T-shaped roles: When cross-functional work is strategy vs. survival

Two models, one label

Alix Gallardo, co-founder and CPO at Invent, has been building startups for 15 years and has hired many T-shaped capabilities. “We all work cross‑functionally,” she says. “‘That’s not my responsibility’ is an uncommon phrase on my teams.” But she’s explicit about the limits: “T-shaped roles are going to happen in a startup in the early stage.”

Dr. Amy Cook is the co-founder of Fullcast, manages revenue operations for an enterprise healthcare company, and co-authored “The RevOps Advantage” based on research with around 100 strategic RevOps professionals. Her experience suggests the model scales, if designed correctly. “RevOps has always existed,” Cook says. “But what’s different now is that the roles and responsibilities are being more codified, and the training is becoming more specialized.”

The data supports both perspectives. VP of Revenue Operations titles are becoming increasingly popular, with a spike in growth post-Covid. In 2024, 92% reported metrics and KPIs as a main responsibility, followed by pipeline strategy (78%) and tech stack management (77%), according to the Revenue Operations Alliance’s 2024 industry report. The pattern of combining deep domain expertise with cross-functional coordination appears in Product Operations, AI Operations, and Customer Success roles as well.

What these roles look like

When T-shaped roles work, they follow a pattern: one home base (depth), with two to three adjacent interfaces (breadth) for communication and coordination, not end-to-end execution.

At startup scale, Gallardo shares that a product manager could be a good example of a T-shaped role. In a typical week, they would spend the first three days on product work like ideation, prototyping, and user flows. The remaining two days would be split across marketing content, customer support tickets, sales resources, and team management.

At enterprise scale, Cook manages RevOps, constantly interfacing with division leadership on strategy, sales on pipeline, operations on process, finance on forecasting, and marketing on execution. "Each one of those teams needs something from me that they can't get from anyone else," she says. Her research shows successful implementations divide work across multiple ops functions. The ideal ratio, according to a former Google leader Cook interviewed, is 40% strategic, 40% operational, 20% tactical.

The difference is structural. Gallardo describes resource-constrained flexibility—people wear multiple hats because there's no one else. "Right now, I do everything. But when we have capital, I'm going to hire someone specialized in marketing." Cook describes deliberate organizational design where depth reaches across departments with defined interfaces. Both are "T-shaped," but one is necessity-driven and temporary, the other is architecture that persists.

How AI changes the equation

In 2025, 88% of organizations report using AI in at least one business function, according to McKinsey’s State of AI Report. Cook’s research found that the average RevOps professional manages 13 different AI tools across their workflow. The proliferation means professionals need both technical fluency in multiple platforms and the judgement to know when to use them, adding another layer of breadth to an already complex role.

But Gallardo's experience suggests AI doesn’t automatically enable T-shaped work. She created a specialized prompt engineering team when AI tools emerged, and it failed. "They weren't able to do a T-shaped role,” she shares. “We needed to have more business knowledge, interest, curiosity, passion.” The lesson here is that AI changes the work, but T-shaped roles still depend on people willing to work across boundaries.

Where it breaks down

According to the Revenue Operations Alliance report mentioned above, 22% of operations professionals spend 50-70% of their time on internal communication, and 19% spend over 70%. At some point, coordination crowds out specialized work.

Cook's solution as companies grow: the leader moves from tactical to strategic, and specialists handle specific functions. "It's really hard to be a business analyst and an expert in integrations at the same time," she shares. The common mistake, according to Cook, is "hiring a strategy person when I needed someone tactical and hiring a tactical person when I needed someone strategic." A 50-person startup needs tactical execution. A mature company needs strategic alignment.

Who succeeds

The skills that predict success aren't obvious. Cook describes the ideal candidate as someone who goes from big picture to tiny detail and back. "That's why a lot of revenue operations people are being paid the big bucks. It is very hard to find those people," she says. Skills tied to cross-functional leadership command significant salary premiums in competitive markets.

To assess this in interviews, Cook presents scenarios and watches how candidates break down problems. Strong ones think systematically: people, processes, systems, data. "You can tell that they're thinking through a schema in their mind."

Gallardo emphasizes mindset over technical skills. "Most people do not have the flexibility to fit into a T-shaped role. They are not open to doing other things," she explains. When startups pivot, people who say "that's not my responsibility" don't survive.

According to the Revenue Operations Alliance, 26% of RevOps professionals have five to nine years in the role, and most come from adjacent functions after five-plus years in previous positions. Breadth develops through experience. The question is whether companies build it deliberately or hope it emerges.

What this means

The tension between startup necessity and enterprise architecture is more of a maturity curve than a contradiction. T-shaped roles start as resource constraints and can evolve into organizational design. But that evolution requires intention.

For workers considering these roles: Ask whether this is designed deliberately or driven by constraints. What percentage of time goes to depth versus coordination? How is breadth recognized in compensation? What happened to the last person in this role? The answers reveal whether you’re walking into a sustainable position or a burnout risk dressed up with better branding.

For companies building them: If you're a startup operating under resource constraints, be honest that roles will evolve as the company scales. If you're designing T-shaped roles at enterprise scale, provide the structural support to make them sustainable: clear boundaries, deliberate coordination mechanisms, and compensation that reflects cross-functional complexity. The Revenue Operations Alliance data shows 19% of professionals spend over 70% of their time on coordination, which is unsustainable without infrastructure.

The test is simple. Are you designing for sustainability or managing scarcity with better branding? Startup flexibility is valid if you're explicit that it's temporary. Enterprise-scale T-shaped work is achievable with cultural support and deliberate structure. The difference determines whether these roles attract top talent or burn them out.

The roles exist. They're growing across industries and seniority levels. But workers in poorly designed T-shaped roles face coordination overload and unclear career paths. Companies that get this wrong lose expensive talent and institutional knowledge. The stakes are high enough to demand honest answers about whether you're building architecture or just hoping constraints look like strategy.