The Art and Wisdom of Changing Teams: Why Reteaming Creates Better Organizations

Most leaders fear team changes and reorganizations, but research reveals that strategic reteaming actually reduces attrition, eliminates knowledge silos, and creates more career opportunities than stable team structures.

Dynamic Reteaming author Heidi Helfand shares the five patterns of team change and why embracing organizational evolution leads to stronger, more resilient companies.

Key Takeaways

• Team changes are inevitable in growing companies—fighting natural evolution wastes energy that should focus on executing change effectively
• The five reteaming patterns (one-by-one, grow-and-split, merging, isolation, switching) each serve different organizational needs and growth stages
• Transparent reteaming with whiteboards and employee input creates better outcomes than secretive top-down reorganizations decided in boardrooms
• Isolation teams given process freedom can save companies—Expert City's pivot to GoToMyPC happened through an isolated team freed from waterfall constraints
• Spreading high performers across teams destroys the chemistry that made them effective rather than replicating their success elsewhere
• Career advancement opportunities emerge during organizational changes when new roles need filling and structures shift to accommodate growth
• Switching between teams prevents stagnation, builds knowledge redundancy, and extends employee tenure by providing variety within the same company
• The "percentage anti-pattern" of assigning people fractional time across multiple projects creates context-switching overhead that kills productivity
• Companies go through natural lifecycles requiring different team structures at different stages—what works at 10 people fails at 100 people

Timeline Overview

• 00:00–18:45 — The People Layer Problem: Why team structures matter as much as product-market fit, the inevitability of change in fast-growing companies, and career opportunities during reorganizations
• 18:45–35:20 — Transparent Reteaming Methods: Whiteboard visualization techniques, employee input processes, decision-making frameworks (RIDE), and balancing transparency with efficiency
• 35:20–52:30 — Five Reteaming Patterns: One-by-one joining/leaving, grow-and-split scaling, merging consolidation, isolation innovation, and switching for learning and development
• 52:30–68:15 — Isolation Success Stories: Expert City's pivot to GoToMyPC through isolated teams, process freedom requirements, executive sponsorship, and knowledge transfer challenges
• 68:15–85:40 — Anti-Patterns to Avoid: Percentage allocation mistakes, spreading high performers, sudden changes without communication, and why perfect team chemistry can't be replicated
• 85:40–END — Embracing Change Philosophy: Company lifecycles, appreciating temporary team magic, listening skills development, and creating fun through hack days and community building

Why the People Layer Matters as Much as Product-Market Fit

Traditional startup advice focuses intensively on building products customers love while treating team organization as a secondary concern that will somehow resolve itself naturally.

• Fast-growing companies cannot maintain stable team structures when scaling from 10 to 900 employees—attempting to fight natural evolution wastes critical leadership energy
• The "forming, storming, norming, performing" model assumes teams can stay together indefinitely, but growth dynamics make this impossible in practice
• Company building requires as much attention to people structures and organizational design as product development and customer acquisition
• Leaders who embrace the people layer create competitive advantages through better talent retention, knowledge sharing, and adaptation capabilities

The reality involves humans working together on complex problems, creating opportunities to build companies that delight both customers and employees simultaneously.

• Employees want involvement in decision-making about organizational growth and change rather than having structures imposed upon them without input
• Transparency in organizational design enables people to see career opportunities within their existing company rather than seeking advancement elsewhere
• The most successful companies treat organizational evolution as a strategic capability rather than an unfortunate side effect of growth
• Building systems for effective team change prevents the disruption and knowledge loss that typically accompanies rapid scaling

Most leadership advice incorrectly assumes you can separate product success from organizational health when they actually reinforce each other systematically.

The Five Patterns of Dynamic Reteaming

Every team change fits into five distinct patterns that serve different organizational needs and can be executed more effectively when leaders understand their specific dynamics.

One-by-One describes people joining or leaving the company, creating natural transition points that require careful attention to both new hires and existing team members.

