Executives taking on new positions often notice their teams were built for something else. It seems like the business environment has shifted. Previous leaders might have hired people who were highly skilled at using the company’s existing systems, and each employee understood those skills very well. But now, generative AI has taken over and changed the industry. Customer expectations have significantly risen, and many skills that once seemed important are becoming less valuable. The root of the problem is not simply the new technology but the hiring process. Companies hire people who are comfortable and perform predicted tasks but struggle when things become uncertain. This raises the question that nearly every executive faces today: 

In hiring, resilience is the ability to absorb disruption, learn quickly, and contribute to shifts. It is about being adaptable, flexible, and willing to learn. As AI changes the workplace, tools, processes, responsibilities, and technical skills can become outdated. However, what remains valuable is the desire to continue learning new things. 

Hiring for resilience means evaluating candidates based on what they know today but also how they can learn when the responsibility changes. Employers should prioritize handling change versus mastering a certain skill. 

Some of the strongest performers struggle the most when responsibility changes. They are used to being experts, so when things like AI came into the workforce and  were able to create the same quality work in a faster time, they felt worried that their value was being replaced. 

This is the essence of recruiting resilience. The best candidates are not the ones who fit the job requirements. These were the candidates who were willing to start all over again, make some mistakes, and treat those mistakes as an opportunity to learn.

For many years, companies hired people based on skills that they could prove they had. This approach worked when roles and required skills remained stable for long periods. Today, however, technology and job responsibilities are changing much faster. 

This is where the challenge is for hiring. A candidate can have all the technical skills for the job description, but some of those skills can be outdated in a couple of months. Another candidate might have less experience but be more curious, self-directed, and willing to adapt. Over time, this candidate becomes more valuable. Digital literacy has become non-negotiable, and executives need to understand that it's not about hiring somebody who knows the tools. The goal is to hire someone who is willing to teach themselves the next set without waiting to be told. 

Companies need both, but adaptability should carry more weight than before. Current skills allow for immediate contribution. A person’s ability to keep learning is what will be important when entering a time where AI changes the nature of their work.

A good place to start is through the interview process. One of the most important questions you can ask a potential candidate is one that involves a time when they experienced change and struggle:

Understanding the prospects' past behaviour under change can help predict future behavior under change. 

It is also important for the leaders to notice the way the candidates discuss being wrong. The ability to be wrong openly is the biggest sign that the candidates have a learning attitude. This trait is associated with the ability to accept constructive criticism. Good candidates should be able to explain the process of change in terms of engagement and learning.

Resilient people need room to experiment, make mistakes, adjust, and grow, which is why opportunities for career development should be part of both the hiring process and the employee experience. Executives also need space to work through these challenges with peers facing similar changes. An executive mastermind can provide a small, confidential group where leaders discuss difficult decisions, identify blind spots, and learn from one another. 

With AI doing more of the mundane tasks, there is going to be continued change in terms of roles. Individuals who have been employed based only on their current skills may find themselves in difficult situations, whereas those who are inquisitive and ready to learn would find themselves well-equipped to handle the new tasks. The executives must not hire individuals based on present jobs, as these may have completely changed in the future. With AI shaping up the whole industry, adaptability could become one of the most important traits.

 

 Every leader has faced the moment when they need to make a tough call, and there's no one around to help. In the past, the answer was always to hire a consultant, but consultants are expensive, and the advice didn't always satisfy. Today, there's one standing right in front of us, for a fraction of the price, AI. 

​Leaders are not just using AI for proofreading emails; they are using it to think through problems and explore new ideas. The ones that implement AI into their workflow are the ones that position themselves for a real advantage.

That's one of the biggest ways AI can help. It gives a second perspective, helps you think through options, spot blind spots, and make more informed decisions.

As an executive, you need to think through some decisions carefully. Every angle and potential pitfall has to be considered before you commit. AI can be the sounding board that helps you work through decisions like these.

