Leading Cross-Functional Teams

One of my client companies recently made a bold shift: They replaced their Engagement KPI with a Trust KPI. And it’s one of the smartest moves I’ve seen. Why? Because trust is not a byproduct of engagement - it’s the precondition. 📚 Research backs this up: A meta-analysis by De Jong et al. (2016) found that team trust is a strong predictor of performance, especially in high-interdependence teams. Yet we treat trust like something we either have or don’t. 👉But trust isn’t a mood but rather a design decision. To start with, we need to understand 3 types of trust: 1. Cognitive 2. Affective 3. Swift Most leaders focus on cognitive or affective trust - built over time. But there’s a third type they don’t know about: Swift Trust. 📍Swift Trust forms quickly in temporary, remote, or fast-moving teams. It doesn’t require deep familiarity, it requires structure. And here’s how leaders can engineer it: ✔️ Start with clearly defined roles and expectations ✔️ Align fast around shared goals and purpose ✔️ Create quick wins that build early credibility ✔️ Model openness and ask for input from day one ✔️ Name the importance of trust explicitly In other words, trust isn’t “earned slowly” in every context. It can be catalyzed intentionally if you know how. That’s what I’m helping this client do: not just educate about trust but build it inside the team with psychological safety and my method, one behavior and ritual at a time. Because when trust becomes a designed feature, not an accidental outcome - performance, inclusion, and engagement follow. P.S.: Which type of trust is most alive in your team right now?

Shared understanding is fundamental to any change endeavour. But how do we orchestrate a journey towards a shared understanding? This framework - from the fantastic Challenge-led system mapping handbook by Climate-KIC - highlights a structured progression inspired by the DIKW pyramid. I really like the way iterative dialogue is embedded in a way that ensures resources become living documents that evolve with stakeholder insights, reflecting the dynamic nature of the system. "The evolving conversation contributes to the collective understanding of the challenges, the questions, and the mapped system itself." This journey begins with participatory processes and data generation, which lay the foundation for understanding the makeup of the system. These steps involve diverse stakeholders coming together to identify core components and relationships within the system. As the process evolves, we move into harvesting and documentation, where data transitions into manageable sources and is organised into coherent information. This phase involves physical structuring and cognitive processes, framing data into actionable insights and beginning to illuminate system patterns. The next phase—conceptualisation and analysis—builds on this structured base to foster a deeper understanding. Here, information transforms into knowledge through analytical structuring. This stage involves recognising connections, patterns, and dynamics, enabling stakeholders to identify key indicators of progress or change. Finally, the journey culminates in wisdom, where insights are communicated through visualisation and interpretation. This stage bridges the gap between abstract analysis and practical application, enabling informed decision-making and co-produced practices. Wisdom reflects a high level of both structure and understanding, empowering stakeholders to act collaboratively toward systemic change. This iterative and participatory process emphasises the importance of feedback loops and incremental understanding, ensuring that stakeholders grasp the complexities of the system and also feel invested in its transformation. "Knowledge management integrates links between interpretation, analysis, and action, allowing practitioners to move from traditional 'learning to manage' practices to 'management as learning'."

Mastering Organizational Savviness: Navigating office politics means winning the game of influence without direct clashes. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼: ↳ Avoiding Engagement: Office politics are inevitable. Embrace them wisely to navigate your career. ↳ Misreading Power Dynamics: Understand who influences decisions. Align your strategies accordingly. ↳ Ignoring Allies: Build relationships across the board. Allies in all corners strengthen your position. ↳ Overplaying Your Hand: Subtlety is key. Balance assertiveness with diplomacy. ↳ Neglecting Feedback: Adapt based on observations. Learn from every interaction to refine your approach. ↳ Ignoring Organizational Culture: Don't overlook the unwritten rules. Adapt your strategies to fit the cultural context. ↳ Failing to Communicate Clearly: Ambiguity can breed conflict. Be direct and transparent in your interactions. ↳ Forgetting Long-Term Goals: Short-term wins are tempting. Focus on strategies that benefit your long-term career. ↳ Underestimating Emotions: Office politics isn't just strategic; it's emotional. Recognize and respect the emotional dynamics at play. Be the leader who excels in organizational savviness. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀: •  You navigate challenges with insight •  Your influence grows within the organization •  Relationships become strategic assets •  You foresee shifts and adapt quickly •  Your career trajectory accelerates You are more than a participant in office politics. 𝗔𝘀𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳: 1. Are you aware of the real motives behind office politics? 2. Can you align them with your values and goals? 3. Got a strategy for managing conflict in office politics? 4. Does it strengthen or weaken your position? 5. Are you reacting, or actively influencing? 6. How are you improving your political intelligence? 7. Learning from each encounter? 8. How do you balance integrity with political maneuvers? 9. Are your actions true to your leadership style? You are a strategist shaping your path. Act accordingly.

