How to Permanently Resolve Cross-Department Rivalries
Organizations naturally fragment as they grow, pulling people apart into silos and creating functional borders that can set departmental rivalry in motion. Superficial solutions like team building or conflict training don’t do a good job of addressing fraying cross-functional relationships. Instead, leaders should hold a series of conversations to help people in those departments better understand their counterparts and commit to mutual success. Use these four questions to guide those discussions: What value do we create together? What capabilities do we need to deliver the value? How will we resolve conflicts and make decisions while maintaining trust? What do we need from each other to succeed? By agreeing on why and how they need to work together, these departments will not only better coordinate their efforts but reduce friction between them as well.
It can be challenging to synchronize complex tasks across multiple functions. Rather than cooperating, too many functions end up competing for power, influence, and limited resources. And such rivalry is more than a nuisance: It’s costly. One study reports that 85% of workers experience some regular form of conflict, with U.S. workers averaging 2.8 hours per week. That equates to $359 billion paid hours mired in conflict. It’s easy to blame these conflicts on personalities — think toxic bosses or big egos — but in my experience as an organizational consultant, the root cause is more often systemic. For example, this study examining the rivalry between sales and marketing showed that conflicts between managers from these historically warring functions were not driven by interpersonal issues. They were tied to the frequency of how they exchanged information, and the degree to which there were effective processes connecting their work.
When cross-departmental rivalries get heated and conflicts arise, I’ve frequently seen companies turn to team-building events or motivational speakers who talk about trust. But often these solutions aren’t able to address the challenges these groups face because the organizational structure is encouraging these departments to dislike and distrust one another. For example, I worked with a global consumer products company in which the commercial organization — the set of departments responsible for developing new products and bringing them to market — was deeply fragmented. There were misunderstandings across the group about what one another did and sharp differences in how each subgroup defined a successfully commercialized product. R&D viewed operations as “the people who only know how to say no to opportunities,” while operations viewed R&D as “the time- and money-wasters.”
To better integrate and align rivaling functions, and therefore reduce friction and strengthen collaboration, leaders can address four critical questions that enable cross-functional teams to work together more coherently. These can happen over an extended working session, or a series of conversations.
What value do we create together? The seams that connect major functions are where a company’s greatest competitive distinctions lie. Discrete technical capabilities reside within functions, but when blended with the capabilities of adjacent functions, they combine into capabilities that drive performance. But that value is only realized when those functions understand their shared contributions for creating it. In my client example, the people in R&D and operations came to see one another differently, and work more collaboratively, because they realized that their combined expertise was necessary to get products to market faster. Neither alone controlled speed to market, but together they could significantly influence it. R&D needed to be disciplined in how they provided product specifications to manufacturing, and operations needed to be adaptable in order to accommodate new products they’d never had to make before. Marketing and R&D’s combined value could be creating innovations that prioritize the customer. By identifying which objectives in the organization’s strategy the functions mutually contribute to, they reduce the perception of conflicting goals. They also better manage the healthy, natural tensions between objectives like containing cost and investing in opportunities that may not materialize.
What capabilities do we need to deliver the value? Having anchored their relationship in creating value for the company together, groups can now focus on how best to achieve it. Functions should identify the four to five critical shared capabilities they must have. These may include the translation of market analytics into product opportunities, technical problem solving, or the fast and accurate exchange of information and learning as projects move through the development process. Identifying these requires an honest assessment of the organization to uncover any lagging or missing capabilities or processes that best integrate each function’s efforts. In the case of my client, we discovered there was no forum to bring together all of the commercial functions — regulatory, packaging, manufacturing, and marketing — to discuss potential problems with ongoing projects. As a result, information was slow to get to decision makers, and was often distorted by the time it did. The organization created a monthly meeting for these groups to come together to discuss challenges and solve problems with greater candor.
How will we resolve conflicts and make decisions while maintaining trust? Conflicts will inevitably come up when trying to better coordinate efforts. Answering this question together presents an opportunity to “rehearse” those conflicts in advance. Functions should identify the critical decisions they’ll need to make in pursuit of their co-created value and determine who gets to make the final call on those decisions. This requires acknowledging any historical baggage or unresolved distrust between the functions. Only when those concerns are fully aired can any biases people have toward one another’s department be removed. Empathy is key here, as is sharing information on what it’s like to interact with one another. I’ve often heard people express during this part of the conversation sentiments like, “I had no idea you guys had to do that! No wonder our requests drive you crazy!” The goal is to increase the respect the departments have for one another and build greater commitment to collective success.
What do we need from each other to succeed? This final question is about supporting one another’s work going forward. Groups must create detailed service-level agreements to one another, and negotiate things like timeliness of information sharing, quality standards, how far in advance notification is needed for changes, and how day-to-day work will be coordinated. The departments may need to share access to particular technology platforms or include people from other groups in certain meetings, so they get the information they need and provide input at the right time. Once the group agrees on which commitments they need to make, they must stick to them.
Organizations naturally fragment as they grow, pulling people apart into silos and creating functional borders that can set rivalry in motion. If you see fraying cross-functional relationships, don’t resort to superficial solutions like team building or conflict training. Dig deeper to understand what’s really causing those fractions and take steps together to set up your functions for mutual success.
Ron Carucci is co-founder and managing partner at Navalent, working with CEOs and executives pursuing transformational change for their organizations, leaders, and industries. He is the best-selling author of eight books, including the recent Amazon #1 Rising to Power. Connect with him on Twitter at @RonCarucci; download his free e-book on Leading Transformation.
How to Permanently Resolve Cross-Department Rivalries
Research & References of How to Permanently Resolve Cross-Department Rivalries|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks