Cross-Functional Collaboration

As the economy reverts back from the 2021 hiring boom, companies are increasingly removing middle managers in favor of one leader for very large teams. For example, as opposed to marketing being led by one middle manager, outside sales by another manager, customer support by another manager, and customer success by another manager, many companies are opting to remove the layer of middle management and have one leader in charge of all of those functions without any leaders in between.

This has led to a major need for companies to increase their focus on helping their employees effectively communicate and collaborate across functions to achieve desired business outcomes. While somewhat redundant, there was still a lot of information handled by those middle managers that is now the responsibility of the employee.

Why have companies opted to remove middle managers in the first place?

The simple answer is lack of perceived value.

The logic behind creating a layer of middle management is that the guidance of a manager of a smaller team that owns and is fully accountable for their outcomes will be greater than if there was one manager for multiple functions within the organization.

This logic is sound if:

This logic doesn’t make sense when:

For example, let’s say we are a recruiting company in 2021 and the market is hot. All the outside sales team needs is a pulse to close deals. There was a process that the middle manager leading outside sales followed to maintain a base level of competence but because sales are coming in from everywhere, bad habits are overlooked.

Fast forward to 2023. The market has completely dried up, and the outside sales team is really struggling to meet their goals. The CEO is begging and pleading for his team to close more deals. The outside sales team blames the economy and all these other factors for why their numbers are down. But in reality, the middle manager in charge of the outside sales team hasn’t been holding her team accountable to the standard business development process they have found to be tried and true. And now she’s out of practice at holding her team accountable, and the team is out of practice taking hard advice from their manager. This is a recipe for failure. 

The CEO then asks the middle managers in other departments to help pickup the slack in sales. He implores his customer success team to focus on upselling current customers. The customer success middle manager says that she is up for the task. She and her team have devised a plan for trying to turn open support tickets and queries into opportunities for upselling. 

The plan looks great, but they run into a brick wall with customer support. The customer support middle manager is incentivized to close support tickets as quickly as possible, and this clashes with the overarching business goals of upselling to current clients. To resolve this, the customer success manager has a 1:1 with the customer support manager. The customer support manager knows that him closing support tickets hurts the customer success managers goal of upselling the existing customers and closing more deals, but mentions that “his hands are tied” because in order for him to achieve his end of year bonus, he needs his time to closed ticket ratio to be under a certain level. They are at an impasse.

The outside sales manager isn’t effectively holding her team accountable, the customer support manager is only focused on his end of year bonus for the metrics he is accountable for, and the customer success manager is stressed out because her team is putting in overtime to try to pick up the slack for the outside sales team but keeps running into hurdles from the support team.

Executive teams look at this situation and have determined…screw it! Let’s remove middle managers and have one overarching manager over a wide group of people so they can adjust incentives effectively and ensure everyone is rowing in the same direction. The executive team can’t guarantee that this new model will be any more effective, but they can guarantee that it will cost a whole lot less to not have all of these middle managers than to have them. 

Their logic is that if it isn’t working with middle managers right now, why keep paying for them?

In order to achieve effective cross-functional communication and collaboration, there needs to be:

If companies cannot effectively achieve all four of these points, they will continue to struggle to achieve effective cross-functional communication and collaboration.

Moore's Circle of Conflict is a powerful tool for understanding the underlying causes of conflicts in professional environments. This model, developed by Christopher Moore, categorizes conflict sources into 5 different areas: data, values, relationships, structure, and interests. Each of these 5 types of conflict gives insight into why arguments or disagreements arise and how they can best be addressed. For managers, understanding how to categorize and address types of conflict is paramount for building a beneficial team culture. Understanding the Circle of Conflict enables managers to make strategic decisions in effective resolution within a team.  

Both conflict management and relationship management are paramount to building successful, productive teams in the workplace. Effective conflict management allows leaders to use constructive resolution techniques, mitigating impacts on morale and productivity as a result of said conflict. However, the most crucial aspect of mitigating and resolving conflict is promoting active listening, enabling managers to strategically address issues. When resolved with strategic solutions, team members can become more innovative, and collaboration may be improved across team members. Leaders also play a vital role in preparing the next generation of leaders to adequately address conflicts. 

 

Relationship management, on the other hand, focuses on fostering mutual trust, respect, and open communication within the team. Building a team culture based on trust will promote transparency and honesty in resolution. Strong relationships between team members or direct reports and managers will encourage constructive conflict where individuals feel supported to share their ideas and contribute and disagreements are easily solved. Effective relationship management will enable psychological safety within a team and promote balance. Conflict and relationship management skills enhance individual performance and drive collective success, as teams work in harmony toward common goals.

