Building Cross-Functional Teams for Quick Adaptation

Every time you draw an org chart, you're picking sides in battles that haven't started yet. That's just human wiring. Social identity theory shows people quickly form in-groups and out-groups, even on trivial distinctions. Any structure you choose will naturally create "us vs. them" dynamics. Without intentional design, you get the classic blame cycles: Sales says Marketing sends bad leads, Marketing says Sales doesn't follow up, and Engineering blames both teams for changing requirements mid-sprint. But you can architect your organization so those tribal instincts work for you instead of against you. Here's how: Design for the Work --------------------- ↳ Organize around the work. Map how value flows to the customer and align teams to that flow. Don't organize around internal convenience—and definitely don't design around specific people. Organize around the critical path from idea to customer value. ↳ Clarify decision authority. Ambiguity breeds conflict and delays. Be explicit about who decides, who's consulted, and who's informed. Unclear authority creates either turf wars or decision paralysis. ↳ Define cross-team handoffs. Wherever work passes between groups, nail down who owns what, what "done" looks like, and how problems get escalated. The real risk isn't within teams; it's in the transitions between them. Align the Incentives --------------------- ↳ Set common goals. Give cross-functional groups a small set of shared outcomes—revenue growth, customer retention, cost savings or any other collectively important target. Use cascading goals and KPI trees to show how individual work connects to the bigger picture. This keeps everyone pointed in the same direction instead of optimizing their own corner. ↳ Align rewards with cooperation. If bonuses are based only on silo performance, you'll get silo behavior. Shared metrics and joint outcomes encourage people to actually help each other succeed. Enable the Collaboration -------------------------- ↳ Support cross-functional work. Make sure teams have the data, tools, and forums needed to work together effectively. If those supports aren't intentional, collaboration erodes under daily pressures and competing priorities. You can't eliminate tribal instincts; they're hardwired. But you can architect your organization so those instincts work for you instead of against you. You probably can’t eliminate "us vs. them" entirely. But you can design so the structure channels natural group dynamics toward shared execution. #strategy #execution #orgdesign #teamwork

Organizing Teams in the Real World Organizing dev teams isn’t just about dividing headcount by the optimal Scrum team size. It’s about creating structures and interactions that minimize inefficiencies and maximize throughput. Imagine you’ve got 40 engineers (front-end, back-end, security, DevOps, BAs, etc.). Some are seasoned; others are less experienced. With limited specialists, equal skill distribution isn’t possible. So how do you balance customer focus, reduce handoffs, and optimize delivery? Approach 1: Functional Teams w/ Centralized Specialists Functional teams are organized by skill. F/E devs in one team. B/E in another. Centralized specialists support everyone. Ex: Five functional teams and a central pool of 3 security engineers and 2 DevOps experts. Pros: Deep expertise within domains. Efficient use of scarce specialists. Cons: Lots of handoffs and delays as features move between teams. Specialists become bottlenecks. Low throughput due to coordination overhead. Result: Prioritizes expertise but sacrifices efficiency and speed. Approach 2: Component Teams w/ Platform Support Component teams own specific architectural layers (e.g., database, APIs), supported by a platform team that builds reusable tools. Ex: Four component teams and a 5-person platform team for shared services. Pros: Clear ownership of systems. Standardized tools reduce redundant work. Cons: Features spanning components require coordination. Platform dependencies can delay delivery. Teams may lose focus on customer outcomes. Result: Improved scalability, but handoffs and misaligned priorities persist. Approach 3: Hybrid Cross-Functional Teams w/ Specialist Support Feature teams are organized around end-to-end business domains, supported by floating specialists or a platform team for niche needs. Ex: Six cross-functional teams, 3 floating specialists, and a 2-person platform team. Pros: Low handoffs. Teams handle most work independently. Customer-centric focus. Efficient specialist use through targeted support. Cons: Demand spikes can stretch specialists. Upskilling generalists requires investment. Result: Balances autonomy, specialization, and throughput. Best Fit: Hybrid The hybrid cross-functional model provides the best balance of autonomy, scalability, and efficiency. This topology reduces handoffs and mitigates skill shortages. Implementing the Hybrid Model 1) Organize teams around business domains (e.g., onboarding, reporting). 2) Use floating experts or a platform team for shared needs (e.g. security, DevOps). 3) Upskill generalists to reduce dependence on specialists for routine tasks. 4) Standardize tools and create reusable solutions to streamline dependencies. Reality Perfectly balanced teams are a rarity. The hybrid model delivers a practical compromise. By minimizing handoffs, focusing on customer outcomes, and optimizing the use of specialists, you can enjoy faster delivery and greater agility despite real-world constraints.

Speed doesn’t kill startups. Lack of structure does. At Super.com, we scaled to $150M+ in revenue and 200+ team members without losing our edge. How? We built what we call Mission-Aligned Teams (MATs): a system inspired by Amazon’s single-threaded owners (STOs). STOs looked great for Amazon's scale but felt impossible for growing companies like ours. These 2 critical barriers made it impractical for most businesses and scale-ups: 1. Engineering Squad Requirements: True STO demands complete engineering teams (including managers) reporting to a single owner. At our size, we couldn't justify full engineering squads for each business unit. To make it work, we would have to quadruple our engineering headcount. 2. P&L Owner Complexity: STO leaders need unicorn-level skills: deep business acumen and P&L management experience. Not only are these leaders rare and expensive, but requiring all these skills in one person would have limited our talent pool and slowed our ability to launch new initiatives. What we needed was a model that captured STO's focus and accountability but worked for our size and growth needs. That's when we created Mission-Aligned Teams (MATs), a hybrid model that changed our execution (for good) Key principles: • Each team owns a specific mission (e.g., improving customer service, optimizing payment flow) • Teams are cross-functional and self-sufficient • Leaders can be anyone (engineer, PM, marketer) who's good at execution • People still report functionally for career development • Leaders focus on execution, not people management The results exceeded our highest expectations: New MAT leads launched new products, each generating $5-10M in revenue within a year with under 10 person teams. Planning became streamlined. Ownership became clear. Today, I’m giving away our Mission Aligned Teams Guide and Template and offering select high-impact 1:1 advisory calls on Intro, alongside the founders of Zillow, Reddit, Inc., and veteran VCs and experts like Andrew Chen If your team can’t answer “What matters most this week?” in under 5 seconds, it’s not a team. It’s a traffic jam. If you're scaling and structure is slowing you down, I can help. ✔️ Team design for execution ✔️ Scaling from founder-led to systems-led ✔️ Growth loops and organizational clarity ✔️ OKRs that actually drive results ------------------- 🚨 Want the exact Mission Aligned Teams Guide and Template we used to go from $0 to $150M+ revenue/year for FREE? • Like and share this post • Comment "MATs" I'll send you our entire MATs Guide — including the real team structures, internal templates, and step by step implementation guide that fueled our growth and built Super.com These are the same docs behind a Harvard case study and our $85M raise. No fluff — just what actually worked. This won’t be public for long, and due to time constraints, I'll be giving priority access for folks who shared this post. (photo credits to Manu Cornet)