The Multifaceted ‘Team’ Definition: Navigating Organizational Lenses, According to John Cutler

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler explores the inherent complexities of defining what constitutes a ‘team’ within an organizational context. Cutler, a prominent voice in product development and team dynamics, argues that while the basic definition of a team—a group of people who collaborate—is straightforward, the trouble arises when these teams are tied to specific outcomes or structures like product, promotion, or value delivery.

He introduces the concept of different ‘lenses’ through which teams can be viewed, each offering a distinct perspective but potentially leading to conflict when one lens attempts to dominate. Cutler writes:

“What is a team?” is actually an easy question. It’s a group of people who collaborate. A workgroup is a temporary team. It’s when team = product, or team = promotion, or team = value that you get into (necessary and productive) trouble.

The Lens Theory of Team Definition

Cutler outlines several critical lenses that influence how teams are perceived and organized:

• Collaboration Lens: Focuses on who genuinely works together on a day-to-day basis.
• Value Lens: Examines what tangible value a group delivers to customers.
• Technology Lens: Considers the systems and services a group is responsible for.
• Mandate Lens: Defines what a group has been tasked with and the authority it possesses.
• Financial Lens: Maps a group to revenue streams or cost centers.
• Market Lens: Aligns a group with customer segments or competitive positioning.

While all these lenses are valuable, Cutler points out a common organizational pitfall: the struggle for a single lens to become dominant. This often leads to what he terms ‘shadow systems’—unofficial structures like capability trees or collaboration agreements—that teams create to manage complexities not addressed by the dominant, often overly simplified, view.

The Push for Product-Centricity and Its Challenges

Cutler further delves into the challenges posed by the trend towards product-centric organizational structures. He cautions that simply declaring a shift to product-centricity doesn’t automatically resolve the underlying complexities of team formation and collaboration.

You can’t snap your fingers and restructure the org into perfectly aligned, independent teams. You can’t magically turn every team into a full-stack team.

He highlights that organizations often grapple with various team ‘topologies,’ including platforms, components, and teams with multiple responsibilities. Issues like Product Managers sharing engineering teams or single PMs overseeing too many engineering teams are common, even when the theoretical ideal is cross-functional, self-contained units. Cutler suggests that achieving truly fractal and layered team structures is far from simple.

The Pendulum of Organizational Focus

According to Cutler, organizations often oscillate between different priorities, creating a pendulum effect in how teams are defined and managed. When the focus swings towards product-centric definitions, the complexities of collaboration can be obscured. Conversely, emphasizing collaboration and coordination can lead to a loss of sight of the larger strategic picture and value delivery.

This dynamic, Cutler explains, dictates the nature of the ‘shadow systems’ that emerge. The dominant lens of the moment, whether product, collaboration, or another perspective, shapes how teams are officially recognized, while unofficial methods arise to bridge the gaps.

Navigating the Tension Between Lenses

Cutler concludes by emphasizing that the difficulty doesn’t lie in describing these various lenses—that part is relatively straightforward. The real challenge, he argues, is in managing the inherent tension between these different perspectives and understanding their profound implications for how groups and teams are structured and function.

The definition of a team is simple. The hard part is letting multiple lenses coexist without one flattening the others.

Ultimately, Cutler’s analysis underscores the need for organizations to embrace a more nuanced understanding of team definitions, allowing for the coexistence of multiple perspectives rather than forcing them into a single, often inadequate, framework.