Product teams: Durable or Dynamic?
Two approaches to structuring product teams
Linear’s Nan Yu and Braze CPO Kevin Wang have very different approaches to structuring product teams. But both build great products. So which way is best?
Nan Yu, Head of Product at Linear, prioritizes one large, dynamic team above all else to focus on the highest-impact work.
Kevin Wang, CPO at Braze, believes focused, durable teams build long-term expertise that drives innovation and competitive advantage.
Here’s what I learned from both about building successful product teams. 👇
The dynamic approach
Nan Yu believes in Conway’s Law: the product you build will reflect your org chart.
"If you have two teams that are equal, you’re making a very strong assumption that they are equally important, and that's almost always not the case."
Dynamic prioritization means focusing on what matters most. Nan champions a constantly evolving product team structure.
It’s ideal for startups:
Great for ever-changing environments
Quick iterations & fast wins
High visibility on progress
Dynamic teams rapidly shift priorities based on insights and market needs. As Nan put it, "Shift people to where you need them. It’s how you build what’s most important right now."
But dynamic comes with trade-offs:
Risk of shallow expertise on long-term bets
Fragmented ownership
Spreading resources too thin sacrifices impact. Dynamic works best when teams move fluidly across projects.
The focused, durable approach
At the other end of the spectrum, Kevin Wang values stability, deep expertise, and long-term ownership.
"You want experts, but you don’t just want experts in this particular problem that I decided to solve this Tuesday. You want experts in an entire slice of the market."
For example, building an AI-focused team in 2016 gave Braze a strategic advantage in today’s market. He believes focused, durable teams drive long-term innovation:
Solves root-cause issues
Builds deep product & market expertise
Incentivizes long-term bets
"If a team is running on a suboptimal database, maybe they actually just need to spend six months and fix it. And if they know that they'll be on that team 24 months from now, they’re a lot more incentivized to actually fix that root cause problem and create a step-function improvement."
The risks of this model?
Slower to pivot
Requires strong product vision
Durable teams thrive when there is a clear, compelling vision. Without it, they risk focusing on the wrong problem. When paired with strong conviction, this approach can provide a competitive edge.
Dynamic and durable aren’t oppositional. Both have their place:
In fast-changing environments, being dynamic helps you iterate quickly and adapt.
If you know your direction, durable teams provide depth and stability for long-term innovation.
Check out both full conversations from their appearances on LaunchPod: