The three questions to answer at formation
| Question | What a good answer looks like | What happens without one |
|---|---|---|
| Who decides | A named owner with stated authority and an escalation threshold | Every decision goes to three functional heads and the team waits |
| Who assesses | The functional manager rates, with formal written input from the team lead | Members are rated on the work their manager could see, which is not this work |
| Whose budget | Allocation agreed at formation, with cost centre treatment stated | An argument at year end, and reluctance to release people next time |
The second row is the one that quietly determines whether anyone volunteers again. An employee who spends half a year on a cross-functional project and is then rated by a manager who saw none of it learns something specific about where to spend their effort, and so does everyone watching.
Making the appraisal work
- Record the assignment formally when it starts, with the proportion of time and the duration, so it exists in the record rather than as an arrangement between two managers.
- Revise the person's goals to reflect it. If the goal sheet still describes the functional work they are no longer doing full time, the appraisal will assess the wrong thing.
- Require written input from the team lead before the rating, not a verbal conversation at the last minute, and hold the input in the record.
- Weight it honestly. Someone at eighty per cent on a project should have their rating driven mainly by that work.
- Decide who handles increments, promotions and development for the person, which is usually the functional manager and should be said aloud.
- Where matrix reporting is permanent rather than project-based, put both reporting lines in the system, because an unrecorded dotted line is invisible when the manager changes or leaves.
Composition and allocation
- Size it to be able to decide. Beyond about eight core members, the team spends its time coordinating itself.
- Distinguish core members from consulted contributors. Everyone whose approval is needed does not need to be in the team.
- State allocation in real terms. Twenty per cent means one day a week that the functional manager has agreed to release, and without that agreement it means nothing.
- Give the owner authority proportionate to the accountability. An owner who cannot decide anything is a coordinator with a misleading title.
- Set an end date or a review date. Cross-functional teams that outlive their purpose become a shadow structure that nobody can close.
- Watch for the same three people on every team. Cross-functional work concentrates on the willing, and it is invisible in their functional workload.
The administrative details that get forgotten
- Cost centre allocation. Where an employee's cost is split across cost centres, decide the basis at formation and apply it in payroll rather than reconstructing it later for a project report.
- Location and travel. A team drawn from several sites incurs travel and, where members work at another location for extended periods, questions about which establishment they are attached to for records.
- Access. Cross-functional work usually requires access to systems outside the person's function, and revoking that access when the team ends is a step nobody owns.
- Confidentiality. Members see data belonging to other functions, including in HR and finance projects where the data is about colleagues, and that should be handled explicitly rather than by assumption.
- Recognition. Where a payout depends on functional targets, someone seconded to a cross-functional team may be structurally unable to earn it, and that has to be corrected at assignment rather than argued at payout.
- Return. Plan where the person goes when the team ends. A member whose functional role was backfilled during a long assignment has no seat to return to, and that is discovered too late.
Frequently asked questions
What is a cross-functional team?
A team drawing people from several functions to deliver something none could deliver alone. Whether it works depends on three administrative questions that are usually unanswered: who decides, who assesses the members, and whose budget carries them.
Who should rate a cross-functional team member?
Usually the functional manager, but only with formal written input from the team lead captured before the rating. Otherwise the person is assessed on work their manager could see, which is not the work they spent the period doing.
How large should the team be?
Small enough to decide, which is around eight core members at most. People whose approval is needed do not all need to be members, and beyond that size the team spends its time coordinating itself.
How should the cost be allocated?
Agree the basis at formation and apply it in payroll across the relevant cost centres. Settling it at the year-end review produces an argument and makes functional managers reluctant to release people for the next team.
What gets forgotten when the team ends?
Revoking the system access members were given outside their function, and planning where people return to. A member whose functional role was backfilled during a long assignment has no seat to go back to, and that is usually discovered at the end rather than the start.
How Engage handles matrix work
Engage records a cross-functional assignment with its allocation, duration and second reporting line, so the arrangement exists in the system rather than between two managers. Written input from the team lead is captured against the appraisal, and cost allocation across cost centres runs in payroll rather than being reconstructed for a project report at year end.
See Engage HR software