Lack of cross-functional thinking in the executive committee: silos and strategic errors

Why can your executive committee meetings be so costly? (even if everyone is convinced they are right)

Cross-functional thinking, or the art of deciding together

Dear members of the executive committee,

There is a truth that few of us dare to say out loud: your decisions, however brilliant, are sometimes made in bubbles. Each department does its job and defends its own scope, but rarely the company as a whole.

The result? Decisions that look rational on paper but, in real life, generate delayed projects, unexpected costs and frustrated teams.

Decisions are sometimes made in a small group without ever consulting the people who really keep the business running. Sometimes people are even rewarded and praised for decisions whose effects are not yet known. And when the wall appears, of course, nobody saw it coming, or wanted to see it coming. Sometimes the people behind those decisions are not even with the company anymore!

Example in a digital services company:

A project director who knew the client very well made a contractual proposal that was not validated by the executive committee. The boss checked nothing, because he saw the revenue this new project would bring without considering profitability. He reasoned that since the project director knew the client well, the project was as good as won. The project director later resigned, but the project went on. Above all, it went on losing money, because if the contract was won, it was mainly because it was skewed in the client’s favor.

The boss had decided on the basis of revenue alone, with no regard for the project’s profitability.

The ideal company vs reality

In theory, a company works like this:

1. A clear vision, shared by everyone.
2. Complementary functions that collaborate.
3. Integrated strategic decisions.
4. Smooth execution on the ground.

In practice, you often get this:

• Marketing celebrating an "innovative" campaign.
• Finance cutting costs to hit its KPIs.
• Production worrying about the operational impact.
• IT imposing a tool without making sure the business teams buy in.

Each team optimizes its own scope, sometimes at the expense of the whole.

Silos: a human and normal phenomenon

Before blaming the org chart, let us remember: the silo is in our brain.

• We naturally look for colleagues who speak our language.
• We want to control our scope to avoid surprises.
• We act on the information we have, even if it is partial.

The result: superb teams working in silos, and sometimes shooting themselves in the foot without meaning to.

Executive committee meetings: a theater of partial decisions

Ah, the executive committee. That sacred moment when decisions with major strategic impact are made, often with... partial information.

• Figures are presented as absolute truths.
• Feedback from the field is often missing.
• Risk analysis is minimal.
• Trade-offs are driven by urgency and the priorities of the moment.

The result? A decision that is consensual on paper, but chaotic execution on the ground.

(And yes, even the most elegant PowerPoint slides do not replace complete information.)

Three concrete (and instructive) examples

Example 1: a product launch without alignment

In 2016, Samsung launched the Galaxy Note 7 with innovative features and an attractive design.

Problem: the sales teams bet on a fast launch and did not let the operational teams properly finish the quality tests. As a result, defective batteries caused fires, endangering users.

Samsung then had to recall all the devices sold and cancel production, causing significant financial losses and damage to its reputation.

Example 2: uncoordinated cost reduction

In the 2000s, Takata, a Japanese airbag supplier, as part of a cost-cutting policy, imposed a cheap material on its production teams for the propellant in its airbags. This led to airbag failures, causing injuries and deaths.

The first accidents began in 2008, and the scale of the problem finally grew around 2013. The scandal led to one of the largest automotive recalls in history and to Takata’s bankruptcy.

In 2017, Takata filed for bankruptcy in the United States because of the cost of the recalls and lawsuits.

The strategic error of a decision made without cross-functional input took many years to surface, but it ended up ending the company.

Example 3: the IT tool imposed without consultation

In 2025, Barnet Council (United Kingdom) invested £39 million in an ERP system for financial management. After the project failed, the council was left without an adequate financial management system for more than two years.

An investigation finally revealed that the council had not properly consulted stakeholders, which led to additional costs estimated at £90 million.

Cross-functional thinking is not one more meeting

Multiplying meetings, workshops and seminars is not enough.

Cross-functional thinking means:

• Involving all the teams concerned in the decision.
• Cross-checking data and viewpoints before making a call.
• Having factual decision criteria based on comprehensive indicators.
• Assessing collective performance, not only individual performance.
• Creating regular exchanges between functions to prevent silos.

Why does this concern you as an executive committee?

Every decision made in an executive committee affects the whole company. Even those that seem minor.

• A partial view means high execution risks.
• A decision made without consultation can miss hidden costs.
• A silo culture means a loss of agility and of team motivation.

If you do not build this into your practices, your decisions will keep generating costly inefficiencies, despite everyone’s best enthusiasm.

Conclusion

How can you make up for the lack of cross-functional thinking in the executive committee and avoid silos and strategic errors?

Moving from "I decide" to "we decide"

Cross-functional thinking is not a fad. It is an essential strategic skill.

• It improves the quality of decisions.
• It strengthens operational efficiency.
• It protects profitability and team motivation.

In short: fewer silos, more collaboration, more results.

Is your executive committee capable of cross-functional thinking?

Unfortunately, ego, power, roles and variable pay do not encourage cross-functional thinking.

If one member of the executive committee thinks across functions, the others will imagine they are encroaching on their scope. Can the boss take it on? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Generally, the boss’s priority is the stability of the committee, not fighting egos.

In such a context, what can be done?

Leave ego aside...

Accept an outside eye, and accept that it is an additional, strategic component to have alongside the executive committee. A safeguard for the good of each committee member and of the committee’s stability.

Experienced multipotential people are the best suited to this role. Integrity, altruism, multiple areas of expertise and a long-term vision are the main characteristics of these profiles. It is a guarantee of security and performance for companies.

To go further:

1. "À la recherche de la décision" (in French) – Le Monde.fr
2. "Travail en silo : pourquoi et comment les briser" (in French) manager-go.com
3. "Communication Transversale en Entreprise : Stratégies et Bonnes Pratiques" (in French) Eurécia
4. "La transversalité – RH" (in French) BeaBoss
5. "Travailler en silos : les pièges de l’isolement" (in French) Mailchimp
6. "Le management transversal : définition et bonnes pratiques" (in French) manager-go.com
7. "Silos and their impact – The Hidden Threat to Organisational Performance" LinkedIn