Building Stronger Bridges: Resolving Service Gaps Among Cross-Functional Teams

Joy Hayes, VP of Ethics & Compliance Research and Special Projects, Activision Blizzard

Bio

Dr. Hayes started her career as an in-house ethics and compliance professional in 2013 after teaching Ethics at the college level for ten years. Before joining Activision, Dr. Hayes held a leadership role supporting the ethics program in Boeing's Defense Sector and served as the Chief Ethics Officer at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Dr. Hayes holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy with a concentration in Ethics from the University of Florida and is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (CCEP) and Leadership Professional in Ethics and Compliance (LPEC).

I've been on both the giving and receiving end of the bad news that shared services such as HR and IT have to deliver as they prioritize the use of limited resources: "I'm sorry, but we can't offer the support you're requesting." It can be demoralizing for both sides, but we can approach these challenges in a way that builds trust, strengthens relationships, and supports sound prioritization.

Through unfettered transparency and collaborative problem-solving, shared-services employees and their internal customers can engage as partners in driving forward mission-critical work.

Unfettered Transparency

Prioritization decisions that arise from limited resources predictably cause frustration among those who are denied services. To avoid having to answer push-back from internal customers, shared-services employees may engage in avoidance strategies, including:

• Failing to offer clarity about the level of service their internal customers can expect, or

• Remaining silent about the reason driving the denial of service (system limitations, labor shortages, etc.).

This behavior is likely driven by the desire to avoid a debate with internal customers about whether the stated reasons justify the denial of service. However, open dialog between shared-services leaders and their internal customers can drive positive results for both sides.

"Through unfettered transparency and collaborative problem-solving, shared-services employees and their internal customers can engage as partners in driving forward mission-critical work."

For example:

• Sharing that system limitations prevent you from delivering on an internal customer’s request will put your internal customers in a position to (a) advocate for system upgrades or (b) verify your assumption that the system does not support the service they're requesting.

• Sharing that your team has only the capacity to support higher-priority projects may sting the internal customer who believes their requests deserve top priority. However, it supports the internal customer's engagement with executive leadership in calibrating expectations and clarifying how your team's level of support affects their ability to deliver on expectations.

While opening yourself to these challenges may make you feel vulnerable, it helps build trust, preserve relationships, and drive sound resource allocation decisions. Inviting scrutiny when saying ‘no’ to service requests will also help your team build discipline to say ‘yes’ whenever possible. Plus, it may turn your internal customers into advocates who can drive more resources to your team so both teams can do more for the organization.

Collaborative Problem-Solving

Leaders advocating for additional support from shared services also have a role to play. They can:

1. Provide a Business Justification for Requests

The value of unfettered transparency goes both ways. If you think your service request should take top priority, you should be able to link it to the organization’s mission and strategy.

2. Give Advance Notice.

Wherever possible, leaders should negotiate required service levels during the annual and longer-term goal-setting processes. That said, some uncertainty is inevitable, and so leaders on all sides of this negotiation need to stay nimble.

3. Collaborate in Escalations.

Leaders may need to escalate situations in which they are not receiving the level of service required to meet their objectives – but they can do so from a posture of collaboration versus blame. I’ve done this by sharing the problem statement with the leader of the department denying the service and collaborating with them to outline alternatives for the next level of leadership. Alternatives may include bringing on additional support from outside vendors, authorizing budget increases that will allow the shared service to meet the request, or adjusting priorities based on available resources. This approach:

• Prompts leaders to interrogate their positions and explore all possible avenues to meet objectives with available resources and

• Builds bridges by engaging both parties in solutions that advance the company’s mission and strategy versus focusing on the conflicting equities of each silo.

Frequently, approaching the prospect of escalation collaboratively has eliminated my need to escalate. Leaders want to show their executives they considered all available solutions before admitting they need more resources to achieve their objectives, and the prospect of looking unprepared can drive solutions that may not have otherwise been considered. When escalation has been required, my approach to escalation without pointing the blame finger has helped maintain good relationships and advocate for resources that benefit the shared-service team, my team, and the broader organization.

Accountability Is Key

While this article focuses on the process of negotiating expectations, follow-through is key. Once shared-services leaders and internal customers strike an agreement, everyone needs to follow through on their commitments throughout the life cycle of their work. And when unforeseen events interfere with that follow-through, leaders need to re-open the dialog and reset expectations.

Scrutiny

Fraud