The Magic of Small Engineering Teams

speaker1

Welcome to our podcast, where we explore the latest advancements in tech and startup strategies. I’m your host, and today we’re diving into the magic of small engineering teams. These teams are the backbone of many successful startups, and we’re here to uncover why. Joining me is my co-host, who’s also a tech enthusiast. How are you today?

speaker2

I’m fantastic, thanks! I’m really excited to dive into this topic. Small teams sound fascinating, but I have to admit, I’m a bit curious about what makes them so special. Can you give us a quick overview of why small teams are so beneficial for startups?

speaker1

Absolutely! Small teams, often referred to as one-pizza teams, are incredibly beneficial because they allow for faster decision-making, more innovation, and better autonomy. For example, at PostHog, we have 47 people spread across ten countries, and we’re organized into 15 small teams. This structure helps us ship fast and maintain the agility of an early-stage startup. Each team is like a mini-startup, with the freedom to make decisions and own their part of the product.

speaker2

That’s really interesting! Can you dive a bit deeper into how these small teams are structured and how they operate? I’m curious about the specific rules and guidelines that make them effective.

speaker1

Sure thing! One of the golden rules of small teams is that they need to be genuinely small, ideally two to six people. This size ensures that communication is streamlined and everyone can contribute effectively. Each team runs its own retrospective and sprint, makes the final call on features, and sets their own goals and missions. They also have one leader who is responsible for the team’s performance, but this leader isn’t necessarily the most experienced person. The key is to choose someone who is best suited to leading the product or project.

speaker2

That makes a lot of sense. I’ve heard of some companies where team leads are more like managers, but it sounds like in this structure, the focus is really on the product and the team’s performance. Can you share some real-world examples of small teams in action, maybe from PostHog or other companies?

speaker1

Absolutely! At PostHog, we recently created a new team to focus on our customer data platform (CDP). This team was spun out from a hackathon project, and they’ve been working to make CDP a first-class product. Another example is our customer comms team, which was formed to scale our support efforts. They’ve been incredibly effective in handling customer issues and improving our overall support experience. In terms of other companies, Amazon’s two-pizza team model is a well-known example, and companies like Google and Spotify also use similar structures to maintain agility and innovation.

speaker2

Those are some great examples! But I’m also curious about the challenges and tradeoffs of this approach. What are some of the downsides that companies might face when implementing small teams?

speaker1

That’s a great question. One of the main challenges is overlap, especially when teams work on features that are used across multiple products. To mitigate this, we maintain a list of everything we do and who owns it, and we’re transparent about our processes. Another challenge is fuzzy ownership, where it’s not clear who is responsible for certain tasks. We have a fuzzy ownership process to address this, where anyone can create a PR and find a solution. Additionally, speed often comes at the cost of seamlessness, and not everyone is suited to this type of work. It requires people who are self-starting, take ownership, and are low-ego.

speaker2

It sounds like there’s a lot to consider when implementing small teams. How do you ensure that you’re hiring the right people who can thrive in this environment? Are there specific qualities or skills you look for?

speaker1

Absolutely, hiring the right people is crucial. We look for individuals who are self-motivated, take extreme ownership of their work, and are comfortable with a high degree of autonomy. They should also be authentic and low-ego, as this helps in maintaining a collaborative and supportive team environment. We’ve developed a strong set of values and cultural guidelines to help us identify the right candidates. For example, we value people who are willing to step on toes in a low-ego way to get things done.

speaker2

That’s really insightful. Communication and collaboration must be key in these small teams. How do you ensure that teams stay aligned and communicate effectively, especially when they’re working asynchronously or across different time zones?

speaker1

You’re absolutely right. Communication is crucial, and we’ve implemented several strategies to ensure alignment. Each team runs its own retrospective and sprint, and they share notes and updates with the entire company. We also use tools like GitHub for documentation and Slack for real-time communication. Additionally, we encourage team members to attend meetings on other teams if needed, to foster collaboration. This helps in maintaining a clear understanding of what other teams are working on and how everyone can support each other.

speaker2

That’s really helpful. As companies grow, how do you maintain the agility and speed of small teams without losing the benefits of scale? Are there any specific strategies or structures you use to ensure this?

speaker1

Great question! As companies grow, it’s important to maintain the spirit and agility of small teams. One strategy is to keep teams small and focused, even as the company expands. We also ensure that teams have clear missions and goals, and we encourage them to work with other teams on multidisciplinary projects. This helps in maintaining a flat structure and minimizing layers of management. Additionally, we’re flexible about team composition and allow people to move between teams to develop their skills and experience. This keeps everyone engaged and ensures that the company continues to innovate and deliver value.

speaker2

That sounds like a well-rounded strategy. How do you measure the success of these small teams? Are there specific metrics or KPIs you use to evaluate their performance?

speaker1

We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics to measure the success of our small teams. Quantitatively, we look at metrics like the number of features shipped, bug resolution times, and customer satisfaction scores. Qualitatively, we assess the team’s ability to meet their goals, their collaboration with other teams, and their overall contribution to the company’s mission. Each team outlines their goals and projects for each quarter, and we provide feedback to keep them on track. This balanced approach helps us ensure that teams are not only delivering results but also maintaining a positive and productive team culture.

speaker2

That’s really comprehensive. As we wrap up, I’m curious about the future of small teams in the tech industry. Do you see this approach becoming more widespread, and what do you think are the key trends or developments to watch out for?

speaker1

I definitely see small teams becoming more widespread, especially as companies recognize the benefits of agility and innovation. One key trend to watch is the integration of remote and asynchronous work, which allows small teams to be even more flexible and efficient. Another trend is the use of AI and automation to augment team capabilities, helping them to focus on higher-value tasks. Additionally, there’s a growing emphasis on creating a strong team culture and values, which are essential for maintaining the effectiveness of small teams. Overall, I believe that small teams will continue to play a crucial role in the tech industry, driving innovation and growth