Data conflicts occur when there are misunderstandings or disputes over information or lack thereof. In a professional setting, data conflicts are common and can arise from miscommunications, incorrect data interpretations, or the absence of vital information. For example, if two departments are working together and have different data sources or data interpretations, disagreements are almost inevitable. 

When leaders are equipped to recognize a data conflict, they can prevent misunderstandings from escalating. The primary strategies for managers addressing data conflicts are clarifying information, enhancing transparency, and potential preventative training. Specifically, clarifying information could utilize leaders holding a meeting to go over any questions or disputes, with full access to data and information. To enhance transparency, leaders should work to provide as much information upfront, including how data is collected and shared. Finally, preventative training on data literacy or something similar may benefit teams repeatedly struggling for data conflicts. Addressing data conflicts effectively reduces tensions and enhances decision-making, ensuring everyone operates from the same factual basis.

Value conflicts are rooted in differences in beliefs or personal principles, such as ethics, cultural values, or social norms. For instance, one team member may value innovation and risk-taking, while another prioritizes stability and proven methods. 

Leaders who recognize value conflicts can play a pivotal role in guiding discussions that respect everyone’s beliefs. Key strategies for addressing value conflicts are setting common ground, promoting diversity, and creating open communication paths for disagreements. Value conflicts revolve around disagreements of morals or beliefs. To mitigate, promote conversations that find common ground and compromise for similar beliefs. Additionally, policies and actions that promote diversity and inclusion will bring outside perspectives that can impact value conflicts. Acknowledging diverse perspectives can help find similarities in values and resolve conflicts. Finally, creating open communication paths for conversation between team members provides an opportunity for individuals to share, feeling respected and understood. Addressing value conflicts with empathy not only improves relationships but also fosters a workplace where diversity of thought is valued.

Relationship conflicts typically stem from personal issues between colleagues, often due to misunderstandings, communication issues, or historical grievances. These conflicts can be deeply personal and can quickly disrupt team dynamics if left unaddressed. 

Leaders can tackle relationship conflicts by encouraging open communication, promoting team building, and additional training on conflict resolution. Creating opportunities for team members to share their perspectives and experiences is paramount to resolving relationship conflicts. Encouraging mutual respect and team building a great tools to aid in mitigating the conflict. When people feel connected to their co-workers, they are less likely to have serious conflicts that are beyond their ability to resolve. Finally, conflict resolution training can be a great tool for preventing relationship conflict, and equipping leaders with necessary tools to promote harmony across a team. When leaders proactively address relationship conflicts, they create a cohesive, positive environment, reinforcing a culture where collaboration can flourish despite personal differences.

Structural conflicts are caused by organizational structures, such as unclear job roles, power imbalances, or resource constraints. For example, if a team feels overwhelmed due to a lack of support staff or unclear role definitions, tension is likely to increase. 

Leaders can resolve structural conflicts by clarifying responsibilities and addressing power dynamics. Ensuring each individual understands the requirements and expectations of their role and how it impacts others can clarify and prevent misunderstandings. Accordingly, addressing power dynamics can be a great tool for managers to mitigate power differences as they relate to conflict in the office. Together, these tools serve as prime resources to strategically address structural conflicts in the workplace. By addressing structural conflicts head-on, leaders can ensure a fairer workplace where systems and processes support rather than hinder productivity.

Interest conflicts arise when team members have competing personal or professional goals. For example, one employee may seek a promotion while another wants to maintain a work-life balance. These conflicts are common in goal-oriented environments and require thoughtful leadership to resolve. 

Leaders can address interest conflicts by promoting personal and organizational value alignment, and flexibility and encouraging a collaborative culture. Values alignment will create an understanding environment for both managers and their teams. By understanding individual goals, managers can find ways to align these with the company’s objectives, allowing for mutually beneficial outcomes. Flexibility will create an environment where compromise is encouraged and professionals are willing to meet in the middle. Finally, a collaborative culture will allow leaders to help team members and facilitate a productive environment moving forward. When handled effectively, interest conflicts can be opportunities for growth and innovation, as team members find creative solutions that satisfy multiple interests.

Moore's Circle of Conflict is a valuable tool for managers and executives who strive for effective conflict resolution. Improving communication and open dialogue will enable managers to efficiently resolve conflict within teams. By understanding the nature of conflicts and taking targeted actions, leaders can transform challenges into opportunities for collective growth. 

