuse. It becomes a crutch. When product teams get cold feet about a decision, they turn to research not for insights but for validation or risk mitigation. If things don’t go well in the market, they can point to the research and say, “Well, we did our homework.” But let’s be honest—that’s performative. The problem is that these product teams aren't internalizing the research themselves; they’re just using it as a shield.

What should user research actually be, then? It should be a guide, a tool for learning—not a set of training wheels. Researchers aren’t there to do the decision-making for product teams; they’re there to teach decision-makers how to make better decisions. It’s like a great teacher who doesn’t just give you the answers but shows you how to think critically and arrive at your own conclusions.

And this leads us to another key point: the feedback loop of market reaction. If a product manager doesn't study—that is, doesn't engage deeply with the research—that's fine. The market will be their judge. The real learning comes from seeing how the market reacts, adjusting course, and figuring out what needs to change in their decision-making process. No amount of research will save a product from poor execution, and sometimes the best teacher is failure.

User research should never be the bottleneck to decision-making, but it often becomes one. When research is treated as a scapegoat, decisions slow down. Teams become paralyzed, waiting for research to give them the go-ahead, instead of using research to guide their own judgment.

To move fast, to perform well, you need to embrace the uncertainty that comes with making decisions. You need to study enough to feel confident in your direction but not so much that you’re using research as a way to avoid taking the exam.

In the end, the market will grade you. And that grade is what matters.