The Collaboration Trap: When More Voices Make Things Worse

The Collaboration Myth

"The greatest ideas come from collaboration."

We say this like it's gospel. Like more perspectives always equal better outcomes. Like every voice deserves equal weight in every decision.

But here's what actually happens:

• Meetings that could be emails become 8-person debates
• Simple decisions get stuck in committee for weeks
• Sharp product vision gets diluted into "something for everyone"
• Accountability disappears because everyone owns it (which means nobody does)

Collaboration isn't always good. Sometimes, it's the thing killing your product.

When Collaboration Creates Value

Don't get me wrong—collaboration can be powerful. But only under specific conditions:

1. When you need diverse expertise

Good collaboration: Engineer + Designer + PM solving a complex UX problem Why it works: Each brings different expertise. The solution requires all three perspectives.

Bad collaboration: 8 stakeholders bikeshedding button color Why it fails: Nobody has unique expertise. More voices = more opinions, not better decisions.

2. When you need buy-in for execution

Good collaboration: Involving stakeholders early so they support the launch Why it works: You're building alignment for later execution.

Bad collaboration: Inviting stakeholders to "provide input" when you can't actually use it Why it fails: Creates false expectations. People think they have a vote when they don't.

3. When constraints force creativity

Good collaboration: "We have $10K and 2 weeks. What can we do?" Why it works: Necessity focuses the collaboration. Clear constraints prevent endless debate.

Bad collaboration: "Let's brainstorm all our options with no constraints!" Why it fails: Unlimited possibilities = unlimited bikeshedding.

4. When roles and ownership are clear

Good collaboration: "PM owns the decision, but wants input from engineering and design" Why it works: Everyone knows who decides. Input is useful, but doesn't block progress.

Bad collaboration: "We're all equals here, let's decide together!" Why it fails: Nobody wants to make the call. Decisions die in consensus-seeking.

When Collaboration Destroys Value

Here are the signs collaboration is making things worse:

Too many cooks

More than 5 people in a meeting? Someone isn't needed. More than 3 people making a decision? You'll never decide.

Consensus requirement

If everyone needs to agree, nothing controversial gets done. Bold ideas get watered down to avoid offending anyone.

No clear owner

"We all own this" means nobody owns it. When things go wrong, everyone points at each other.

Process over progress

You're following collaboration rituals (standups, retros, planning) but nothing ships. The process has become the product.

Design by committee

The product has every feature everyone wanted, but no coherent vision. It's a Frankenstein that satisfies nobody.

The Hidden Cost

The real cost of over-collaboration isn't just time. It's momentum.

Every voice you add:

• Adds communication overhead (n² problem)
• Increases time to decision
• Dilutes accountability
• Creates more opportunities for politics
• Slows down feedback loops

And momentum is everything. A focused team of 3 will outship a collaborative team of 10 every time.

How to Collaborate Better

If collaboration is necessary, make it count:

1. Define who decides

Before any collaborative discussion, clarify:

• Who owns the decision?
• What are we deciding vs. discussing?
• What happens with input that isn't used?

2. Limit the room

Invite only people with:

• Unique expertise needed for the decision
• Execution responsibility for the outcome
• Authority to unblock if things get stuck

Everyone else gets an update later.

3. Time-box it

"We'll discuss for 30 minutes, then decide."

Deadlines force prioritization. Endless debate doesn't.

4. Separate diverge from converge

Diverge first: Brainstorm freely. All ideas welcome. Converge second: Ruthlessly cut. Pick one path.

Don't try to do both at once.

5. Document the decision

After collaborating, write down:

• What was decided
• Who decided it
• Why this over alternatives
• What we're explicitly NOT doing

This prevents relitigating the decision later.

The Alternative to Collaboration

Sometimes, the best collaboration is no collaboration:

When you have a clear vision

Don't collaborate on product vision. Have a perspective. Stand for something.

Steve Jobs didn't ask customers what they wanted. He showed them what they needed.

When you need speed

Fast teams have fewer handoffs, fewer meetings, fewer approvals.

Sometimes "move fast" means "one person decides and everyone trusts them."

When expertise is unequal

If one person knows 10x more than everyone else, let them drive.

Don't pretend everyone's input has equal weight. It doesn't.

When you're stuck in analysis paralysis

Sometimes you need someone to just make the call and move on.

Better to be decisive and wrong (and iterate) than stuck debating forever.

Real Collaboration vs. Fake Collaboration

Real collaboration:

• Has a clear goal and decision owner
• Leverages unique expertise
• Time-boxed and focused
• Outputs a decision, not endless debate

Fake collaboration:

• "Let's get everyone's input!"
• No clear owner or outcome
• Meets for the sake of meeting
• Creates illusion of progress without actual progress

Most teams do fake collaboration without realizing it.

When to Say No

You don't need collaboration for:

• Obvious decisions - Just make them
• Low-stakes decisions - Make them and move on
• Decisions you can easily reverse - Try something, learn, adjust
• Decisions with a clear expert - Trust them

Save collaboration for:

• High-stakes, irreversible decisions - These deserve debate
• Cross-functional problems - Where expertise must combine
• Alignment-critical moments - Where execution requires buy-in

The Necessity Filter

Here's the test from our motto: "The greatest ideas come from necessity and collaboration."

Notice the "and."

Collaboration without necessity is just meetings. Necessity without collaboration is working in silos.

But when real constraints meet diverse perspectives? That's where magic happens.

The key word is necessity. Not convenience. Not ritual. Necessity.

Ask:

• Do we need multiple perspectives to solve this?
• Will collaboration unlock something we can't do alone?
• Is the value of collaboration worth the cost in time and momentum?

If the answer isn't a clear "yes," skip the collaboration.

The Ideal Team Size

Amazon has the "two-pizza rule": if a team can't be fed with two pizzas, it's too big.

For product teams, I have a simpler rule:

3 people can build anything.

• One product thinker
• One designer
• One engineer

Add more only when necessary. Each additional person makes communication exponentially harder.

You don't need collaboration committees. You need small, empowered teams with clear ownership.

---

The bottom line: Collaboration isn't inherently good. It's a tool. Use it when it adds value. Skip it when it doesn't.

The greatest ideas don't come from more voices in the room. They come from the right voices, at the right time, solving real problems together.

Everything else is just meetings.