• New employees need structured onboarding that builds belonging through first-day pairing rather than isolated desk assignments
• Existing team members require communication about new hires to prevent surprise and potential resentment about external leadership appointments
• When someone becomes a manager over people who wanted that role, transparent communication prevents long-term team dysfunction
• Visualizing hiring plans and opportunities helps existing employees see advancement paths rather than feeling blocked by external recruitment

Grow and Split represents the natural scaling pattern where successful teams expand beyond effective communication limits and divide into focused units.

• Teams typically signal readiness to split when meetings take longer, decision-making becomes harder, and work diverges into separate focus areas
• The optimal split size maintains enough shared context for collaboration while enabling focused execution on distinct product areas
• Splitting creates new dependencies between previously unified teams, requiring careful interface design and communication protocols
• Resource constraints (one PM, one designer, one QA person) force difficult decisions about how to distribute limited expertise across multiple teams

Merging happens when teams combine due to business consolidation, acquisitions, or resource constraints during company downsizing periods.

• Successful mergers require "Story of Our Team" exercises where each group creates timelines of their history, milestones, and proudest achievements
• Understanding each team's legacy and culture prevents the destruction of valuable practices and relationships during integration
• Merged teams need new shared vision and mission clarity to move beyond their separate histories toward unified future goals
• The integration process works best when treated as creating something new rather than one team absorbing another

Isolation involves creating dedicated teams separated from standard processes to enable rapid innovation or emergency response.

• Isolated teams need physical separation, protection from interruptions, process freedom, and direct executive reporting relationships
• The most successful isolation projects (Expert City's GoToMyPC, McDonald's Chicken McNugget) had clear decision-making authority and different operational cadences
• Knowledge transfer back to the main organization requires planning to prevent isolated teams from creating maintenance burdens for others
• Isolation works for both innovation projects and emergency response situations where normal processes would be too slow

Switching enables learning, prevents stagnation, builds knowledge redundancy, and extends employee tenure by providing variety within the same company.

• Employees who switch teams report higher job satisfaction and longer company tenure compared to those who remain in single positions
• Strategic switching prevents knowledge silos by ensuring multiple people understand each system rather than single points of failure
• Pair programming combined with regular switching creates organizational resilience and easier knowledge transfer when people leave
• Companies can offer "new jobs within the same company" through switching rather than losing talent to external opportunities

The Expert City Pivot: How Isolation Teams Save Companies

Expert City's transformation from a failing tech support marketplace to the successful GoToMyPC demonstrates how isolation teams can execute company-saving pivots when given proper autonomy.

• The original marketplace product generated only six dollars in revenue after significant development investment, forcing a complete strategic pivot
• Traditional waterfall development processes would have been too slow for the rapid iteration required during an existential company crisis
• The isolated team received process freedom to work in shorter cycles, deploy more frequently, and iterate based on customer feedback without bureaucratic approval
• Physical separation in a dedicated team area with named team identity created psychological distance from the failing product's constraints

The isolation team's success required specific structural elements that most internal innovation efforts lack.

• Direct reporting to executives with decision-making authority prevented lower-level managers from reversing strategic choices or adding process overhead
• Protection from interruptions and competing priorities allowed sustained focus on the pivot product without context-switching to maintenance work
• Different operational cadence enabled daily iterations rather than the two-week sprint cycle used by other teams working on existing products
• Clear communication that other teams should not disturb the isolated group prevented well-meaning colleagues from fragmenting their attention

The transition back to normal operations required careful knowledge transfer to prevent the isolated work from becoming a maintenance burden.

• Pairing and switching practices in the main organization enabled smoother integration of new code and systems developed in isolation
• The isolated team couldn't remain separate indefinitely—successful projects need pathways back into standard organizational structures
• Knowledge redundancy through pair programming prevented single points of failure when isolated team members eventually moved to other projects
• The pivot's success (GoToMyPC, GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar) validated the isolation approach and informed future innovation strategies

Transparent Reteaming: Involving Employees in Organizational Design

Traditional reorganizations happen in boardrooms and get announced via email, but transparent approaches that involve employees in the design process create better outcomes and higher buy-in.

