Setting a team’s “Mission”

A common phrase you hear in the product world is that we want “missionaries not mercenaries”. We want teams that are given a mission and then go off to solve it independently, rather than giving them strict plans to execute. This is necessary in the increasingly dynamic and complex landscape that teams are working in. It’s impossible for senior management to know the best route that is required to achieve their goals, so it is best to let effective teams figure it out.

But how do we set these teams up for success? How do we ensure that they are going to be doing the things that add value to the business in the long run? I see it as imperative to:

• Set their mission centrally
• Focus it on a customer problem
• Leave them to it

But first, what do we even mean by a “mission”?!

What is a mission?

This is the team’s remit. It is very similar to the team’s purpose, and personally I see little need to separate the two — it just creates confusion, when clarity is essential here. A mission makes it clear what the team is responsible for, and therefore where its boundaries are. It is a short, concise statement that stays constant for a long time.

I’ve made up some examples of missions that teams at some well-known companies might have:

“Enable users to find out what is nearby, at any time”

“Suggest personalised examples of TV shows that existing customers will want to watch”

“Allow customers to checkout as quickly as possible”

A mission is separate from a vision. A vision is a view of the future, whereas the mission is what the team is doing now.

A team shouldn’t set it’s own mission

A team should be given its mission. If an organisation is a selection of teams, someone is responsible for deciding which teams exist, and what they are responsible for. They should pick missions that are likely to generate long-term business value, and contribute to the company’s overall mission.

It is helpful when the missions of all the teams are MECE — Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive:

• Mutually Exclusive — there is no overlap. Overlap with other teams creates real frustration — teams trying to solve the same problems in different ways, and stepping on each others toes.
• Collectively Exhaustive — all the missions cover everything that the organisation needs to do. Basically, there are no gaps; all work that needs to be done that falls into someone’s mission.

Someone needs to be thinking about this, and therefore making sure that the missions are MECE. Therefore, the team generally can’t pick their own mission.

The team can re-word or redefine it. But if they do redefine it, then they need to ensure that it doesn’t overlap with other teams, or leave any gaps.

A mission should be focused on solving a customer problem

In my mind, a good mission statement should answer three things:

• Who will benefit? Who is your customer/user?
• What you are doing for them?
• Why is that a problem worth solving for them?

This makes sure that the team is focused on solving a customer problem. Sometimes the customer might be internal — that’s OK. Invariably, solving a customer problem will create value to the business over the long term. Business value should be the result, rather than the sole focus. If we flip it round, and business value is the sole focus of the team, then the team can get very short-term focused, leading to damaging long-term results as customer value is forgotten and customer satisfaction declines.

Some examples of good (company) mission statements:

“Connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful.” — LinkedIn

“Grant the wishes of children with life-threatening medical conditions to enrich the human experience with hope, strength and joy.” — Make a Wish

“To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” — Google

These make it clear who they are working for*, what they are trying to do for these people, and why it will benefit them. I have used company mission statements rather than team ones as any team one would be specific to an organisation, whereas I hope these are understandable to all. But these company mission statements all follow the same format that I’d want a team one to do, they are just too big for one team!

* (in Google’s case it is “universal”, so everyone in the universe. A bold aim, but they are doing pretty well at it!)

Leave them to it

It is tempting to keep stepping in and altering the team’s direction, but this just removes the empowerment and autonomy that we need to give them to be successful. The whole reason we are empowering these teams is because we are accepting that we don’t know the best way forward ourselves.

Instead, find a way to measure the value that is delivered to the customer. A very common way to do this these days is with NPS (Net Promoter Score), but it totally depends on what their mission is. Once there is a clear way to measure the value that they are bringing, management can stop interfering in how the team achieves its mission, but just assess them based on the value delivered. I’ve covered this extensively in a blog about judging product teams.

The balance of how much autonomy to give a team is always a tough one to strike. Not enough and you don’t get the innovative results you hope for; too much autonomy and the team doesn’t know what is expected of them. So give the team a customer-focused mission that clearly states the value that they are expected to drive. Find a way to measure that, and then get out of their way.

If you would like help setting your team/company’s mission, get in touch on my website.

If you enjoyed reading please give some 👏 and/or leave a comment. For more stories like this check out my publication, The Agile Mindset.