Some cross-functional friction is chronic. One function wants to move fast and say yes to customers. Another wants to protect quality, cost, or risk. Each leader is doing their job, and each sees the other as an obstacle. Escalations arrive weekly, and the executive above them spends time refereeing.
The conflict often persists because both sides are right about something. The helpful move is to name the tradeoff explicitly and decide how the organization wants to handle it, instead of repeatedly choosing a winner case by case.
Why these conflicts last
Functions are given different goals and measured differently. Sales may be measured on new commitments, operations on delivery quality and cost. Their incentives pull in opposite directions. Unless leaders address the structure, individuals will keep fighting over each decision.
Examples exist in many pairs: product and engineering, finance and business units, marketing and legal. The pattern is similar.
Step 1: State each side's legitimate concern
Ask each leader to describe, in a few sentences, what they are protecting and what they fear will happen if the other side prevails. Ask the other leader to restate it until the first is satisfied that it was understood. Doing this in the same room is often the first time each has heard the other's reasoning in full.
Step 2: Name the tradeoff as a tradeoff
Write one sentence: "We are balancing speed of response to customers against the risk of commitments we cannot deliver." Putting it in words changes the conversation. It is no longer about whose fault it is, but about how much of each the business wants and under what conditions.
Step 3: Link it to the shared outcome
Ask what the business is trying to achieve that both functions contribute to. Customer retention, profitable growth, and reliable delivery are shared goals. Describe the conflict in terms of that outcome, so each side sees that both speed and control serve it.
Step 4: Set decision rules by type
Many conflicts lessen once the team agrees on rules for different categories of decision. For example:
- Standard requests within agreed limits are approved by the sales lead without review.
- Moderate exceptions go to a named operations contact, who responds within one business day.
- Large or unusual commitments go to a joint review, with a defined decision owner and an escalation route.
This allows speed where the risk is low and care where it is high. The limits should be set together and reviewed periodically.
Step 5: Make the cost of each side visible
Each function usually bears costs that the other does not see. Slow approval costs sales deals and goodwill. Overpromising costs operations in rework, overtime, and strained relationships. Collect a few recent examples of each, with the effects described, and share them. Seeing both sets of costs side by side leads to better rules.
An illustrative example
This scenario is hypothetical.
A company's sales and delivery leaders repeatedly disagree about custom delivery dates promised to customers. After naming the tradeoff, they agree on a standard window that sales can promise without review, a quick check with delivery for anything shorter, and a joint decision for any promise that would require overtime. Each side receives the information it needs, and disputes shift from emotional to procedural.
Review and adjust
Agree on a date, perhaps six weeks out, to look at how the rules are working. Which exceptions came up often enough to deserve their own rule? Are response times being met? Has the number of escalations changed? Treat the rules as a working agreement that evolves with the evidence.
What leaders above the conflict should do
An executive who settles each dispute individually keeps the pattern alive. Instead, convene the two leaders, ask them to design the rule set, and agree to support it. Then watch your own behavior: if you override the agreed rules in a particular case, say so openly and explain why.
JEM's Culture-to-Execution Sprint works with intact leadership and cross-functional teams of up to 8 to 10 people on one live execution problem. Friction between functions is among the situations it addresses.