When Two Departments Blame Each Other for Everything

Introduction

Have you ever seen two departments at work where basically every problem somehow becomes the other department’s fault? Sales says, “Marketing gave us bad leads.” Marketing says, “Sales did not follow up properly.” Operations says, “Nobody told us about the change.” Finance says, “We were informed too late.” And then everyone has a meeting about the problem, but somehow the meeting creates another problem. So, like, the real issue is not always that people do not want to work together. Sometimes the way work is divided makes people protect their own department first.

This is where HR becomes important. Workplace conflict is not always about difficult personalities. It can come from unclear roles, different targets, poor communication, limited resources and departments having different priorities. CIPD also points out that cross-functional collaboration needs shared understanding, openness, information sharing and cooperation across team boundaries.

Problem

Imagine a company is launching a new product. Marketing is responsible for creating awareness and generating leads. Sales is responsible for converting those leads into customers. Both teams are working toward the same business result, but their daily work is different. Marketing may care about how many people respond to a campaign, while Sales may care about how many of those people actually buy something.

So now the campaign performs badly. Sales says the leads were useless. Marketing says Sales did not contact the leads quickly enough. Sales says Marketing does not understand what customers actually want. Marketing says Sales keeps changing the requirements. Basically, everyone has data to prove that they are right.

This is where conflict can become a cycle. One department blames the other, the other department becomes defensive, communication becomes shorter, information gets delayed, and then the original problem becomes even bigger. Research on sales and marketing conflict has found that competition for resources and strong identification with one's own function can increase task conflict between departments.

Analysis of the Problem

The first problem is that people start thinking in terms of “my department” and “their department.” This is called functional identification. It means employees strongly identify with their own function and its goals. So, when something goes wrong, they naturally look at the problem from their department's point of view.

The second problem is goal interdependence. This basically means that one team's results depend on another team's work. Sales cannot close a deal if there are no potential customers to contact. Marketing cannot show that a campaign worked if nobody converts the leads. So, even though both departments have different targets, their work is connected.

The third problem is unclear ownership. If nobody knows exactly who is responsible for a decision, people can easily say, “I thought they were doing it.” This is where the RACI framework can help. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed. Basically, it answers four simple questions: Who does the work? Who owns the final result? Who needs to give input? And who simply needs to know what is happening?

Another issue is the way people handle conflict. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument describes five common ways people respond to conflict: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. So, imagine Sales keeps competing by saying, “Our numbers matter more,” while Marketing avoids the discussion because they do not want another argument. The problem does not disappear. It just moves to the next meeting.

The interesting part is that conflict itself is not always bad. Task disagreements can sometimes help teams find better ideas. The problem starts when the disagreement becomes personal, defensive or political. Research on sales and marketing relationships shows that cross-functional conflict can hurt collaboration, while senior management support and coordination can help reduce this problem.

Real-Life Case: When Sales and Marketing Were Not Working as One Team

A useful real-life example comes from a case reported by Alexander Group involving a storage-products company. The company had redesigned its Sales organisation and launched a new go-to-market model, but its internal systems and processes were not ready to support the new structure. There was major misalignment between the Business Unit, Sales and Marketing teams about target customers, use cases, market opportunities and value propositions. So, the departments were technically working toward growth, but they were not working from the same plan.

Basically, this is exactly how cross-functional blame can start. One team may believe that the market opportunity is one thing, while another team sees it differently. Marketing may build its message around one customer group, while Sales focuses on another. The Business Unit may have a different idea about what should be sold. So, when the results are not good, every team has a different explanation.

The company also had a problem with transparency and accountability in its key cross-functional processes. That meant the issue was not simply “people do not communicate.” The work itself needed clearer processes. This is important because if the process is unclear, even good employees can end up blaming each other.

HR Theories, Frameworks and Concepts Reflected in the Problem

The first concept we can see here is goal interdependence. Sales, Marketing and the Business Unit could not achieve the final business result independently. Their work was connected. So, when departments are highly dependent on each other, unclear expectations can create more conflict.