​For example, if there was uncertainty about hiring, price changes, or a difficult conversation, you can explain the situation to AI and ask for another perspective. It can point out risks and benefits, helping you think through how to address them to make an idea more concrete.

​

Another powerful use of AI is to help businesses understand what customers are looking for and what they are saying about the company.

​Every day, your company receives various emails, suggestions, and comments. But this feedback often gets so flooded that you don't have time to go through it.

But using AI, it can help by:

​

Instead of wasting time sifting through messages one by one, AI can speed through the entire backlog of feedback and create quick summaries of what customers are experiencing and where the company can improve.

If the answer is yes, then AI is there to make that happen effectively and efficiently.

​

AI is something that is here to stay, and companies should consider adopting it to improve productivity.

Many leaders fear that adopting AI means replacing their people. That fear is understandable, but misplaced. AI can handle tasks, but it cannot replace what makes a company worth working for. 

The leaders who thrive won't be the ones who fear AI.  They will be the ones who learned how to use it. 

 

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.

 

 Sam was sitting in his office reading over a report, but there was a ton of inconsistency. Earlier that month, he and his team were preparing for a major product launch and ready to define the next phase. Every update that came to him was confident, structured, and solution-oriented. He was beyond impressed with the work the teams had completed. It made Sam feel like the strong leader he always aspired to be.

Unfortunately, as results from the product began to roll in, Sam noticed they had underperformed. He was getting frustrated with customers calling, and internal teams were scrambling all over the place. One day, the office was in complete uniform, and before he knew it, everything was a mess.

As Sam started to think about it more, he realized that he unknowingly created a system where information was being filtered before it reached him. Sam’s expectation that leaders come prepared with solutions had subtly reshaped behavior across the organization. Problems were softened before being shared, uncertainty was reframed as confidence, and early warning signs were delayed until they became unavoidable. What he believed was a culture of ownership had, in practice, become a culture of managed perception, and this is precisely where objectivity begins to break down.

Objectivity in leadership is not just about interpreting data correctly. It is about ensuring that truth, especially uncomfortable truth, can travel upward without resistance or distortion. Without that, even the most capable executives risk operating inside a narrowed version of reality.

Organizations don’t crumble overnight. There are small things that slowly start to accumulate, and before you know it, the damage is already done. It's always so hard to detect because on the surface, it looks like everything is working. Meetings are occurring, updates are strong, and everyone is engaged. But beneath the surface, the information being communicated was changing. There was a shift from sharing what is true to sharing what is safe.

Sam’s situation is not unique, but is often difficult to notice. In the eyes of the leader, they believe they are the hallmark of good leadership and foster an environment of accountability. Organizations that lack objectivity create a kind of blind spot because the feedback loop between teams and leadership is broken. Leaders are making decisions on versions that do not even exist. On the other side, people on the inside of the organization who are carrying this do not disengage. They notice that this work is what rewards them and know that they need to conserve themselves accordingly.

In the case of Sam, he told his team that he expected solutions, but he believed he was creating a proactive culture. But what he didn’t notice was how employees had created an image of certainty and confidence, because Sam had created an environment that made doubt feel unsafe.

These filter leaders then continue to encourage an environment that rewards messages over accuracy. The problem was not his intent. It was the gap between the culture he thought he was building and the one that had actually formed around him.

As a leader in this situation, it's important not to overhaul, but just to focus on a few structural behavioral shifts.

Creating a meeting that is devoted to finding those surface gaps, miscommunications, and any questions. Rather than getting polished responses, the team can use this as a place to name what they do not know yet and where the alignment is off. It opens a community that is normalizing uncertainty.

Implementing a practice that has a designated conversation where one person is explicitly tasked with arguing against the prevailing plan. The role rotates, so it does not all fall to the same individual each time. The purpose was not to be contrarian, but to create a protected space for objections that might otherwise never surface.

