From the February 24, 2026, edition of How Teams Work
“We need to customize our CRM.”
We hear that on a lot of sales calls, usually after something stops working the way leadership expected.
For example, when leadership asks for a forecast, and no one trusts the numbers.
Or, marketing and sales disagree on attribution.
Or, reporting varies depending on who builds it.
At that point, the system becomes the suspect rather than the process.
In reality, most of these situations have very little to do with the CRM’s capabilities. What is usually missing is shared clarity around how the business actually operates.
Teams struggle to articulate how leads move from marketing to sales, what conditions justify creating a deal, or how lifecycle stages should be defined. Over time, those small inconsistencies compound into mistrust of the data and system.
Customization feels like action. But more often than not, it is a reaction to an undefined process rather than a true system limitation.
There is an important distinction teams often miss: defining your business process is not the same thing as customizing your CRM.
When we talk about “standard,” we are not referring to something generic. We are referring to the intentional use of the structure that already exists within the platform.
HubSpot is built around a specific data model with standard objects, properties, relationships, and automation capabilities. Those foundations are designed to support common go-to-market motions at scale.
We have worked with companies running nearly identical HubSpot configurations that operate in completely different ways. The difference was not structural complexity. It was alignment.
One organization had clear criteria for lifecycle stages, deal creation, and ownership transitions. The other relied on informal interpretation.
Both were using standard functionality. Only one had done the internal work.
Where teams go wrong
Most breakdowns happen because teams blur together three distinct layers of their system:
This is the CRM itself. The objects, properties, pipelines, and automation tools that exist out of the box. It is the structural framework.
This is how the system enforces and scales behavior. Required fields, lifecycle automation, routing rules, and system guardrails. It translates intention into structure and keeps data consistent.
This is how humans actually work inside the system. When a deal should be created. What qualifies a handoff. Who owns what and when.
When something feels broken, teams often modify the system layer first. They add properties or redesign pipelines. But the issue frequently sits in the operational logic layer. For example, we've noticed that when sales reps are creating deals at different times or under different circumstances, it makes deal data less reliable and harder to report on consistently. If expectations are unclear or guardrails are inconsistent, the CRM will feel either too rigid or too loose.
Neither problem is solved by adding more customization. They are solved by defining and enforcing how the team actually works.
Before recommending structural changes, we step back and ask basic questions:
These are foundational design decisions. Without them, reporting becomes unreliable and handoffs become inconsistent. With them, standard functionality is often more than enough.
When those foundations are clearly defined and enforced, standardization creates speed. Reporting stabilizes. Adoption improves. Data becomes trustworthy.
Customization, at that point, becomes strategic instead of reactive.
Customization has a place. It becomes valuable when friction is real and repeatable:
Partner relationship management is a good example. When relationships live across both companies and contacts, involve multiple stakeholders, and require shared or layered ownership models, the standard data structure may not represent that reality cleanly. In that case, introducing a custom object can make sense.
But here’s the difference.
Customization should formalize a process that already exists and is consistently followed. It should not compensate for ambiguity. If ownership is still unclear or definitions are still shifting, adding structural complexity will only create future problems.
When customization reflects a disciplined process, it removes friction. When it replaces missing clarity, it compounds it.
The moment you customize, your CRM stops being just “a tool” and starts being a product. And products require ownership. To properly maintain that ownership, you will need:
Most teams underestimate this part. They build something custom and assume adoption will follow naturally. It rarely does.
Loom videos. Embedded walkthroughs. Required properties. Workflow-driven guardrails. These are not “nice extras.” They are how custom systems stay usable over time.
Without enablement, custom systems decay. Adoption slips. Definitions drift. Workarounds creep back in. The very structure that was meant to remove friction becomes harder to maintain.
Customization is not just a build decision. It is an ownership decision.
Early-stage teams are especially prone to over-customization. In an effort to future-proof their system, they build for every possible scenario before their go-to-market motion has stabilized.
When ICPs and sales motions are still evolving, fewer irreversible decisions create more flexibility. Standard structures allow teams to learn. Real friction reveals itself through usage. Only then does targeted customization make sense.
A useful mindset shift is this: standardize to learn, customize to optimize.
To summarize, instead of asking whether something should be standard or custom, these are the real questions we ask clients instead:
Teams that get this right stop arguing about tools. They focus on alignment, clarity, and intentional design.
When that happens, the CRM rarely needs dramatic reshaping. It simply needs to be used with discipline.
Want to get the "How Teams Work" newsletter sent to your inbox? Subscribe Now.