The lesson I take from so many dispersed teams I’ve worked with over the years is that great collaboration is not about shrinking the distance. It is about deepening the connection. Time zones, language barriers, and cultural nuances make working together across borders uniquely challenging. I see these dynamics regularly: smart, dedicated people who care deeply about their work but struggle to truly see and understand one another. One of the tools I often use in my work with global teams is the Harvard Business School case titled Greg James at Sun Microsystems. It tells the story of a manager leading a 45-person team spread across the U.S., France, India, and the UAE. When a major client system failed, the issue turned out not to be technical but human. Each location saw the problem differently. Misunderstandings built up across time zones. Tensions grew between teams that rarely met in person. What looked like a system failure was really a connection failure. What I find powerful about this story, and what I see mirrored in so many organizations today, is that the path forward is about rethinking how we create connection, trust, and fairness across distance. It is not where many leaders go naturally: new tools or tighter control. Here are three useful practices for dispersed teams to adopt. (1) Create shared context, not just shared goals. Misalignment often comes from not understanding how others work, not what they’re working on. Try brief “work tours,” where teams explain their daily realities and constraints. Context builds empathy, and empathy builds speed. (2) Build trust through reflection, not just reliability. Trust deepens when people feel seen and understood. After cross-site collaborations, ask: “What surprised you about how others see us?” That simple reflection can transform relationships. (3) Design fairness into the system. Uneven meeting times, visibility, or opportunities quickly erode respect. Rotate schedules, celebrate behind-the-scenes work, and make sure recognition travels across time zones. Fairness is a leadership design choice, not a nice-to-have. Distance will always be part of global work, but disconnection doesn’t have to be. When leaders intentionally design for shared understanding, reflected trust, and structural fairness, I've found, distributed teams flourish. #collaboration #global #learning #leadership #connection Case here: https://lnkd.in/eZfhxnGW

Handling Conflict Isn’t Optional. It’s a Leadership Skillset. (And the best leaders don’t avoid tension, they navigate it): Everyone wants a strong culture. But no one builds one by avoiding hard conversations. Unspoken tension doesn’t fade, it multiplies. Here’s what I’ve seen the best leaders do differently when tension rises: 1. Spot the Pattern, Not Just the Problem → Most conflict isn’t about the issue, it’s about what keeps repeating. → Look for misalignment in expectations, not just misunderstandings. 2. Regulate Before You React → The calmest voice in the room holds the most influence. → You can’t lead the moment if you’re consumed by it. → Yes: Stop. Breathe 3. Get Clear on the Actual Issue → 90% of surface arguments are masking deeper frustrations. → Ask: “What’s really at stake for each person here?” 4. Hold the Tension, Don’t Rush the Fix → Moving too fast to resolution often shuts people down. → Sit in the discomfort long enough to understand it. 5. Choose the Right Approach for the Moment → Not every situation needs a roundtable. Know when to: Decide, Defer, Debrief, Disagree & Move on. 6. Clarify, Don’t Cushion → Clear is kind. Vague is avoidant. → You can be direct and still be deeply respectful. 7. Close the Loop → Don’t assume things are resolved because no one followed up. → Recap what was agreed. Confirm what’s changing. Conflict isn’t the problem. Unskilled leadership is. If you want high-performing teams, learn to handle hard conversations with grace and clarity. What’s one thing you’ve learned about navigating conflict well? ♻️ Share this with a leader who needs this reminder ➕ Follow Helene Guillaume Pabis for smart, human-first takes on leadership ✉️ Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dy3wzu9A

It might not look like it, but I’m actually quite approachable. Not when I’m grilling candidates on The Apprentice, perhaps, but definitely in work situations. I’m particularly mindful of creating a collegiate, non-threatening environment where colleagues feel safe sharing ideas, concerns, and especially mistakes. Here are four actionable ways you can enhance approachability and build trust with your team: 1. Be present and visible Approachability starts with visibility. If your team rarely sees you or feels they’re intruding when they do, they won’t speak up. Walk the floor, join informal conversations, and make time for spontaneous interactions. Your presence signals you’re open to hearing them, even outside formal meetings. 2. Think aloud and invite the input of others Explain your reasoning — and uncertainties — when making decisions. This creates space for others to contribute ideas or challenge assumptions. During meetings, outline options and explicitly ask for input. This builds trust and shows you value diverse perspectives. 3. Admit to your own mistakes Leaders who own their errors make it safer for others to do the same. Share a recent mistake in a team debrief and what you learned from it. This “models imperfection” and encourages a culture of learning from failure. 4. Use debriefs as learning moments After key projects or challenges, organise post-mortem meetings to review outcomes. Ask open-ended questions like, “What could we have done differently?” or “What should we carry forward next time?” These sessions will also repair tensions from stressful moments. Approachability is a leadership skill like any other. It takes effort and focus. But by fostering openness, you’ll build stronger relationships, improve performance and create a culture of trust. What techniques have you seen that bring out the best in people?