• Spotify's infrastructure team reorganization used whiteboards to visualize proposed team structures and invited employee input before finalizing decisions
• The whiteboard method shows team names, missions, open hiring slots, and current employee placement to make opportunities visible across the organization
• Employees can identify mistakes in the proposed structure, suggest improvements, and express interest in new roles they hadn't previously known about
• The initial fear of transparency (people might get upset) typically gives way to appreciation for involvement in decisions that affect their daily work

The RIDE framework clarifies decision-making roles to prevent confusion about who can influence different aspects of organizational change.

• Requester: Who is asking for the change (could be executives, team leads, or individual contributors depending on the situation)
• Input: Who can provide information and opinions about the change (usually broader than just the decision-maker)
• Decider: Who makes the final choice (must be clearly identified to prevent endless debate)
• Executor: Who implements the change (often different from who decided on it)

This approach works for different types of changes at different organizational levels.

• Team-level changes (splitting an oversized team) can involve significant employee input and even decision-making authority
• Company-level changes (acquisitions, major strategy pivots) typically have limited employee input but benefit from clear communication about roles
• The key involves matching the decision-making process to the scope and impact of the change rather than using the same approach for everything
• Time-boxing the input process prevents endless deliberation while ensuring people feel heard and considered

Anti-Patterns That Destroy Team Effectiveness

Five common reteaming mistakes create the problems that give organizational change a bad reputation among employees and leaders.

The Percentage Anti-Pattern assigns people fractional time across multiple projects, creating unsustainable context-switching overhead.

• "You'll work 10% on this project, 20% on that one, 5% on this other initiative" doesn't account for the cognitive load of maintaining context across different domains
• The percentages rarely add up correctly and ignore the reality that meaningful contribution requires sustained attention and deep understanding
• People assigned to multiple projects often can't make significant progress on any of them due to constant interruption and priority conflicts
• This approach reflects resource allocation thinking borrowed from manufacturing that doesn't apply to knowledge work requiring deep focus

Spreading High Performers assumes that distributing successful team members will replicate their effectiveness elsewhere.

• High-performing teams develop chemistry and working relationships that can't be transplanted to other contexts by moving individual people
• The "band" metaphor captures how team members build on each other's strengths in ways that don't transfer when the group is broken apart
• Attempting to "seed" other teams with high performers often destroys the original team's effectiveness without creating equivalent results elsewhere
• Team performance emerges from the combination of individuals, their relationships, the work context, and timing rather than just individual talent

Sudden Changes happen without communication or preparation, creating unnecessary anxiety and resistance.

• "Poof, you're here" and "Poof, they're gone" changes prevent people from processing transitions and adapting to new realities
• Even necessary changes can be communicated with appropriate timing and context to help people understand the reasoning and implications
• Surprise announcements suggest that leadership doesn't value employee experience or recognize the impact of organizational decisions
• Planning communication around changes shows respect for employees and increases the likelihood of successful transitions

Ignoring the Human Cost treats organizational change as a purely logical exercise without considering emotional and social impacts.

• People develop attachments to their teams, projects, and working relationships that have real value beyond pure productivity metrics
• Dismissing concerns about change as "resistance" misses opportunities to address legitimate worries and incorporate valuable feedback
• The best changes acknowledge loss while creating excitement about future possibilities rather than pretending nothing meaningful is ending
• Leaders who understand the emotional aspects of change can guide transitions more effectively than those who focus only on structural elements

Career Advancement Through Organizational Change

Reorganizations create the most significant career advancement opportunities because new roles need filling and traditional hierarchies shift to accommodate different structures.

• Stable organizations have limited advancement opportunities—growth and change create new positions that didn't previously exist
• People who position themselves strategically during reorganizations often secure roles they couldn't access through normal promotion processes
• Understanding upcoming changes before they're announced allows preparation and relationship-building that advantages internal candidates over external hires
• The most successful career moves happen when people volunteer for challenging assignments during transitions rather than waiting for perfect opportunities

Transparent reorganization processes enable employees to see and pursue opportunities that would otherwise remain invisible.

• Whiteboard visualizations show open roles, team missions, and advancement possibilities across the entire organization simultaneously
• Employees can express interest in positions they hadn't known about and demonstrate qualifications leadership hadn't considered
• Internal knowledge about company culture, systems, and relationships often outweighs external expertise during periods of organizational change
• People who contribute to reorganization planning develop relationships with leadership that create future collaboration opportunities

The key involves viewing change as opportunity rather than threat while preparing strategically for transitions.

