The 5 biggest pitfalls in collaborating with product teams

If you work closely with product teams, you probably know the feeling of depending on something you don’t fully control. You have a responsibility, a deadline, or a commitment to the organization – but your primary delivery engine operates in a different time zone and speaks a different language.

Perhaps you’re in marketing, trying to plan a campaign, but the roadmap keeps changing.

Perhaps you’re in sales, facing a customer who expects a concrete solution, while the team is talking about hypotheses and learning.

Perhaps you work in operations, IT, compliance, or legal, where stability, traceability, and control are part of the job, and where changes can be costly.

Perhaps you’re in a leadership role, trying to balance multiple concerns without everything dissolving into coordination noise.
‍
And then you find yourself there: You genuinely want to help, but you end up being seen as “the interrupter.” The team wants to deliver, but feels that the ground keeps shifting. Both sides have good intentions, yet the collaboration still takes on that familiar tone of, “Why does this have to be so difficult every time?”
‍
There is a pattern to it. Not because anyone is deliberately doing something wrong, but because the collaboration often lacks a shared language around mandate, expectations, and decision-making.
‍
That also means the problems are rarely solved by adding more status meetings or increasing the pressure. More often, they can be resolved by adjusting a few concrete collaboration practices.
‍
That’s why we outline the five common mistakes here that typically create friction, and what you can do instead.

1. You order solutions instead of describing problems

When you depend on a delivery, it is tempting to be specific: “Can’t you just build X?” It feels efficient because it reduces complexity to a task.
‍
But there is a cost. You close down the solution space and shift the team from being responsible for outcomes to being responsible for output.
‍
What to do instead:

Problem + context + desired outcome
‍

• Who is affected, and how does it show up?
• What are the consequences if we do not solve it?
• What outcome are we aiming to see (behavior change, time saved, fewer errors, higher conversion)?
• Which constraints are non-negotiable (compliance, brand, performance, operational stability)?

If you optimize solely for building quickly, you risk delivering something that looks finished but does not solve the right problem.

2. You confuse speed with efficiency

When you are accountable to customers, colleagues, or leadership, speed feels like a virtue. The faster the team can deliver, the easier it is to plan, communicate, and keep your promises.
‍
The challenge is that “fast” in product development can mean two very different things: fast at building, or fast at learning.
‍
If you optimize solely for building quickly, you risk delivering something that looks finished but does not solve the right problem.

Then comes the second wave: change requests, patchwork solutions, rework, and another round of coordination. From the sidelines, it may look like slowness, but it is often the price of skipping the learning phase.
‍
Instead, help the team move fast in the right way by reducing uncertainty early on:

• Ask what the team is confident about and what they still do not know.
• Request small, early tests (prototypes, limited pilots, focused experiments) before making major commitments.
• Agree on “lock-in points”: When must key questions be clarified at the latest, so you can plan and communicate effectively?
• Ask for deliveries in smaller increments, so you have something stable to build on, even while the rest is still being explored.

The point is not to slow down. The point is to ensure that speed and direction are aligned.

3. You measure progress instead of impact

In many organizations, what is visible becomes what drives behavior. And what is most visible is often output: features, releases, story points, epics, deadlines, and “how far along are you?”

That is understandable. But it creates a distortion, because output is not the same as value.
‍
When a product team is measured on delivery progress, you typically get more delivery. But you also risk the team choosing the safe tasks over the important ones, and losing the courage to stop something that is not working because “we are almost done anyway.”
‍
This is where collaboration often starts to creak. Stakeholders need predictability, while the team needs the freedom to optimize for impact. If both sides are measuring different things, misunderstanding becomes the default state.

Instead, shift the focus from output to outcomes through a few simple practices:

• Insist that every delivery is linked to an expected outcome: What should change for the user or in the business?
• Agree on one to three metrics that can indicate whether you are on the right track. Early signals are better than perfect metrics.
• Ask “what do we want to learn?” and “what will we change?” in the same sentence as “what are we building?”
• When you ask for status updates, ask for learning instead: What have we observed? What surprised us? What will we adjust?

This makes it easier to prioritize together, because the conversation centers on impact and trade-offs, rather than just deliveries.

When process is grounded in context, it feels like support. When it is not, it feels like control.

4. You change the process without understanding the context

When collaboration becomes difficult, it is tempting to “fix it” with process: more templates, new rituals, additional gates, more meetings. The intention is good. But if you change processes without understanding the team’s context, process quickly becomes an added burden rather than a help.
‍
Product teams often operate in a space of uncertainty. Needs are unclear, solutions must be explored, and there are multiple possible paths forward.

In contrast, many staff and support functions operate in a space of requirements: documentation, control, compliance, stability, and predictability. Both logics can be valid. But when you use one logic to manage the other, conflict arises.
‍
Instead, start with the most critical collaboration interfaces and build the process from there:

• Clarify which decisions the team can make independently, and which require involvement from others.
• Define a small number of fixed, high-value touchpoints, for example a monthly prioritization session and a brief weekly sync on dependencies.
• Separate coordination from control. Some meetings are about helping each other move forward, others are about ensuring compliance with requirements. Do not mix the two.

When process is grounded in context, it feels like support. When it is not, it feels like control.

5. You don’t think product teams fit into the organization

The final mistake is more subtle, but also more costly: concluding that product teams as an approach do not fit “the way we are structured here in our very special and unique organization.”
‍
This is often where the familiar arguments appear: “We have legacy systems,” “we are responsible for operations,” “we are regulated,” “we build internal systems,” “we have too many dependencies.”

And yes, all of that makes product work harder. But it is not an argument against product teams. It is precisely a reason to have teams that take responsibility for impact, prioritize trade-offs, and work systematically with learning and risk.
‍
The misunderstanding typically arises when product is seen only as something customer-facing and commercial. But a product can also be a platform, an internal tool, an API, a data pipeline, or a critical process that other teams depend on. There is still a user. There is still a need. There is still a value chain.
‍
Instead, make the product’s value chain and the team’s mandate explicit:

• Define who the team creates value for, internally or externally, and what “value” means in that context.
• Agree on the mandate: What does the team own? Which decisions can they make? Which constraints apply?
• Make dependencies visible and manage them as part of the governance model, not as ad hoc fire drills.
• Accept that some areas will require more governance, but ensure governance focuses on risks and requirements, not micromanaging solutions.
  When mandate and value chain are clear, product teams do not feel like a foreign organism. They become a stable way of delivering value in a complex reality.

When mandate and value chain are clear, product teams do not feel like a foreign organism. They become a stable way of delivering value in a complex reality.

Take (at least) one thing with you.

Collaboration with product teams rarely improves through added pressure and more status meetings. It improves through a shared language around the problem, the desired impact, the mandate, and the decision space. When those elements are clear, many frustrations fade, and it becomes easier to do what most people actually want: deliver something that works and that everyone can stand behind.
‍
If you take one thing away from this, let it be this:
‍
The next time you feel tempted to push for a specific solution, start by making the problem and the intended impact crystal clear. That is often the moment when collaboration shifts from friction to momentum.

‍