Functional Teams vs Mission-Based Teams: Why, When, and How.

** Add disadvantages to mission-based teams. ** Shorten some copy.

Note: This article is about the two most common team formations. Do not let your creativity and ingenuity be stifled with the focus being on only two types of structures.

As a growing organization that has reached critical mass and requires more than one team to handle the responsibilities, you are forced to consider how your teams will be structured as you grow. Keeping in mind that how you choose to form will be dependent on the needs of the business today and the forecasted needs of tomorrow, there are key elements at play that need to be considered. This article will not give you clear answers on how you will choose to form, and instead will focus on the differences between two primary team structures, when to utilize them, and the challenges you may face.

Mission-based teams and functional teams are important organizational structures that can play a critical role in your future success. However, they are different in terms of their purpose, structure, and methods of operation. Understanding these differences can help you, as a leader, make informed decisions about the best way to organize. To begin, let’s get clear on the definitions of these types of teams.

Differences between Functional Teams and Mission-Based Teams

Let's start with the most common: functional teams. This is the formation most businesses start with and is typically a saturation of talent with shared skills, clearly defined boundaries of responsibility, and is most often a continuous effort. These teams build towards a long-term company objective. This can lead to increased expertise and specialization, and if a company is not careful as they expand, it may also result in silos and less collaboration across teams (this is an incredibly common problem). These teams are often referred to as squads.

On the other hand, mission-based teams are organized around a specific business or product objective. The team's purpose is to achieve this specific business goal and is for a defined period of time, or simply when the mission is a success (these teams can also be ended and resources returned quickly to their functional teams if the business direction changes). The team is almost always cross-functional, bringing together individuals from different functions such as engineering (backend and frontend), design, and marketing, to work towards a common goal. Often referred to as tiger teams and can come in many forms. These teams are often autonomous, with the team members having a clear line of sight between their work and the company's overall goals. This can lead to increased motivation and a sense of purpose for team members, as well as faster decision-making and more efficient use of resources. Employees love building something anew whereas long-term maintenance mode can build apathy and lack of new challenges.

More Advantages and Disadvantages

Functional teams have the advantage of increased specialization and expertise. Because team members work together on similar tasks and projects, they can become experts in their specific field leading to increased efficiency and quality of work. These teams can be useful in organizations where there is a high volume of similar tasks or projects. Grouping, sequencing, and prioritization can all be done effectively with processes that repeat and improve over time. This not only allows for increased quality of the end product but also promotes increased quality in how we operate as a team (which makes a quality product more sustainable). A flip-side is that they require more direct management and have less autonomy which can lead to slower decision-making and less innovation as team members are not in a space that encourages outside-the-box thinking.

Mission-based teams foster a culture of innovation and creativity. Because team members come from different functions, they bring diverse perspectives and ideas to the table, which encourages innovative solutions to problems. Mission-based teams are often highly motivated and engaged, as they have a clear sense of the impact their work is having on the company's overall goals. Finally, this powerhouse of distributed talent (that is no longer distributed), can increase value across all verticals. Some of the disadvantages include difficulties in maintaining accountability when roles and responsibilities aren't cleary defined, staying focused on mission-based work while supporting their 'home team', and measuring overall success and its impact on the organization.

Another difference is one of autonomy and decision-making authority. With mission-based teams, leadership sets a clear vision of success and gets out of the way, allowing the team to decide how to work together and accomplish their goal. A functional team, with an already established long-term vision, requires more management, foresight, prioritization of work, and definable milestones of 'done' states. This isn't to say functional teams should not be given autonomy, they absolutely should, but they have much more time to optimize how they work together and get work done. Always iterating, evolving, and improving over time. This is a luxury of functional teams, where a metric of continued success is largely measured against the team's past baseline (metrics are relative).

A final consideration between mission-based and functional teams is the way they handle communication and collaboration. Mission-based teams are often highly collaborative and communicate often, as team members are working towards a common goal and need to be in constant communication to ensure that all tasks are being completed on time and to the correct standard or sequencing. Functional teams need this less as team members are focused on specific tasks, processes are clearly defined, standards are developed, and they may not have as much need to interact regularly with each other or other teams (warning: this can be a trap over time).

When to Use Mission-Based Teams

My very simplified perspective on functional teams is that they are the default formation for a continuously evolving and growing product. Mission-based teams are the value multipliers and reserved for need-based/critical/urgent issues or opportunities. Functional teams tend to have artificial barriers to where they can provide value, and special attention and intention are needed to prevent this. They stay within their boundaries (this is a cultural dynamic, yet also stems from an intrinsic desire to work where they are most comfortable). This has many pitfalls that include destroying the opportunity and initiative of big-picture thinkers, making shared solutions to shared problems difficult, and/or creating a lack of awareness regarding what is happening outside their team. A mission-based team, being freshly assembled, does not have these problems - they are on a mission and it is all but expected to cross any artificial line necessary to accomplish their primary objective.

