“He wouldn’t give me the information. ‘That’s handled by his team,’ he said.” 

My team lead reported this to me, an in-house Organization Development partner and fellow Program Director–with a mix of frustration and resignation. 

She had just met with one of the Program Directors, aiming to gather insights into the client experience—especially the details of process and language that could illuminate expectations and direction to include in marketing materials.

My mind reeled with curiosity: what was making the director feel protective of his way of working and his team? What past experiences might be influencing his interactions with me and my team’s work? How committed or clear was he on the current initiative to improve our customer service and organizational marketing materials?

Oftentimes, peers and colleagues in other teams and departments protect their information–which can portray a lack of trust. 

Notice questions that could indicate a lack of trust :

• Who will be making this publicly available? When can I sign off on it?
  • can mean = Will I get the final say when it’s time to publish? 
• When is the next meeting to decide on this? Who is running that meeting? Why are my staff in that meeting, and I’m not?
  • can mean = Will the team be making important decisions in that meeting without me? Will they consider my direction and knowledge on the topics?

As the gateway into the organization for all clients, the Marketing team’s goal was to better understand expectations, needs, and common challenges with handing off clients from the main Client Entry point to others.

Because the director wouldn’t offer information, the team wasn’t able to learn and provide clients with detailed expectations (aka excellent user experience). A common behavior and blocker for optimal cross-functional collaboration.

Common issues that occur when working cross-functionally stem from: 

• not having a clear goal
• not including the right people
• poor communication (not sharing enough or the right information to the right people or misusing channels–should it have been a conversation instead of an email?)
• Lacking resources for the stated scope, cost, and timeline
• Different priorities or rhythms
• No shared project management (agreed upon deadlines or deliverables)

Ready to improve your cross-functional performance?

Questions to Ask to build clarity and alignment across sponsors, stakeholders, and team members: 

• Goal Clarity:
  • What are the specific deliverables of the project? 
  • What does the goal link up to? (consider strategic plans, mission statements, etc)
  • What is included in the scope of the project?
  • What is *not* included in the scope of the project?
• Risk Assessment:
  • What are the potential risks?
  • How will they be mitigated?
• Communication:
  • How will communication be managed throughout the project? (Who needs what information, when?)
  • Is there a back-up person listed if a lead is unavailable in the timeframes when responses are required to make progress?
• Project Management Structure:
  • Which methodologies and tools will be used? 
  • What support — if any — is required to provide all team members with basic use of the project management tools?
  • How frequently will project updates be shared? With whom?
• Team Dynamics:
  • Does the project team have the right mix of skills, experience, and collaboration tools?
  • What agreements are in place to support excellent collaboration? (e.g. What agreements are established around response times?)
• Learning Mechanisms:
  • How will feedback be gathered and incorporated throughout the project lifecycle?
  • How will unincorporated feedback be managed?

Strategies to Deploy

Executive Sponsorship of projects and goals is critical and should include the vision statement and sense of urgency (i.e. why this change is required now vs next year). Sponsorship includes creating or signing off on a team and/or project charter that is announced multiple times across many channels.

Intentional focus on creating psychological safety among team members increases the ability of individuals to learn together and with their stakeholders. A study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company found that team psychological safety is associated with learning behavior, and the results support that structures, coaching, and building shared beliefs lead to greater team performance (Edmondson, 1999). 

Independence and Self-Agency are key: team members can be offered project leadership or deliverable leadership with clearly defined roles (e.g. maintaining primary contact with the program liaison). Teams with well-defined roles and a problem-solving orientation are better able to learn from mistakes and improve team performance (per a study by Tjosvold et al., 2004 as cited in Ayodeji et al. 2024). 

Project Management principles are applied to communications and stakeholder engagement, as well as timelines, and project close reports for clarity and alignment. 

Continuous improvement conversations, experiments, and pulse checks remove unnecessary work. 

———————–

👋🏽 We help mission-driven organizations grappling with difficulties linked to change and growth.

🎯 Our goal is to help you unlock the full potential of your teams to create and refine the structures, processes, and decision-making systems that create a sustainable and effective work environment.

⚙ Do you have a challenging issue with teams repeating the same mistakes over and over? We’d love to be your thought partner.  Drop us a note on our contact page.

———————–

Read our case study to learn more about how we navigated boosting cross-functional performance as a part of a larger initiative.

REFERENCES

Ayodeji Enoch Adegbola, Mayokun Daniel Adegbola, Prisca Amajuoyi, Lucky Bamidele Benjamin, & Kudirat Bukola Adeusi. (2024). Fostering product development efficiency through cross-functional team leadership: Insights and strategies from industry experts. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(5), 1733–1753. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i5.1144 

​​Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. Accessed via https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Edmondson%20Psychological%20safety.pdf in January 2025.