Introduction
Metalogue Consulting hosted an online co-inquiry event with clients on the 20th of January 2025 titled “Bringing Missions to Life: A Co-Inquiry”. The intention was to offer a process and first opportunity for sensemaking on emerging thinking and practice on applying the Missions Leadership concept as developed by Mariana Mazzucato and colleagues at UCL’s Institute Innovation and Public Purpose.
This article summarises the first session of our co-inquiry into Mission Leadership. For a foundational overview of the concept and why it presents such distinct organisational challenges, read our earlier article: How Do We Bring Missions to Life?
33 attendees included representatives from 8 UK central government departments, Hospital trusts, international medical research charities, Scottish government agencies, local government bodies and independent consultants. Those attending agreed to protocols implied by “Chatham House rules”.
This document seeks to summarise the range of perspectives and data shared at the event.
What has been the experience of bringing Missions to life?
Across the organisations and groups involved in the co-inquiry, people are engaging with missions in diverse ways, often dependent on their role, structure, and alignment within the system. Missions are generally seen as cross-cutting, outcome-focused initiatives aimed at tackling systemic or complex challenges.
Organisations seem to be in different places in bringing Missions to life:
- Organisations can be classified as early, partial and potential adopters;
- Three organisations reported having implemented initial Missions based structures and approaches 2 years ago, although even here there are questions and gaps arising from this approach which need resolving;
- Not all those who have adopted a Missions approach have applied the Missions term or the concept fully as set out by Mariana Mazzucato – one organisation has chosen to term their mission-equivalents “Challenges”;
- Some reported recent concerted efforts to establish structures and ways of working to support Missions delivery, resulting from the new government’s commitment and focus on delivering 5 Missions;
- Others reported they were considering a Missions approach but have not yet taken tangible steps on this;
- All those from organisations which have chosen to move to a Missions approach reported a range of trade-offs and tensions in doing so, as discussed below. This has informed the title of this report: “From Intention to In-Tension”
Examples of approaches taken and questions arising include:
Central Government Department 1:
As a “conduit department,” this department does not own missions outright but supports components of multiple missions. Its experiences highlight the difficulties of mobilising cross-departmental collaboration. While there is talk of agile working, the default to traditional methods (e.g., lengthy reports and analyses) undermines this intent.
Hospitals Trust:
There is a tension between what the organization believes it is achieving and the reality of staff experience. While the Trust describes itself as innovative, staff do not feel safe to challenge norms or propose new ideas. Efforts to drive mission-like work are hindered by entrenched performance measurement norms (e.g., minutes and hours) and the relative ease of working within existing silos rather than across boundaries.
Central Government Department 2:
Leadership is exploring how to enable missions work effectively. There is an appetite to embrace the opportunities presented by missions, but staff feel constrained by short-term deliverables and objectives, which inhibit resource flexibility and collaborative efforts. There is also a tendency for discussions on collaboration to become overly large and unwieldy, involving too many stakeholders without clear direction.
Central Government Department 3:
This department has two main missions. Within the communications function, teams have adopted a project-based and flexible approach, demonstrating an ability to organise quickly around these missions. The function however is experiencing difficulties working with the wider organisation where many teams are organised in functional units that are focused on immediate operational challenges and deliverables.
Other notable observations include:
- A phenomenon termed “mission-washing,” where individuals reframe existing activities to align with missions to secure recognition or resources. This reflects both enthusiasm and a lack of clarity around mission boundaries.
- Good intentions and energy from staff often conflict with wider systemic structures and processes, creating friction between mission goals and day-to-day realities.
What Are the Challenges in Making Missions a Reality?
A range of systemic, cultural, and structural challenges were identified as obstacles to embedding missions into organisational practice. These challenges span governance, collaboration, accountability, and resource management.
Governance and Structure
- Governance approaches for missions remain unclear in many organisations. Questions arise around who decides mission priorities, who is accountable, and how resources should be allocated or reallocated across missions and routine operations.
- Many organisations struggle to adapt their structures to support missions effectively. For example, the separation of mission work from day-to-day operations is often reinforced by logistical barriers, such as different laptops, platforms, or systems used exclusively for missions.
- In some cases, missions are layered onto existing work rather than integrated or prioritised, leading to overburdened staff and diluted focus.
