Making Teamwork Actually Work

A Manager's Guide to Cross-Functional Role Relationships

The Challenge

When employees need something from another department, uncertainty often creates friction. Is it a request or a requirement? Can the other person decline? Who decides if there's disagreement?

Most organizations clearly define manager-subordinate relationships but leave cross-functional interactions ambiguous. Elliott Jaques, an organizational psychologist, developed a solution: define cross-functional relationships with the same precision as direct reporting relationships.

Core principle: When authority boundaries are clear, collaboration becomes efficient and conflict decreases.

The Seven Cross-Functional Role Relationships

These seven relationship types establish clear rules of engagement for cross-functional work. Each type defines specific authority parameters and accountability when outcomes fall short.

1. Collateral Relationship

Definition: Two roles at equivalent levels working toward a shared objective. Neither role has authority over the other.

Authority parameters: Both parties must share information that affects joint work and may attempt to persuade each other. Neither party can issue directives to the other.

Example: A Sales Manager coordinates with a Production Manager to establish realistic delivery commitments for a major client. Both must collaborate to serve the organization's interests, but neither can mandate the other's decisions.

Escalation protocol: When agreement cannot be reached, both parties escalate to their own manager for resolution.

2. Advisory Relationship

Definition: One role provides specialized expertise or technical guidance to another role that makes operational decisions.

Authority parameters: The Advisor must be given the opportunity to provide input. The Recipient must consider the advice but retains decision-making authority and may choose to proceed differently.

Example: Legal Counsel reviews a marketing campaign and identifies potential regulatory concerns. The Marketing Manager must consider this input but makes the final decision on whether to proceed. If legal issues arise, the Marketing Manager bears accountability for ignoring the guidance.

Accountability split: The Advisor is accountable for providing accurate, timely guidance. The Recipient is accountable for the decision and its consequences.

3. Service-Giving Relationship

Definition: One role is required to provide specific services to another role upon request, provided the request falls within defined service parameters.

Authority parameters: The Requester defines what service is needed and when. The Service-Giver determines the implementation method and may decline only if the request exceeds their scope or violates organizational policy.

Example: A department manager requests IT Support to configure equipment for a new employee. IT Support must fulfill the request within standard service levels but controls technical specifications such as hardware model and system configuration. Requests for unauthorized software would be appropriately declined.

Implementation note: This relationship establishes service delivery as a formal obligation rather than a discretionary favor, eliminating ambiguity about cross-functional support responsibilities.

4. Coordinative Relationship

Definition: One role synchronizes the timing and sequencing of work performed by multiple roles.

Authority parameters: The Coordinator establishes schedules and sequence requirements. The Coordinator cannot direct how work is performed or evaluate work quality—these remain under the authority of each role's direct manager.

Example: A Project Manager establishes that a software Design team must complete mockups by March 15, enabling the Engineering team to begin development on March 16. Team members retain autonomy over their work methods but must meet the coordination schedule.

Authority limitation: When schedule commitments are missed, the Coordinator reports delays but cannot impose disciplinary consequences—that authority rests with each employee's direct manager.

5. Monitoring Relationship

Definition: One role observes work in progress to ensure compliance with standards, policies, or specifications.

Authority parameters: The Monitor may observe work processes and identify deviations from standards. When non-compliance is identified, the Monitor notifies the employee. If the employee does not address the issue, the Monitor escalates to the employee's manager. Monitors do not have authority to stop work or impose consequences directly.

Example: A Safety Officer observes construction workers operating without required protective equipment. The Safety Officer addresses the workers directly. If compliance is not achieved, the Safety Officer reports the situation to the construction supervisor, who has authority to take corrective action.

Role clarity benefit: Clear definition prevents monitoring from being perceived as interference, as all parties understand the Monitor's legitimate organizational function.

6. Auditing Relationship

Definition: One role examines work in progress or completed work to verify compliance with standards and may direct immediate cessation of non-compliant activities.

Authority parameters: The Auditor has authority to access relevant records, request information, and produce findings reports. Unlike Monitors, Auditors can instruct employees to cease non-compliant work immediately. However, Auditors do not have authority to impose disciplinary consequences.

Example: An Internal Auditor reviewing expense reports identifies policy violations in submitted claims. The Auditor documents findings and reports to Finance leadership, who determines appropriate corrective action.

Distinction from Monitoring: Monitors primarily observe real-time processes; Auditors primarily examine historical records or completed work and have authority to stop non-compliant activities.

7. Prescriptive Relationship

Definition: One role establishes mandatory standards or methods that other roles must implement. This is the most authoritative cross-functional relationship.

Authority parameters: The Prescriber issues binding directives that recipients must follow. Compliance is not optional. This relationship is typically reserved for safety requirements, legal compliance, or critical technical standards where organizational risk is significant.

