CEO’s Question:
“Why do things work well within functions but break down when work crosses the organization?”
Why This Question Matters
Many organizations have made real progress in clarifying delegation and accountability within functions. There are well-established tools for setting goals, tracking KPIs, and measuring performance. As discussed in the previous article, this can be strengthened further by clarifying accountability for actual deliverables, not just activities.
And yet, even in well-run organizations, work often slows down or breaks down when it has to move across functional boundaries.
It is often said that excellent organizations get very good at delegating work and clarifying accountability. World-class organizations go further. They master how work flows across the organization.
That distinction matters more than most CEOs realize.
Why Cross-Functional Work Is Harder Than It Looks
When work stays within a single function, priorities are usually clear. People understand what they are accountable for and who their manager is.
Cross-functional work is different.
Managers quite naturally view the organization through the filter of their own function or department. They are hired to optimize performance in the area they lead. When trade-offs arise, their first obligation is always to the work that has been formally delegated to them.
This is not a flaw. It is exactly what the organization has asked them to do.
The problem arises when collaboration across the organization is treated as secondary, optional, or something to do “if I have time.” In that environment, functional priorities always win, and cross-functional work struggles.
Why This Is a CEO Accountability
Collaboration cannot rely on goodwill or personal relationships. It must be designed.
Only the CEO has the enterprise-level perspective required to put a system in place that makes collaboration as important as functional delivery. Doing your own work well and supporting work that crosses boundaries must be treated as equally important.
Without a clear system, managers are left to negotiate collaboration informally, and that is where friction, delays, and conflict take hold.
Introducing the Effective Point of Accountability®
Over the years, we have developed what we call the Effective Point of Accountability®, or EPA. It provides a practical way to define how accountability and authority work when work crosses functional boundaries.
At its core, the EPA is the manager who has the authority to decide and direct when cross-functional issues cannot be resolved at lower levels. It creates clarity around who sets context, who provides input, and who ultimately makes the call.
Just as importantly, it creates a shared language for collaboration before problems arise.
Three Types of Cross-Functional Accountability and Accountability
Cross-functional accountability generally falls into three broad types, each with two subtypes, reflecting increasing levels of accountability. Each form of accountability carries with it the accountability necessary to carry out the cross-functional work.
Informing
- Advise: Providing insights or expertise that the recipient can take into account.
- Recommend: Offering recommendations among alternatives to support decision-making.
Persuading
- Coordinate: Bringing people together to share information and work toward agreement.
- Monitor: Using judgment to persuade others to adjust their approach when work is nearing or exceeding agreed limits.
Instructing
- Stop: Directing others to halt an activity for a defined period under specific circumstances.
- Direct: Instructing others to take specific actions, typically in time-sensitive or high-risk situations.
As authority increases, so does the obligation to escalate unresolved issues.
The Escalation Process
When disagreement arises around cross-functional work, the expectation is not silent resistance or prolonged debate.
Managers must first use their best efforts to resolve the issue at their level. If agreement cannot be reached and the matter is substantive, it must be escalated to the next level of management.
This continues until the Effective Point of Accountability decides and directs.
Once a decision is made, the EPA resets context and boundaries and ensures that clarity is cascaded down the organization.
This is not bureaucracy. It is how organizations prevent gridlock.
Rules of the Road
A useful analogy is traffic in a busy city.
Without commonly understood rules of the road, no stop signs, no traffic lights, and no shared expectations, movement would grind to a halt. People would expend enormous energy and get very little done.
The same is true in organizations.
Without clear rules for how work flows across the organization, conflict increases, energy is wasted, and execution slows. People work hard, but outcomes fall short. This is what we call organizational churn.
Rules of the road, or rules of work, provide clarity on how to collaborate, when to escalate, and who decides. They allow work to flow.
A Final Thought
Delegation alone will only take an organization so far.
If you want consistent execution at scale, you must design how work flows across the organization. That design starts at the top, with the CEO putting in place clear accountability, authority, and rules for collaboration.
These concepts draw heavily on the foundational work of Elliott Jaques, through Requisite Organization, and the important refinements of Gerald Kraines in Accountability Leadership. Their work continues to shape how we think about managerial accountability and organizational effectiveness.
I explore these ideas in much greater depth in my book, The Effective CEO: The Balancing Act that Drives Sustainable Performance, where I outline how CEOs can design organizations that execute through systems, not heroics.
The Effective CEO is available on Amazon in Kindle and paperback editions:
https://www.amazon.ca/Effective-CEO-Balancing-Sustainable-Performance-ebook/dp/B0CVWCQCN1/