• Building relationships across teams before reorganizations makes switching and advancement easier when structures shift
• Developing skills in areas adjacent to your current role creates options during team changes and expansions
• Volunteering for cross-functional projects demonstrates capability beyond your current team's boundaries
• Understanding business strategy and organizational needs enables positioning for roles that support company priorities

The Lifecycle Reality: Why Perfect Teams Don't Last Forever

Companies evolve through natural stages that require different team structures, and attempting to maintain identical organization across all phases creates problems rather than stability.

• What works for 10 people fails completely at 100 people—communication patterns, decision-making processes, and coordination mechanisms must evolve
• The "startup culture" that employees love at small companies necessarily changes as organizations scale to serve larger markets and customer bases
• Nostalgia for earlier company phases prevents adaptation to current realities and future growth requirements
• Leaders must balance appreciation for past success with recognition that different stages require different approaches

Perfect team experiences are temporary by nature and should be appreciated rather than desperately preserved.

• The magical team chemistry that creates exceptional performance depends on specific people, timing, projects, and circumstances that naturally evolve
• Attempting to freeze successful teams in place prevents the growth and change that originally created their success
• Individual team members grow and change in their interests, capabilities, and career goals over time
• Market conditions, customer needs, and competitive landscapes shift in ways that require different team configurations and skills

The healthiest approach involves gratitude for exceptional team experiences while remaining open to new configurations that might be equally valuable.

• Many professionals can identify specific periods in their careers when they were "skipping through the halls" due to team joy and engagement
• These experiences demonstrate what's possible and provide templates for creating similar conditions in future contexts
• The goal involves creating environments where exceptional teams can emerge rather than trying to preserve any particular team configuration indefinitely
• Understanding what made previous teams special helps leaders recognize and nurture similar conditions when they arise naturally

Common Questions

Q: How do you know when a team is ready to split versus when it just needs better processes? A: Look for meetings taking longer, decision-making becoming harder, work diverging into separate areas, and people losing attention during standups due to irrelevant discussions.

Q: What's the best way to communicate a reorganization without creating panic or resistance? A: Use transparent visualization methods like whiteboards, involve employees in the design process, clearly identify decision-makers, and acknowledge both endings and new beginnings.

Q: How can isolated teams avoid creating maintenance burdens for other groups? A: Ensure knowledge transfer through pairing, maintain documentation standards, plan integration pathways back to main teams, and avoid creating single points of failure.

Q: When should you use switching versus keeping team members in stable positions? A: Implement switching to prevent stagnation, build knowledge redundancy, respond to employee requests for variety, and extend tenure by providing new challenges within the company.

Q: How do you preserve high-performing team culture during necessary reorganizations? A: Focus on understanding what created the culture (relationships, practices, values) rather than maintaining identical team composition, and help people form new bonds while honoring past achievements.

Team changes are inevitable in growing organizations, and leaders who embrace reteaming as a strategic capability create more resilient, adaptable companies than those who resist natural evolution. The key involves executing changes thoughtfully with employee involvement rather than avoiding necessary organizational development.

Practical Implications

• Map your organization's growth stage and anticipate which reteaming patterns you'll likely need as you scale to the next level
• Create whiteboard visualization processes for upcoming reorganizations that show opportunities and invite employee input before finalizing decisions
• Establish pair programming and knowledge sharing practices that prevent single points of failure and enable easier team transitions
• Identify potential isolation team opportunities for innovation projects or emergency responses that need process freedom and executive protection
• Implement switching programs that allow employees to experience different teams and build relationships across organizational boundaries
• Develop "Story of Our Team" exercises for merger situations that honor each group's history while building shared future vision
• Train managers in the RIDE decision-making framework to clarify roles and prevent confusion during organizational changes
• Create career advancement conversations that help people position themselves strategically during periods of organizational growth and change
• Build organizational resilience through redundant knowledge and cross-functional relationships rather than depending on stable team structures
• Practice transparent communication about business realities and growth requirements that necessitate team structure changes