Example: The Chief Security Officer mandates that all employees enable two-factor authentication by a specified date. This directive applies across all departments regardless of local management preferences. Non-compliance is not an option.

Critical distinction from Advisory: Advisory guidance can be declined by the recipient (who then bears the risk). Prescriptive directives cannot be declined—they are mandatory.

Authority and Accountability Reference

Relationship Type	Recipient's Discretion	Accountability Structure
Collateral	High—mutual persuasion required	Shared accountability for joint outcomes
Advisory	High—can decline advice (accepts risk)	Advisor: guidance quality; Recipient: decision outcomes
Service-Giving	Low—may decline only if outside scope/policy	Service-Giver: meeting service standards
Coordinative	None—must comply with schedule	Coordinator: timing; Individual roles: work quality
Monitoring	None—Monitor escalates non-compliance	Monitor: accurate deviation reporting
Auditing	None—must provide records and cease non-compliant work	Auditor: factual reporting and compliance verification
Prescriptive**	None—compliance is mandatory	Prescriber: establishing appropriate standards

Organizational Impact

Eliminates Role Ambiguity

When cross-functional relationships are formally defined, supporting colleagues becomes a documented job responsibility rather than discretionary assistance. Service providers cannot decline legitimate requests within their scope, eliminating the 'not my department' response.

Reduces Territorial Conflict

Clear authority boundaries prevent overreach and underperformance simultaneously. Coordinators cannot micromanage work methods, but contributors cannot ignore coordination requirements. This clarity reduces interpersonal friction significantly.

Streamlines Conflict Resolution

When cross-functional disagreements cannot be resolved at the working level, the escalation path is straightforward: both parties present the issue to their own manager for resolution. This eliminates prolonged negotiations and political maneuvering.

Implementation Guide for Managers

Step 1: Identify Cross-Functional Dependencies for All Roles

Review each direct report's role responsibilities. For each responsibility, determine: Is this work performed independently, or does completion require interaction with other roles? When cross-functional interaction is required, identify the specific roles involved. Focus on roles rather than individual names—organizational structures persist beyond individual tenure.

Step 2: Classify Each Cross-Functional Relationship

For each identified cross-functional interaction, select the appropriate relationship type:

• Service delivery required → Service-Giving
• Specialized expertise provided → Advisory or Prescriptive (based on risk level)
• Multi-party timing synchronization needed → Coordinative
• Compliance verification required → Monitoring (real-time) or Auditing (retrospective)
• Peer-level collaboration on shared objectives → Collateral

Step 3: Document Relationships in Role Descriptions

Update role descriptions to include cross-functional relationship specifications. Format each entry to include the task and its relationship type.

Example for IT Support Technician:

• Configure IT equipment for new employees (Service-Giving relationship with department managers)

Example for Quality Auditor:

• Conduct in-process quality assurance audits (Auditing relationship with production staff)

During onboarding, explain both the task requirements and the cross-functional authority parameters. New employees should understand from day one what authority they have in cross-functional interactions and what authority others have over their work.

Step 4: Coordinate with Peer Managers

Cross-functional relationships involve at least two roles. When you document a relationship for your employee, inform the relevant manager so they can document the reciprocal relationship in their employee's role description. Effective implementation requires both parties to understand and fulfill their relationship obligations.

Common Implementation Errors

Misclassifying Advisory as Prescriptive

Avoid granting veto authority when advisory input is appropriate. If subject matter experts can unilaterally block operational decisions, you have created Prescriptive relationships that may be unnecessary. Reserve Prescriptive classification for genuine high-stakes situations: safety requirements, legal compliance, or critical technical architecture where organizational risk is substantial.

Defaulting All Relationships to Collateral

Universal peer relationships create coordination paralysis. Some cross-functional interactions require clear authority: service delivery obligations (Service-Giving), schedule control (Coordinative), or mandatory standards (Prescriptive). Equal-level collaboration is appropriate for shared objectives, but not when one role legitimately needs authority to ensure work progresses.

Omitting Escalation Protocols

Every cross-functional relationship definition should specify the escalation path for unresolved disagreements. Without clear escalation procedures, employees default to prolonged negotiation or political influence tactics. The standard protocol: when working-level resolution fails, both parties escalate immediately to their own manager for a binding decision.

Conclusion

Organizations invest substantial effort defining vertical reporting structures while leaving horizontal relationships to informal negotiation. This creates the familiar dysfunctions: departments operating as independent entities, extended email debates over simple questions, and service requests treated as optional favors.

Elliott Jaques' framework provides a practical solution: apply the same definitional rigor to cross-functional relationships that you apply to manager-subordinate relationships. When employees clearly understand their authority parameters—what they can direct, what they must provide, what they can decline—cross-functional collaboration becomes routine rather than contentious.

These seven relationship types already exist in your organization—people are working across functions right now. The question is whether you have defined these relationships with sufficient clarity that employees can execute their responsibilities efficiently without recurring conflict.