Cross-boundary Work
In this week’s blog, we will delve into what we believe to be one of the most common sources of tension and organizational dysfunction (it shows up in almost all of our projects)—the problems that arise as people try to work effectively across organizational boundaries. We call this type of work “Cross-Boundary Work” and in our experience, it is one of the areas that most often creates issues for managerial leaders and the people who work for them.
All organizations have employees whose work overlaps or affects the work of others. When employees whose work affects one another and needs to be integrated report to the same manager (when they are the same collateral team) they can usually resolve priority and resource issues on the spot. If the individuals involved can’t solve the issue, the manager they share usually will.
Sometimes however these employees are not direct reports of those they affect or are affected by—they might best be described as colleagues or peers. They work in the same organization, and their work requires integration, but they do not share the same manager or direct line of authority. These relationships are referred to as cross-boundary relationships.
In addition, nearly all organizations need staff specialists of one kind or another. The accountabilities and authorities of these specialists must be clearly set out and understood by the rest of the organization for them to function effectively. It is not enough that the people in these positions know and understand their accountabilities. All others in the organization with whom they will work also need to know and understand them.
For an organization to function effectively, task-initiating (and responding) roles must be clear among all employees who interact across function or department boundaries in order to accomplish the organization’s mission.
There are three important underlying principles that set the foundation for effective cross-boundary work:
1. Managers are always accountable for the quality of the work of the people they manage, whether they have assigned the work directly, or not.
2. People who need to work together but do not report to the same manager, need to make the effort to work effectively together.
3. When the work calls for specialist functional or domain expertise, the organization has to be clear about which role holder has the authority to set and enforce standards—in other words, who makes the final decision about the quality and completeness of the work.
Specifying the extent and limit of accountabilities and authorities within each role relationship can lead to considerable gains in productivity and efficiency, and the best place to start is to align as an organization on the range of specific accountability and authority relationships. There are six different types of accountabilities and authorities in cross-boundary work and it’s important to understand the differences between them in order to employ them effectively in your organization.
Here is the range of accountability and authority relationships in cross-boundary work together with a brief definition of each:
1. Service (Giving and Getting)
The authority to call on others to provide required services. The service-giver can negotiate the quantity, quality, time and resources to provide the service, but cannot refuse to provide it.
Example: A worker accountable for building maintenance can be called on to clean a spill (service getting) and may negotiate timing, but not refuse to do the work.
2. Advising
Advisory roles are formally identified and given the accountability and authority to take the initiative in offering their expertise to specified others, sometimes as unsolicited advice. The advisor is accountable for the quality and timeliness of the advice but cannot force the other person to take it. The person who receives the advice is accountable only to listen to and consider the advice.
Example: Legal specialist advising about whether to register a copyright in another country.
3. Monitoring
Monitoring roles use persuasion to ensure people are adhering to policies and standards. A monitor cannot tell others what to do or what not to do but can only attempt to persuade a change in behaviour, recommend new policies or standards, or request a delay in activities. Monitors cannot stop monitored people from performing their activities.
Example: A marketing communications specialist may monitor outbound written collateral material and where necessary seek to persuade the author to change the tone of voice of the communication to better align with the brand, but they cannot stop the author from releasing the collateral.
4. Coordinating
The coordinator uses information and persuasion to get people to work together. The coordinator will call meetings, propose approaches, keep everyone informed of progress, help solve problems, and may persuade others to delay actions. The coordinator will elevate disagreements to a higher authority.
Example: A technology implementation team coordinator may schedule a conference call with individuals from other departments to solicit input and status updates from individuals working on the project who are from other departments.
5. Auditing
Auditors have the authority to inspect the work of others to ensure compliance with established procedures and standards. If the auditor decides that the work is outside these policies or tolerances, the auditor must have the authority to instruct the other person to stop doing that work until it can be brought within standards – the audited role must comply. The audited role holder and their manager will decide how to bring the work into compliance.
Example: A workplace safety specialist may audit a construction site safety plan. If the specialist identifies deficiencies and is unable to persuade the construction team leader to change the plan, they may direct that work at the site be stopped, and the construction team leader must comply.
6. Prescribing
A prescribing role holder has the authority to inspect, stop and prescribe a change in work procedures of another role. The other role must comply. This is a rare authority and is usually used in critical situations where health and safety are concerned.
Example: A quality engineer in a nuclear power plant, who judges an operator as failing to conform to prescribed limits can direct the operator to stop what is happening and to conduct the work in a manner to be decided by the quality engineer. The operator must comply.
Taking the time to institute more formal cross-boundary accountabilities and authorities throughout the organization can result in considerable gains in business velocity, and relieve managerial leadership of the need to constantly “referee” work across organizational boundaries. For a more detailed description of cross-boundary work, together with examples of each type and some guidance about which type to use in which circumstances, sign up for our detailed guide to cross-functional work below. This guide also includes an explanation of our tool Clarity™ that we implement with organizations to facilitate the negotiation and documentation of cross-boundary role relationships (accountabilities and authorities).
This blog is part of our ongoing series Organizations that Work. To see all of the blogs in the series that have been posted so far, click here.
Every Tuesday over the next few months, we will be posting blogs that take you from the pain of poor organization design, to identifying the root causes, to the benefits of undertaking strategic organization review. We will discuss the steps needed to effectively align your structure and work with your strategy, and we’ll discuss the processes that take out the guess work and help you to get it done. Through it all we will discuss how to lead the change from start to finish.
If you’d like to speak with us about how we can help you on your journey to an organization that works, please follow us on LinkedIn or book a call directly with one of our partners.
This blog was written by Ed McMahon. Ed is the managing partner with Core International, and specializes in creating organization designs structured to deliver strategy and improve performance.
Our approach draws on several bodies of work including Stratified Systems Theory, the work of Dr. Elliott Jaques. For more on Dr. Jaques and his work visit the Requisite Organization International Institute at ROII Requisite – ROII Requisite.