Over the years, I've discovered the truth: Game-changing products won't succeed unless they have a unified vision across sales, marketing, and product teams. When these key functions pull in different directions, it's a death knell for go-to-market execution. Without alignment on positioning and buyer messaging, we fail to communicate value and create disjointed experiences. So, how do I foster collaboration across these functions? 1) Set shared goals and incentivize unity towards that North Star metric, be it revenue, activations, or retention. 2) Encourage team members to work closely together, building empathy rather than skepticism of other groups' intentions and contributions. 3) Regularly conduct cross-functional roadmapping sessions to cascade priorities across departments and highlight dependencies. 4) Create an environment where teams can constructively debate assumptions and strategies without politics or blame. 5) Provide clarity for sales on target personas and value propositions to equip them for deal conversations. 6) Involve all functions early in establishing positioning and messaging frameworks. Co-create when possible. By rallying together around customers’ needs, we block and tackle as one team towards product-market fit. The magic truly happens when teams unite towards a shared mission to delight users!
Building A Cross-Functional Team For Innovation
Explore top LinkedIn content from expert professionals.
Summary
Building a cross-functional team for innovation involves creating diverse groups from different departments to work together seamlessly, with the aim of solving complex challenges and driving creativity in an organization.
- Define shared goals: Align the team around a clear mission or objective to ensure everyone works towards the same outcome and avoids conflicting priorities.
- Encourage empathy: Promote open communication and understanding among team members to break down silos and build trust across departments.
- Promote collaborative leadership: Focus on lateral leadership skills that emphasize co-creation, asking questions, and prioritizing company-wide success over individual team interests.
-
-
Scaling from 50 to 100 employees almost killed our company. Until we discovered a simple org structure that unlocked $100M+ in annual revenue. In my 10+ years of experience as a founder, one of the biggest challenges I faced in scaling was bridging the organizational gap between startup and enterprise. We hit that wall at around 100~ employees. What worked beautifully with a small team suddenly became our biggest obstacle to growth. The problem was our functional org structure: Engineers reporting to engineering, product to product, business to business. This created a complex dependency web: • Planning took weeks • No clear ownership • Business threw Jira tickets over the fence and prayed for them to get completed • Engineers didn’t understand priorities and worked on problems that didn’t align with customer needs That was when I studied Amazon's Single-Threaded Owner (STO) model, in which dedicated GMs run independent business units with their own cross-functional teams and manage P&L It looked great for Amazon's scale but felt impossible for growing companies like ours. These 2 critical barriers made it impractical for our scale: 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. But it's NOT for everyone (like STO wasn’t for us) If you're under 50 people, the overhead probably isn't worth it. If you're Amazon-scale, pure STO might be better. MAT works best in the messy middle: when you're too big for everyone to be in one room but too small for a full enterprise structure. image courtesy of Manu Cornet ------ If you liked this, follow me Henry Shi as I share insights from my journey of building and scaling a $1B/year business.
-
Too often, I’ve been in a meeting where everyone agreed collaboration was essential—yet when it came to execution, things stalled. Silos persisted, friction rose, and progress felt painfully slow. A recent Harvard Business Review article highlights a frustrating truth: even the best-intentioned leaders struggle to work across functions. Why? Because traditional leadership development focuses on vertical leadership (managing teams) rather than lateral leadership (influencing peers across the business). The best cross-functional leaders operate differently. They don’t just lead their teams—they master LATERAL AGILITY: the ability to move side to side, collaborate effectively, and drive results without authority. The article suggests three strategies on how to do this: (1) Think Enterprise-First. Instead of fighting for their department, top leaders prioritize company-wide success. They ask: “What does the business need from our collaboration?” rather than “How does this benefit my team?” (2) Use "Paradoxical Questions" to Avoid Stalemates. Instead of arguing over priorities, they find a way to win together by asking: “How can we achieve my objective AND help you meet yours?” This shifts the conversation from turf battles to solutions. (3) “Make Purple” Instead of Pushing a Plan. One leader in the article put it best: “I bring red, you bring blue, and together we create purple.” The best collaborators don’t show up with a fully baked plan—they co-create with others to build trust and alignment. In my research, I’ve found that curiosity is so helpful in breaking down silos. Leaders who ask more questions—genuinely, not just performatively—build deeper trust, uncover hidden constraints, and unlock creative solutions. - Instead of assuming resistance, ask: “What constraints are you facing?” - Instead of pushing a plan, ask: “How might we build this together?” - Instead of guarding your function’s priorities, ask: “What’s the bigger picture we’re missing?” Great collaboration isn’t about power—it’s about perspective. And the leaders who master it create workplaces where innovation thrives. Which of these strategies resonates with you most? #collaboration #leadership #learning #skills https://lnkd.in/esC4cfjS