Salman—you're probably already aware of this—a major argument for small cross-functional teams (e.g. agile teams) is based on the fact that roles on the team tend to blend depending on how much work each member has to do. For example, when there isn't much copy to write at some point in a sprint the copywriter is asked to help QA something, or provide input on visual design. The result is more engaged teams (because we like doing things outside of our primary domain) and more innovative teams (because individuals outside of a domain often come with fresh, unencumbered, ideas). .... In other places, this is stated as the development of "T" shaped team members who have a broad range of shallow experience but go deep in a domain or two. That's one kind of polymath.
Absolutely right, Roland! Thanks for emphasizing that — it's a great reminder that we see polymathic individuals in companies all the time today, and it is useful both for the individual as well as the company (via flexibility).
I'm curious of your opinion on something (I've been asked this a lot): Do you think this kind of flexibility (to "allow" folks to expand their roles) mostly exists in smaller companies? Based on personal experience, I have found that larger companies have a hard time supporting this, as they need more standardized ways of measuring performance, and that means sticking to your role. What do you think?
I think it depends more on who is managing the team than on the size of the company .... though generally, I bigger firms seem to rely less on small cross-functional teams. I do see bigger companies trying to change this, but it's slooooooooowwwwww.
Agreed! Also, I think a manager can choose to see the value they’re providing in other areas, but sometimes their hands are tied due to how performance measurement is standardized at big cos (saw this first hand lol). You’d think ppl would see the value of them given the growth of startups...
Salman—you're probably already aware of this—a major argument for small cross-functional teams (e.g. agile teams) is based on the fact that roles on the team tend to blend depending on how much work each member has to do. For example, when there isn't much copy to write at some point in a sprint the copywriter is asked to help QA something, or provide input on visual design. The result is more engaged teams (because we like doing things outside of our primary domain) and more innovative teams (because individuals outside of a domain often come with fresh, unencumbered, ideas). .... In other places, this is stated as the development of "T" shaped team members who have a broad range of shallow experience but go deep in a domain or two. That's one kind of polymath.
Absolutely right, Roland! Thanks for emphasizing that — it's a great reminder that we see polymathic individuals in companies all the time today, and it is useful both for the individual as well as the company (via flexibility).
I'm curious of your opinion on something (I've been asked this a lot): Do you think this kind of flexibility (to "allow" folks to expand their roles) mostly exists in smaller companies? Based on personal experience, I have found that larger companies have a hard time supporting this, as they need more standardized ways of measuring performance, and that means sticking to your role. What do you think?
I think it depends more on who is managing the team than on the size of the company .... though generally, I bigger firms seem to rely less on small cross-functional teams. I do see bigger companies trying to change this, but it's slooooooooowwwwww.
Agreed! Also, I think a manager can choose to see the value they’re providing in other areas, but sometimes their hands are tied due to how performance measurement is standardized at big cos (saw this first hand lol). You’d think ppl would see the value of them given the growth of startups...