Our PMM team had grown from 3 to 8 people in 18 months. The VP Marketing wanted to add 2 more to hit 10.
I should have been celebrating. Instead, I was stressed.
At 3 people, everyone knew everything. We all worked on launches, competitive intel, and sales enablement. Collaboration was easy because we were small enough to align in one meeting.
At 8 people, cracks were showing. People were stepping on each other's toes. Work was getting duplicated. Nobody knew who owned what. Team meetings took 90 minutes because getting 8 people aligned was hard.
The VP Marketing asked: "How are you structuring the team as you scale to 10?"
I didn't have a good answer.
Should we stay generalists where everyone does everything? Or specialize where each person owns specific functions? How do you organize 10 people without creating silos? How do you maintain collaboration at scale?
I spent the next quarter researching how other companies structured larger PMM teams. I talked to PMM leaders at companies with 15-20 person teams. I made mistakes and learned from them.
Here's what I learned about scaling PMM from 3 to 10—and why the generalist vs. specialist debate is the wrong question.
The Problem at 3 That Breaks at 8
At 3 people: Generalist model worked great.
Everyone could:
- Lead product launches
- Create competitive battle cards
- Build sales enablement materials
- Conduct customer research
- Support marketing campaigns
Why it worked:
- Small enough to stay aligned through informal communication
- Everyone understood the full context
- Collaboration happened naturally
- Coverage when someone was out
At 8 people: Generalist model broke.
Problem 1: Coordination overhead
Getting 8 people aligned on approach meant 6+ hours of meetings per week. Every decision needed full-team discussion because everyone touched everything.
Problem 2: Duplicated work
Two PMMs would unknowingly work on the same competitive analysis because we didn't have clear ownership.
Problem 3: Context thrashing
People were switching between launches, competitive work, and enablement multiple times per day. Constant context switching killed productivity.
Problem 4: No clear accountability
When a launch failed, who was responsible? Everyone contributed, so nobody owned the outcome.
Problem 5: Quality inconsistency
8 different people creating battle cards meant 8 different styles, quality levels, and approaches.
The generalist model that worked at 3 was actively hurting us at 8.
The First Reorganization (And Why It Failed)
My first attempt at solving this: Full specialization.
I created functional teams:
Launch Team (3 PMMs):
- Own all product launches end-to-end
- Create launch briefs, coordinate stakeholders, manage timelines
Competitive Intel Team (2 PMMs):
- Own all competitive intelligence
- Battle cards, win/loss analysis, market analysis
Sales Enablement Team (2 PMMs):
- Own all sales enablement
- Training, certification, content creation
Strategic Programs Team (1 PMM):
- Customer research, market insights, special projects
Why I thought this would work: Clear ownership, reduced coordination overhead, specialized expertise.
What actually happened: Silos.
Week 3 disaster:
Launch team planned a major product release. They created positioning and messaging without competitive intel team input.
Competitive intel team had just discovered a competitor was launching similar features two weeks before our launch. They'd updated battle cards but hadn't told launch team.
Launch went out with messaging that didn't address the new competitive landscape. Sales was confused. Customers asked about the competitor. We hadn't prepared for it.
The launch team blamed competitive team: "Why didn't you tell us?"
Competitive team blamed launch team: "You didn't ask."
Both were right. We'd optimized for specialization and lost integration.
What Actually Works: The Hybrid Model
After the launch disaster, I redesigned the team structure.
The insight: Specialization for depth, integration for alignment.
The new model:
Core Ownership (70% of time)
Each PMM has a primary area where they build deep expertise:
Launch Managers (3 PMMs):
- Primary: Own product launches end-to-end
- Deep expertise: GTM planning, cross-functional coordination, launch execution
Competitive Intelligence Leads (2 PMMs):
- Primary: Own competitive intelligence program
- Deep expertise: Market analysis, competitor tracking, win/loss research
Sales Enablement Leads (2 PMMs):
- Primary: Own sales enablement programs
- Deep expertise: Training design, certification, seller productivity
Strategic Program Leads (2 PMMs):
- Primary: Customer research, market insights, messaging framework
- Deep expertise: Research methodology, positioning strategy
Product Specialists (1 PMM - rotates quarterly):
- Primary: Embedded with product team as strategic advisor
- Deep expertise: Product strategy, roadmap influence, market validation
Shared Responsibilities (30% of time)
Despite specialization, everyone contributes to major initiatives:
For T1 launches:
- Launch Manager: Leads planning and coordination
- Competitive Lead: Contributes competitive positioning
- Enablement Lead: Creates training and certification
- Strategic Lead: Validates messaging with customer research
Everyone involved, one person accountable.