Another simplified perspective that answers the 'when' to create a mission-based team... you feel it. Pay attention to and recognize the patterns of your business that arise over time. Pay attention to the pain, struggles, or bottlenecks happening across your organization. You listen to your employees who are in the trenches. You create an environment that encourages anyone to share creative ideas, new opportunities, or voice concerns. Other times, it is more obvious. You have a competitive threat and you need to act quickly. The company undergoes a significant change, and new challenges abound. A brilliant idea needs a proof-of-concept requiring cross-functional skills. When an idea is formed and evaluated and the reward is greater than the risk, then you build just enough clarity to get started.

Yet, this isn't the hard part.

The Difficulty in Forming Mission-Based Teams

So we've defined these two modes of operating and when to form a mission-based team, but the real challenge can be quite obvious: the human dynamic.

You may face:

• Difficulty coordinating with other teams. Leaders may not want to share their human resources. Leaders create plans based on the knowns, and this may shake the boat.
• Lack of buy-in from team members or other leaders.
• Resistance to change. Many employees feel more confident and comfortable after settling in to their 'home'.
• Difficulty deciding how to split team members' time (or don't split at all).
• Challenges with starting and building momentum. Team cohesion takes time and not everyone appreciates new beginnings.

When the need to form a mission-based team rears its head, here are a few approaches to consider when working with other leaders:

• Start by communicating the importance of the mission. Why are we doing this?
• Communicate the end goal and how this mission-based team's success will contribute to the company's overall success.
• Highlight the potential benefits to the leaders who are lending resources. How will this positively impact them?
• Provide a clear plan. Clearly define how much of the employees' time you will be needing per week and for how long. Help managers understand this shift so they can adjust accordingly.
• Show appreciation and always be encouraging a culture of being one team towards one mission and that we are in this together.
• Assure continuity. Make assurances if possible that the team will get their team member back and will bring a plethora of knowledge back with them, making them stronger.

When it comes to recruiting team members, most often, this can be quite simple. You are seeking the passionate, the creative, the self-motivated and skilled talent that thrive on this type of work and they will throw their hands up when told about this new challenge. Often times, you need an expert with a niche skillset and they need convincing. You need to sell them the value of the outcome, exciting challenges, the freedom to innovate, and the opportunity to work with other brilliant people. When it comes down to it, they may not be given the option to not join, but always seek to assemble a cast that is behind the mission, passionate, and have the ability to collaborate. For creative types, new and shiny and not having all the answer is all part of the excitement.

Other challenges you may face unrelated to forming:

• Difficulty getting the new team from forming to performing quickly. Conflicting opinions or personalities.
• Difficulty in aligning the goals and how to execute methodically.
• Difficulty managing the plethora of stakeholders and their priorities, not to forget the leaders who lost resources.
• Difficulty in managing the cost and expansion of time to complete.
• Difficulty in maintaining quality - set the precedent upfront. Are we building a proof-of-concept and we care more about speed? Are we creating a minimal-viable-product (MVP) that is a first test of its value and is the foundation for more to come?
• Other: Difficulty managing contractors and getting them onboarded quickly.

Have More Liquidity than Available Headcount?

Lastly, another option is the use of contractors. This provides the benefit of leaving (most) current team formations alone and bringing in fresh blood with fresh perspectives. This can be a double-edged sword. You receive fresh perspectives at the sacrifice of tribal knowledge. Contractors can accelerate the delivery, but when they leave, they take a lot with them that is lost to the company. Yet, some strategies can negate the cons of whichever option you choose. Contractors can be a major asset and a quick win, but they come with a plethora of stipulations and requirements to maximize their value. This is a big topic I'll cover another time, but my top two rules would be: 1) contractors do not get full autonomy - they have to work within the standards you place upon them, and 2) contractors do not work in silos and full-time employees should work alongside to retain the knowledge in-house. Healthy documentation is required. As a side note, hiring a contractor can be the best long-term interview imaginable. If they have proven their merit and you have the budget, don't hesitate to extend a full-time offer well before the end of the project.

Summary

Both mission-based teams and functional teams have their own advantages and disadvantages. How you form them will depend a lot on the needs of the business, the versatility of the members, and innovations and internl tools built to maximize outputs and outcomes. It’s important to also consider the team size, skills and experience available, communication and collaboration, scalability, flexibility, autonomy, organizational structure and more.

This short article is really just an overview of considerations, and no one can give you concrete advice on how to build a healthy organization without intimately knowing your business, needs, and the challenges you face. I hope this article gave you something to think about. Finding the right balance and deciding with the right criteria will help your teams adapt to company growth and continued success.

Good luck!