On the surface, Maya seemed to have it all under control. As CEO of Vireon Labs, a fast-growing AI-driven data analytics firm, she was known for her composed presence in boardrooms and her fierce commitment to innovation. Investors praised her strategic vision. Employees admired her sharp decisiveness. But beneath the calm surface, Maya had been grappling with a quietly growing concern: the company’s churn rate for enterprise clients had increased over the past two quarters, and recent customer feedback suggested dissatisfaction with post-sale service.

It wasn’t a crisis yet, but it could be. Then came the investor call that dropped the curtain. 

During a routine quarterly meeting, one of Vireon Labs’ long-standing investors raised concerns about declining client retention and recent dissatisfaction from referred accounts. The question caught Maya off guard. While she had seen the warning signs of the rising churn rates and lukewarm feedback, there wasn’t yet a concrete solution in place.

Instead of deflecting, Maya acknowledged the issue head-on. She recognized the gap, explained that the leadership team was aware of it, and committed to making it a top organizational priority. Her response was honest and unguarded, a clear shift from the polished answers typically expected in investor settings.

Surprisingly, the investor welcomed the transparency and expressed openness to working through the next steps together. Rather than losing confidence, the admission became a starting point for deeper alignment and collaboration.

What Maya demonstrated in that moment wasn’t a lapse in leadership; it was strategic vulnerability.

In many organizations, vulnerability is still viewed through a narrow lens: as weakness, oversharing, or a lack of control. But in reality, when vulnerability is paired with accountability and clarity of intent, it becomes one of the most powerful levers a leader can use to foster trust, unlock collaboration, and drive meaningful change.

In Maya’s case, acknowledging she didn’t have a fully formed solution didn’t erode her credibility; it strengthened it. By confronting the issue head-on, she signaled to both investors and employees that honesty would take precedence over image management. She took full ownership of the gap, but she didn’t shoulder it alone. Her candor invited others into the problem-solving process, creating space for shared responsibility and engagement.

In the broader workplace, vulnerability plays a similar role. When leaders are open about challenges, whether it's slipping metrics, internal friction, or external market shifts, they create a culture where truth can surface without fear. That transparency fuels psychological safety, the foundational element of high-performing teams.

Moreover, vulnerability accelerates alignment. Rather than wasting time on maintaining appearances or managing assumptions, teams can spend their energy addressing root causes. It builds resilience by normalizing adaptive problem-solving over perfectionism.

In today's rapidly shifting business environment, where complexity and ambiguity are constant, vulnerability isn’t just an emotional quality; it’s a strategic necessity. Leaders who embrace it set the tone for agility, accountability, and authentic connection, all of which fuel long-term performance. 

Vulnerability in leadership doesn’t end with the admission of a problem; it begins there. Leaders who know how to move from honesty to execution can use vulnerability as a launching pad for cultural transformation and business results. Here’s how:

The first and most critical step is to name the issue with clarity. Avoiding euphemisms or downplaying the problem sends mixed signals and creates confusion. When leaders are direct about what’s going wrong, they foster alignment around what needs to change. Clear articulation of the problem ensures that everyone in the organization is solving for the same thing and understands its importance to the business.

Once the issue is identified, it must not be treated as the responsibility of one team or individual. When top-down directives follow transparency, it often limits creativity and isolates the burden. But when leaders distribute ownership and emphasize that the issue affects the broader organization, they invite cross-functional collaboration and more diverse problem-solving perspectives. For instance, if customer retention is declining, that may stem from issues in sales handoffs, onboarding, product usability, or customer support. Collective momentum builds when each group understands how its work influences the outcome.

Vulnerability at the top sets a tone, but it needs to be matched by psychological safety at every level. For transparency to translate into traction, employees must feel safe speaking up about what isn’t working. If team members fear backlash or judgment, critical insights remain buried. It involves consistent behaviors, asking for input before solutions are drafted, publicly recognizing those who raise concerns early, and responding constructively to hard feedback. 

To avoid stalling in analysis or endless meetings, leaders should introduce structure through a focused, time-bound discovery phase. A sprint format, typically lasting 2 to 4 weeks, allows organizations to explore root causes quickly and collaboratively without disrupting day-to-day operations. During this period, cross-functional teams can gather data, conduct interviews, map processes, and identify systemic gaps. It’s important to assign a facilitator or project lead to maintain momentum and synthesize findings. At the end of the sprint, teams should deliver insights and proposed next steps in a format that drives action, not just discussion.

Transparency becomes transformational when it leads to change. The final step is translating the insights from the discovery sprint into specific, measurable improvements. These actions should be prioritized based on impact and feasibility, and communicated widely to the organization.

