Why unclear workflow contributes to friction, silos and distrust
When workflow friction is less about people
Most cross-team problems do not start with bad intent. They usually start with unclear workflow, blurred role boundaries and unresolved assumptions. One team thinks something has been handed over. The other thinks it is still being worked through. A decision gets revisited. A deadline slips. A small frustration goes unsaid, then another.
Before long, people fill in the gaps:
“They never come back to us.”
“They don’t understand what we need.”
“We’re always the ones fixing the problem.”
“No one owns this.”
“They’re only looking at it from their side.”
This is how workflow friction turns into quiet frustration, conflict avoidance and distrust. The problem is often not the people. It is the design around them.
Breaking down silos needs more than goodwill
Most teams want to work well together and deliver the right outcomes. But goodwill does not fix an unclear process, clarify ownership, resolve competing priorities, or stop the same issue being discussed in multiple forums.
In many organisations, processes are inherited. They made sense once. Then the business changed. Work became more complex. Systems were added, teams grew and roles shifted. The process did not catch up. So people find workarounds. That can work for a while, until it creates friction.
A familiar pattern
Under pressure, partner teams often agree too quickly. They move on before testing assumptions because everyone is busy, or because people do not want to create tension.
Decisions are made, but the trade-offs are unclear. Accountability is implied rather than explicit.
Follow-up depends on goodwill, rather than a shared rhythm of ownership. People respond differently: some follow up, some assume, some document, and some rely on memory.
When expectations are not met, disappointment or resentment builds. A missed handover looks careless. A slow response feels disrespectful. A repeated question sounds like no one is listening. Stories are created, but often wrong. Without a good conversation, assumptions harden and silos deepen.
Better workflow starts with better dialogue
In our work with teams on cross-functional workflow and role alignment, we start by creating the conditions for a better conversation.
People need enough safety to speak honestly, without becoming defensive. They need room to name what is not working, hear the process from the other side, and understand the pressures, risks and constraints other teams carry.
It starts with an appreciative stance. Once people understand each other’s reality, the tone changes. The conversation becomes less about blame and more about design and shared responsibility.
Make the implicit explicit
The next step is to map the work clearly. Not the process as people think it works, but the process as it actually works. That includes questions such as:
Where does the work begin?
What decisions need to be made?
Where are the handovers?
What systems are used?
What gets documented?
Where do things slow down, duplicate or fall through gaps?
This mapping can look simple, but it is powerful. It shows where people rely on assumptions, where teams hold different versions of the same process, and where work is held together by individual effort rather than good design. Once that is visible, teams can act.
Clarify ownership and roles
The most useful workflow conversations come back to a few basic questions.
Who owns this step? Who needs to be consulted or informed? Who has authority to decide? Who picks it up when something changes? What does a good handover look like?
This is where RACI and the Accountability Ladder can help. They support a practical conversation about where roles overlap, ownership is unclear, decisions escalate unnecessarily, or people step in because no one is sure who should. Clarity reduces friction and resentment.
Commit to making it work
A future process needs more than a new map. It needs shared principles or “ways of working”. Teams need to agree how they want the process to work in practice. For example:
Clarity over assumptions
Consistency over individual workarounds
Transparency over hidden decisions
Timely follow-up over informal chasing
Shared ownership over blame
These principles become a useful reference point when the detail gets messy. They keep the work grounded in the reason for change.
Outcomes - clear workflow and roles, better execution
When workflow and role boundaries are aligned, work becomes easier. Collaboration improves. Decisions move faster. Duplication reduces. Handover quality lifts. Accountability becomes clearer, and teams spend less energy managing friction.
It also shifts teams from siloed problem-solving to whole-of-business thinking, where decisions are made with shared outcomes and downstream impacts in mind.
Trust improves too. Not because everyone agrees on everything, but because people can see the process. They know what to expect, understand who owns what, and have a shared way to raise and resolve issues. That is what good organisation design should do.
The strongest outcome is not always the new workflow map. It is what happens between the teams. People often leave more appreciative of each other. They understand the pressures on the other side, see the interdependencies more clearly, and recognise that much of the friction was not personal.
Creating the right conversation
Maximise provides independent facilitation to help teams have these conversations in a structured, constructive and practical way. The aim is to make the work visible, test assumptions, clarify accountability and agree how people will work together.
If your teams are working around unclear boundaries, repeated conversations or quiet points of friction, it may be time to step back and redesign the conversation before redesigning the process.