For major competitive threats:
- Competitive Lead: Leads analysis and response strategy
- Launch Manager: Coordinates product positioning updates
- Enablement Lead: Updates sales training
- Strategic Lead: Conducts customer research on competitive factors
Specialized ownership, cross-functional execution.
The Team Structure That Enabled Scale
Organizational layers:
Director of PMM (me):
- Sets strategy and priorities
- Manages 3 Senior PMMs
- Interface with executive team
Senior PMM - Launch (manages 2 PMMs):
- Owns launch program
- Manages Launch Managers team
- Ensures launch quality and consistency
Senior PMM - Market Intelligence (manages 2 PMMs):
- Owns competitive intel and customer research
- Manages Competitive and Strategic leads
- Synthesizes market insights for product and exec team
Senior PMM - Revenue Enablement (manages 2 PMMs):
- Owns sales enablement and partnership programs
- Manages Enablement Leads
- Ties PMM work to revenue outcomes
Individual Contributor PMMs (4 people):
- Specialists in their domain
- Execute programs within their area
- Contribute to cross-functional initiatives
This created clear reporting lines while maintaining collaboration.
The Coordination Mechanisms That Prevent Silos
Specialization only works if you build integration mechanisms.
Mechanism 1: Weekly All-Hands (45 min)
Every Monday, full team meets:
- Each functional lead shares week's priorities (5 min each)
- Flag cross-functional dependencies
- Collective problem-solving on blockers
This prevents surprises and creates visibility.
Mechanism 2: Cross-Functional Project Teams
For major initiatives (T1 launches, market expansions, category creation):
- Assign team with representatives from each specialty
- One owner, but everyone contributes
- Weekly syncs during project
Example: Enterprise GTM initiative
Team:
- Launch Manager (lead): Owns project plan and delivery
- Competitive Lead: Enterprise competitive analysis
- Enablement Lead: Enterprise sales training
- Strategic Lead: Enterprise customer research
Mechanism 3: Shared Documentation and Systems
Single source of truth for all PMM work:
- Notion workspace: All launches, competitive intel, research
- Slack channels: #launches, #competitive-intel, #enablement
- Shared metrics dashboard: Team performance visibility
Nobody can silo when everything is visible.
Mechanism 4: Rotation Program
Every 6 months, PMMs spend 2 weeks in another specialty:
- Launch Manager shadows Competitive Lead
- Enablement Lead works on Strategic projects
- Maintains cross-functional understanding
- Prevents functional silos
The Skills Matrix That Guided Specialization
Not everyone can do everything equally well. We mapped skills to help assign specialties:
| PMM | Launch Mgmt | Competitive | Enablement | Research | Product Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ |
| Mike | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ |
| Emma | ⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐⭐ |
| David | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
⭐⭐⭐ = Expert (Primary specialty) ⭐⭐ = Proficient (Can contribute) ⭐ = Learning (Needs development)
Assignment strategy:
- Primary assignment: Where they have ⭐⭐⭐
- Secondary contribution: Where they have ⭐⭐
- Development area: Where they have ⭐
This matched people to specialties based on strengths while building breadth.
The Career Path Problem (And How We Solved It)
The concern: Specialization limits career growth.
If Sarah is "Launch PMM," does that mean she can only be promoted to "Senior Launch PMM"? Does she become pigeonholed?
The solution: Specialty rotations and portfolio breadth.
Career progression at our company:
PMM (Individual Contributor):
- Deep in one specialty (70% time)
- Contributing to others (30% time)
- Goal: Mastery of primary area
Senior PMM:
- Expert in primary specialty
- Proficient in secondary area
- Leads cross-functional projects
- Mentors junior PMMs
Staff PMM:
- Expert in 2+ specialties
- Drives strategy across multiple areas
- Leads major initiatives
- Influences company strategy
Director PMM:
- Manages team across specialties
- Sets PMM strategy and priorities
- Cross-functional leadership
- Revenue accountability
To advance, you must demonstrate breadth beyond your specialty. This incentivizes cross-functional learning instead of narrow specialization.
The Hiring Strategy for Specialized Roles
At 3 people: Hired generalists who could do everything.
At 10 people: Hired specialists with deep expertise plus willingness to learn other areas.