Leaders must establish clear accountability for implementation, set timelines, and track progress against defined outcomes.

Months later, when stakeholders revisited the issue, the conversation looked very different. It wasn’t just about metrics or performance updates; it was about progress and perspective. What had shifted most wasn’t just the numbers and how the company approached challenges.

Rather than trying to have all the answers from the outset, the leadership team had embraced a new rhythm: one centered on open dialogue, faster iteration, and shared accountability. The organization had become more agile, not because every issue was solved perfectly, but because problems were addressed more collaboratively and transparently.

In the end, the most valuable outcome of the experience wasn’t just operational, it was cultural. Vulnerability had become embedded in the company’s DNA, turning what could have been a liability into a long-term advantage.

Marcus has been in this role for six months now. He leads a variety of cross-functional initiatives. He is in charge of a team that is dependent on product, engineering, and operations. They all have clear timelines, with each production depending on the other. Every team knew what they needed to do and when they needed to deliver.

​There was agreement in the room, but progress stalled. Marcus depended on other team managers to handle their tasks, yet the work stopped. Deadlines slipped, and Marcus lacked direct authority over those teams. He watched the project he was responsible for begin to crumble.

​When Authority Doesn't Follow Accountability

Cross-functional leadership is among the most challenging roles in any organization. They are responsible for outcomes, but cannot influence the inputs. Most leaders facing this challenge either escalate issues, risking relationships, or absorb dysfunction, risking burnout.

Neither of these solutions are durable; they both fail for the same reason. They are trying to solve an accountability problem with tools, but the real issue is a structural issue. 

Marcus’s situation is built on layers of complications. The CEO was a public supporter of this initiative. In every situation, like meetings and one-on-ones, the message was clear: everything was going to get done. But privately, when the other managers came to the CEO, he didn’t think the team needed to prioritize these goals, and the CEO would let it go. He would tell the managers it was okay to deprioritize it. As a result, it caused a ripple effect in Marcus’s team, where he had a mandate but no backing to enforce it, and the other team had already learned they didn't have to move.

The problem isn’t the other managers, and it is easy to frame someone who isn’t delivering. But in this situation, they are just listening to their CEO, and teams adjust to the behavior of what they see is happening. If there are no follow-ups with missed deadlines, then they file that way.  

If employees learn that nothing will happen if they miss deadlines and avoid work, they will keep doing it. They see if leadership avoids those difficult conversations and does not enforce rules, they have no reason to change.

The issue is not solely with the underperforming manager. The bigger issue is the culture of the workplace, where accountability does not exist because leadership is not willing to step up and address these problems.

In Marcus’s company, this problem grew over time. The previous leader hadn’t avoided conflict. He would foster an environment built on fear. The new CEO who stepped in wanted to change that. But in the process, a lot of things got lost. The CEO confused not being toxic with not holding the line. Without anyone willing to enforce these commitments, people learned they could opt out without consequences.

​When a senior leader publicly embraces an idea, but they privately undermine it, not one project is affected. On the outside, the company looks strong and buoyant, but on the inside, accountability is being negotiated.

​The CEO was trying to avoid being someone who creates fear and pressure. Sometimes, there are situations where a previous leader has created an environment fostering fear, and the new leader doesn’t want to replicate it. But this situation has fostered kindness and dysfunction. ​

Rather than escalating to frustration, it is imperative to question whether cross-functional accountability works in the organization. The conversation with leadership should focus less on blaming individuals and more on understanding the process itself. That means asking questions such as who is responsible when two teams disagree, how decisions are made across departments, and what happens when an important dependency gets dropped. The goal should be to identify weaknesses in the system and improve the process so similar problems do not continue to happen in the future.

It is important that everyone becomes aware of the cost of poor teamwork. With leaders brushing it off and excusing delays, it can create real damage. For example, identify which customer deliverable will be delayed, how long the delay will last, and who will ultimately be affected by it. When people can clearly see the direct outcome of inaction, the issue feels more real and urgent, which often encourages faster collaboration and problem-solving. 

Creating initiatives that can foster teamwork is one of the most effective ways to mitigate such problems. Setting up peer reviews, shared goals, and cross-team meetings where problems are discussed. The most important part is making problems aware to everyone in the room, not just the individuals who are directly impacted by them. When things are openly acknowledged in front of multiple teams, social accountability often motivates people to act more quickly. 

​The Deeper Issue

The goal is to build a culture where agreements mean something, where yes in the room translates to action in the work, and where the gap between public alignment and private behavior doesn’t exist.