Instead of finding out the disconnects from a customer call, creating, establishing a standing check-in with each direct report. It would be a ten-minute window to gauge productivity, but also stop miscommunication from the root. It gives leaders access to an early, unpolished version of what is happening. Having an early version of the truth is far better than the cleaned version of it.

Leaders who emphasize only high standards and polished output tend to cast a long shadow over their teams. People begin to optimize for the appearance and performance rather than the reality of it. They think they need to be more perfect, which leads to less accuracy. These are some of the most common leadership failures that quietly drive good people away.

Objectivity, at the end of the day, tethered a leader to reality. To control this, it's important to be intentional to ensure that every source of information is being guided through clearly in a safe and open environment. This is fostered through a safe environment for the teams, leading to long-term success.

The key is separating the standard for outcomes from the standard for communication. You can hold your team to rigorous performance expectations while simultaneously making it safe to share early, uncertain, or incomplete information. In practice, this means rewarding honesty about risk as much as you reward results. When a team member flags a problem early, even without a solution, that deserves the same recognition as a win. Over time, that signal reshapes the culture more than any policy or all-hands message ever could.

 

Maya had finally built a company fueled by strong revenue growth and high performing teams. As a result, investors were becoming increasingly optimistic about the company’s future. With this momentum, pressure to expand and bring in new clients began to rise. Maya knew she needed to scale faster. She directed her teams to increase outreach, pursue referrals, and bring in as much new business as possible.

However, Maya also recognized a major risk. Most of the company’s growth was driven by just five enterprise clients. While these relationships were stable and highly profitable, they were also extremely concentrated. 

As the team pushed for growth, coordination began to break down. Within a single week, one key client received three separate touchpoints: a marketing team contacted the vice president of operations, a new sales representative made a cold introduction, and the existing account manager sent a routine quarterly review invitation.

From the client’s perspective, the experience was confusing. They received multiple messages, each with a different tone and no clear coordination. Internally, both sales representatives believed they were doing the right thing. One was focused on expansion, while the other was trying to protect a strategic relationship. But, it felt like chaos.

These scenarios are not rare.  As companies start to scale their business from small to mid-sized, or mid-sized to enterprise, they often attempt to grow faster than their internal structure can support. These problems are rooted in miscommunication between different teams within the company. There are three structural gaps between teams which fuel client confusion: 

From these root causes, clients get bombarded, slowly internal trust erodes, and major accounts begin to feel like targets instead of partners.

To fuel long-term growth, there needs to be specific guidelines that define lanes, ownerships, and aligned incentives. Organizations that address these gaps typically implement three core corrective actions.

Clients should be divided into defined tiers, such as:

Each tier should have a designated ownership model. Strategic accounts are typically assigned to dedicated account managers who have been with the client for a while and have built trust and relationship. Growth accounts may require shared planning with clearly defined roles, and utilizing different teams in the office to foster long-term growth. Net new prospects belong to new business sales, and they are still starting up and learning more about the company.  

Segmentation allows for clarity and teams to operate within lanes instead of overlapping territory.

Ownership should not rely on informal understanding or historical precedent. A written policy should establish:

When ownership is transparent and documented, conflict decreases. Decisions move from politics to process. As a result, the primary owner becomes a trustworthy manager towards the client who understands everything and is able to establish long-term success. With having the document written, no other teams can infer if it is their team, and it completely eliminates the ambiguity of ownership. 

Even though establishing a point of contact for our contact is important, it is also imperative to foster a cross-functional forum to ensure:

Consistent communication prevents duplication and protects the client experience. In addition, teams are more involved with the clients, having the company more in the loop of where clients are, but at the same time fostering a holistic environment full of trust for clients. 

Within months, internal friction will decrease and the client experience should stabilize. The previously frustrated top five clients renewed and expanded. Growth does not slow, but becomes sustainable.

The lesson for business leaders is clear. Misalignment between sales and marketing is rarely a people problem, but most likely a structural one. And structure, when designed intentionally, turns internal competition into coordinated growth.