The Real Cost of 'Good Enough' Collaboration
Deadlines slip. New timelines are negotiated. Frustration builds quietly beneath the surface. And when you step back to review what went wrong, every team insists they "did their part."
Technically, they did.
The problem isn’t effort. It’s the spaces between the efforts — where cross-functional collaboration breaks down.
Many organizations underestimate how much these hidden disconnects cost them. On the surface, it feels like teams are working well enough together. But underneath, "good enough" collaboration quietly chips away at execution, trust, and results.
The Trap of 'Good Enough' Collaboration
"Good enough" collaboration can look deceptively healthy:
Teams often meet their own deadlines, but handoffs to other groups are rocky.
Meetings happen, but they’re reactive rather than proactive.
Dependencies are acknowledged but not fully managed.
Coordination relies more on heroic effort than predictable systems.
This reactive pattern often feels acceptable — until the small misses pile up into big outcomes: delayed product launches, duplicated work, missed opportunities, and frustrated employees.
The Real Costs Leaders Overlook
Even when "good enough" feels manageable day-to-day, it carries real costs over time:
Project Delays: Small coordination gaps ripple across projects.
Duplicated Work: Teams solve the same problems in parallel without knowing it.
Rework: Misaligned expectations force teams to redo work, burning valuable time.
Employee Frustration: Waiting on another team erodes engagement and energy.
Erosion of Trust: Teams start working around each other instead of with each other.
Cross-functional collaboration isn't just a "soft" competency. It's a critical execution system that directly impacts business performance.
According to MIT Sloan Management Review, strong teams thrive when they have a compelling direction, a solid structure, and a supportive context — conditions that are often missing when cross-functional collaboration is treated as an afterthought. (MIT Sloan, "The Secrets of Great Teamwork")
Signs That 'Good Enough' Isn't Good Enough
If you’re wondering whether your teams are caught in the "good enough" trap, here are a few reflection questions:
How often do teams identify dependencies before they become problems?
Are cross-functional meetings about planning ahead or solving last-minute issues?
When delays happen, do teams instinctively coordinate or look to assign blame?
"Good enough" collaboration often leaves teams in a reactive state, constantly recovering from surprises rather than driving outcomes together.
Moving Beyond 'Good Enough'
Strengthening cross-functional collaboration doesn't mean endless meetings or burdensome processes. It means:
Proactive Coordination: Identifying interdependencies early and planning together.
Shared Ownership: Recognizing that "their problem" is "our opportunity."
Transparent Handoffs: Making expectations, timelines, and impacts visible across teams.
Execution by Design: Embedding collaboration into strategic and operational rhythms, not treating it as an add-on.
When teams collaborate by design, not by default, execution accelerates — and trust deepens.
Closing Reflection
Where in your organization might "good enough" collaboration be quietly costing you?
Not every coordination miss is visible on the surface. But when leaders pause to examine the spaces between teams, the opportunities for improvement — and impact — become clear.
Execution excellence isn't just about how your team performs. It's about how teams perform together.