Collaboration and Silos
- Silos remain a significant challenge. It is easier to work within established boundaries than to collaborate across them, especially in organisations with deeply ingrained performance metrics or traditional practices. For example, hospital trust staff noted that cross-boundary work was significantly harder to achieve than working within existing silos.
- Collaboration efforts often become overly complex and involve too many stakeholders, leading to inefficiencies and lack of focus.
Cultural Barriers
- Missions often bring about shifts in power dynamics, creating tensions between those involved in “heroic” mission work and those focused on day-to-day operations. This divide can exacerbate feelings of inequality and competition.
- Staff report scepticism or cynicism around missions, particularly when their goals are perceived as ambiguous or their impact unclear.
- The “perceived purity” of missions can lead to unintended dysfunction, such as the marginalization of operational or enabling roles, which are critical to mission success.
- Historical norms and legacy practices – such as traditional project management approaches or rigid performance measurement systems – stifle innovation and the agility required for missions.
Resource and Incentive Misalignment
- Incentive structures and performance metrics often emphasize short-term deliverables, making it difficult for staff to focus on longer-term mission goals.
- Misalignment of resources, such as funding or personnel, is a common issue. Organisations struggle to flexibly allocate resources between missions and routine operations.
- In some cases, missions are not clearly defined, making it difficult to organise resources effectively. Tangible missions, like Scotland’s energy mission, are easier to align around than more ambiguous goals, such as innovation.
Green Shoots
Despite the challenges, there are examples of progress and potential that point to the opportunities missions can offer when done well. A significant driving force is the aspirational aims and sense of purpose that lies beneath Missions. This creates a desire and energy for them to succeed.
Flexibility and Agility
- Teams within a department have demonstrated the ability to quickly organise around mission priorities, showing that flexibility and adaptability are achievable within specific contexts.
- The concept of missions offers a framework for breaking down barriers and enabling collaboration, as seen during the COVID-19 response, which highlighted the potential for missions to create a shared sense of priority and urgency.
Appetite for Change
- There is a strong appetite among leaders and staff to embrace the opportunities missions present, such as fostering innovation and addressing complex, systemic challenges. This is particularly evident in one department’s leadership approach, which encourages creative thinking and explores different levels of collaboration (collaborate, cooperate, or coordinate).
- Missions provide an opportunity to move beyond siloed thinking and encourage systems-level approaches to problem-solving. For example, one department’s role as a conduit department highlights the importance of cross-departmental collaboration, even if it remains a challenge.
Learning and Adaptation
- There is growing recognition of the need to adapt organisational structures, governance, and incentives to better support missions. Conversations around what capabilities are required for effective missions and how to overcome systemic barriers are becoming more prominent.
- Missions offer an opportunity to rethink traditional approaches to project management and performance metrics, paving the way for greater creativity and innovation in delivery.
Other Reflections
The Role of Crisis as a Catalyst
- A recurring question is whether crises are necessary to drive change and mobilize action around missions. The COVID-19 response showed how missions can create a collective sense of priority, but replicating this without a crisis remains a challenge.
Balancing Innovation and Control
- Project management is frequently overused as a mechanism to provide assurance and control in mission delivery. However, this often stifles creativity, innovation, and the adaptive learning needed to address complex challenges.
- A key question is how to balance the need for oversight with the flexibility required to foster innovative approaches to mission work. Within a Missions approach the approach to accountability requires a shift from accountability for outputs to accountability for learning.
Building Capabilities for Missions
- Organisations need to invest in building the capabilities required to deliver missions effectively. This includes skills in cross-boundary collaboration, systems thinking, and adaptive governance.
- Leadership plays a critical role in enabling missions, particularly in creating the conditions for collaboration and aligning incentives with long-term goals.
Final thoughts
At the heart of the challenge to bring Missions to life is the need for actors across systems to change the system. This requires a ‘good enough’ understanding and awareness of how existing patterns of interaction across the system give rise to today’s outcomes. Without this, people unwittingly act into these patterns to re-create the very outcomes they are invested in changing.
Often short-term pressures drive teams to deliver work through the established channels, rather than to step out of them and into a more uncertain space. We are exploring OD interventions that can help teams to do the latter, and sidestep the former.
Interested in our research on organisation design? Find it here.
Interested in our research on strategy? Find it here.