Example: Hiring for Competitive Intelligence Lead
Job description emphasized:
- 5+ years competitive intelligence or market research experience
- Expert-level competitive analysis and positioning skills
- Proven ability to influence product and sales strategy
- BUT ALSO: Experience working cross-functionally on launches and enablement
Interview process tested:
- Deep competitive intelligence skills (case study)
- Cross-functional collaboration (behavioral questions)
- Launch experience (have they worked on GTM before?)
We didn't want narrow specialists who only did one thing. We wanted people with deep specialty who could collaborate broadly.
New hire profile:
70% hiring criteria: Deep expertise in specialty 20% hiring criteria: Cross-functional experience 10% hiring criteria: Strategic thinking and influence
This built specialized teams without creating silos.
The Budget Allocation By Specialty
Functional specialization required rethinking budget allocation.
Before (3 PMMs, generalist model):
- Shared budget: $45K for tools and research
- Everyone used same tools
After (10 PMMs, hybrid model):
- Allocated budget by functional area
Launch Program: $25K
- Launch management platform
- Project coordination tools
- Launch campaign support
Competitive Intelligence: $28K
- Competitive intel platform
- Win/loss interview tools
- Market research subscriptions
Sales Enablement: $22K
- Enablement platform
- Content creation tools
- Training and certification tools
Strategic Programs: $30K
- Customer research platforms
- Message testing tools
- Market analysis subscriptions
Shared Tools: $10K
- Collaboration tools (Notion, Slack)
- Design tools
Total: $115K (up from $45K, but 3x the team size)
Each functional lead now owned their budget and tool decisions.
For Teams Managing Specialized PMM Functions
As PMM teams scale beyond 5-7 people and develop functional specializations (launches, competitive intel, enablement), maintaining workflow integration becomes challenging. Some teams find that consolidated platforms can support specialized work while preserving cross-functional visibility. For instance, platforms like Segment8 demonstrate how competitive intelligence, launch management, and messaging workflows can remain integrated even as team structures specialize—reducing the risk of functional silos that often emerge in larger PMM organizations.
The Metrics That Changed
At 3 people (generalist team):
Measured team collectively:
- Total launches delivered
- Overall win rate
- Sales enablement NPS
Everyone accountable for everything.
At 10 people (hybrid model):
Measured by functional area:
Launch Team:
- Launch quality score (stakeholder ratings)
- Launch timeline adherence
- Post-launch revenue attainment
Competitive Intel Team:
- Win rate vs. top 3 competitors
- Battle card usage by sales
- Time from competitor change to updated positioning
Enablement Team:
- Sales ramp time for new hires
- Sales certification completion rate
- Enablement content usage
Strategic Team:
- Customer research insights delivered
- Messaging test results and adoption
- Product strategy influence (features informed by PMM research)
This created functional accountability while maintaining shared revenue metrics.
The Communication Cadence That Kept Us Aligned
Daily (Async):
- Slack updates in functional channels
- Quick wins and blockers shared
Weekly:
- Monday All-Hands: Full team alignment (45 min)
- Functional team meetings: Launch team, Competitive team, etc. (30 min each)
- 1:1s with direct reports (30 min each)
Monthly:
- Full team retrospective: What's working, what's not (90 min)
- Cross-functional project reviews (60 min)
- Skills development session (60 min)
Quarterly:
- Strategic planning: Priorities for next quarter (half-day)
- OKR review and setting
- Team offsite: Alignment and team building
More structure required at 10 than at 3, but prevented chaos.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Scaling PMM Teams
Most PMM teams try to stay generalists too long because specialization feels like creating silos.
The reality: Past 5-7 people, generalist models break. Coordination overhead kills productivity.
The teams that scale successfully:
- Specialize for depth (70% focused work)
- Integrate for collaboration (30% cross-functional)
- Build coordination mechanisms (weekly all-hands, project teams, shared systems)
- Create career paths that reward breadth, not narrow specialization
- Measure functional outcomes while maintaining shared goals
The teams that struggle:
- Try to keep everyone generalists at 10+ people
- Create full silos with no integration
- Over-rotate on meetings to compensate for structure gaps
- Hire narrow specialists with no cross-functional capability
The generalist vs. specialist debate is a false choice.
The right model is specialized expertise with integrated execution. People have primary areas where they build deep skills, but they collaborate on cross-functional initiatives.
At 3 people, be generalists. At 10+ people, be specialized generalists with strong integration mechanisms.
We went from 3 to 10 PMMs over 18 months. The transition was messy. We made mistakes. But we eventually landed on a structure that scales:
Specialized teams with clear ownership, integrated execution on major initiatives, strong coordination mechanisms, and career paths that reward both depth and breadth.
It's not generalist. It's not specialist. It's both.