The most expensive problems in leadership don’t show up in your P&L. They show up in the room. In the past 12 months, what I’ve learned — and what this graphic nails — is that most executive dysfunction doesn’t come from lack of experience. It comes from team dynamics no one’s willing to talk about. - A leadership team that avoids conflict because they fear tension — and then ends up with decisions no one’s really committed to. - A new hire who’s brilliant on paper — but can’t be vulnerable enough to build real trust. - A global team that says they value accountability — but tolerates missed deadlines and quiet underperformance. These aren’t soft issues. They’re the cracks that derail transformation, delay launches, and quietly crush performance. What I’ve found when hiring senior leaders is this: ✔ Most companies evaluate results. ✔ Some companies look at skills. ❌ Few evaluate how leaders handle conflict, feedback, and trust. And that’s where the biggest risk (and opportunity) lies. When I hire for high-performance teams, I don’t just ask: → “Can this person do the job?” I ask: → “Will they build or break trust when things get hard?” → “Can they challenge others — and be challenged back?” → “Will they own results, or protect status?” The most successful teams I’ve seen — especially in consumer goods where cross-functional collaboration is essential — all share one trait: They do the hard, human work. They talk about what isn’t working. They hold each other accountable. They lead with transparency — not territory. So, if your team is scaling, hiring, or transforming this year… Ask yourself honestly: Which dysfunction are we quietly tolerating? Because trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and results aren’t “soft skills.” They’re the architecture of every high-performing executive team. And you can’t build anything strong without the right foundation. #ExecutiveSearch #LeadershipHiring #FMCGLeadership #HighPerformanceTeams #OrganizationalHealth #TeamDynamics

Most companies fly their teams out for offsites. And then leave the one thing that actually builds trust completely off the agenda. I coach executive teams and I'm constantly frustrated by the same thing. A company spends the money, carves out the time, flies leadership in from everywhere. And then the dinner is just small talk. Nobody leaves knowing each other any better than when they arrived. Relationship-building on a team can't be left to chance. Especially in a hybrid world where you're cycling through five different teams in a single day. Here are three practices that replace small talk with real trust: 1. Personal / Professional Check-in Go around the room. Everyone shares one thing they're struggling with personally and one thing professionally. "My older son has been struggling" or "this new role has me questioning whether I'm the right fit." The deeper people go, the more it opens the room. 2. Sweet and Sour It’s a lighter entry point for teams that aren't ready for that depth yet. Ask, what's going well in your life and what isn't. Start with the sweet. It builds the muscle without the initial discomfort. 3. Curated Questions at Dinner Replace the small talk with one powerful question: "What experience from your past do you think made you who you are today?" Immigrant stories, parents who set a standard, kids who had to grow up too soon. Every team has had someone share something that changed how the rest of the room saw them. You don't build trust by hoping people open up. You build it by designing the moment.

A VP I coached spent two years building every relationship that mattered to his role. Yet, he was removed from a key cross-functional project without a single conversation. He had nurtured relationships with every stakeholder above him. The leadership knew him well and trusted his judgement. But the peers across functions, the heads of teams whose work intersected with his, the people who had no formal obligation to support him, he had never built that kind of familiarity with any of them. And those were precisely the people in the room when the decision was made. He found out through a peer, three weeks after it happened.  No conversation. No explanation. Just a quiet exclusion that told him exactly where the gap in his network sat. We ran a simple audit together: Who are the people in this organisation whose work intersects with mine, and how well do I actually know what they're navigating? The answer covered almost every peer he worked with regularly across functions. He knew their work. He had sat in meetings with them for two years. But he hadn't invested in understanding what they were navigating, what they needed, or what working with him was actually like from their side. He started changing that, giving the relationships beside him the same genuine attention he had spent two years giving to the ones above him. Within six months, he was being pulled into conversations before decisions were made by the same people who had made one without him. The people beside you are always forming a view. The question is whether you know them well enough to know what that view is.