The second concept is functional identification. Employees can become more attached to the success of their own department than to the success of the whole organisation. So, Sales may think, “We achieved our target,” while Marketing thinks, “Our campaign numbers were strong.” Both statements can technically be true while the overall business result is still weak.

The third concept is the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model. If departments keep competing, avoiding or compromising without solving the real problem, the conflict can continue. For example, simply telling both departments to “meet halfway” may create a compromise, but it may not solve who actually owns the process.

The fourth concept is RACI. When responsibility and accountability are unclear, employees may duplicate work, miss work or assume someone else is responsible. So, RACI is useful because it makes ownership visible instead of leaving it to assumptions.

The fifth concept is process mapping. Instead of asking, “Who made the mistake?”, HR and managers can ask, “What happens from the beginning of this process to the end?” This changes the conversation from blaming people to finding where the process breaks.

The sixth concept is the Service Level Agreement, or SLA. An SLA is basically a clear agreement about what one team will provide to another team, by when and at what standard. For example, Marketing may agree to provide qualified leads with specific information, while Sales may agree to contact those leads within an agreed time. Now both teams know what is expected.

Solution Using HR Theories, Frameworks and Concepts

The first step should be to stop treating the conflict as a personality problem. HR should bring the departments together and map the full process. So, instead of starting with “Why did Sales not do this?” the discussion can start with “What happens from the moment a customer lead is created until the customer is contacted?” This makes the problem easier to see.

Next, the teams can use RACI to define ownership. Every important activity should have someone responsible and someone accountable. People who need to provide input should be identified as consulted, while people who only need updates should be informed. This reduces the classic workplace sentence, “I thought they were handling it.”

Then, both departments should create shared goals. This connects to goal interdependence. Instead of Marketing being measured only on the number of leads and Sales being measured only on sales conversions, they can also have a shared measure connected to the full customer journey. This does not mean removing department-specific targets. It means adding at least some goals that require both teams to work together.

The next step is to use negotiation. Instead of negotiating from positions like “Sales needs this” and “Marketing needs that,” teams can look at their underlying interests. Sales may actually need better-quality leads and faster information. Marketing may need better customer feedback from Sales. Once these interests are clear, the teams can negotiate a process that works for both sides.

Finally, the teams can create an SLA. So, if Marketing sends a lead, the agreement can clearly state what information must be included and how quickly Sales should respond. If Sales receives customer feedback, the process can state how and when that feedback goes back to Marketing. This creates a simple communication loop instead of random emails, messages and meetings.

Actual Solution Implemented in the Real-Life Case

In the storage-products company case, Alexander Group helped create and implement nine go-to-market programmes through an overall Programme Management Office. The company also introduced clearer product-alignment and sales-forecasting processes. These processes were designed to connect Sales, Product and Marketing around market opportunities, customer needs and the company's offerings.

The important part is that the solution was not just “tell the teams to communicate better.” The company created a structure around the communication. Responsibilities became clearer, processes became more disciplined and different functions were brought into the same planning process. The company reported that all nine programmes were implemented and that the new approach helped create quarter-over-quarter growth while also bringing more attention to functional misalignment and improving clarity around sales reporting and forecasting.

This is also supported by research on cross-functional coordination. A 2019 study of sales and marketing relationships found that cross-functional project teams, cross-functional meetings, job rotation and combining the functions more closely can improve the relationship between Sales and Marketing. The study also found that better collaboration and lower conflict were linked with better business performance.

What HR Can Learn From This

The biggest lesson is that when two departments keep blaming each other, HR should not immediately ask, “Who is the problem employee?” The better question is, “What is happening between these teams?” So, HR needs to look at goals, responsibilities, communication, decision rights and the process connecting the two departments.

Like, sometimes employees are not fighting because they are difficult people. They are fighting because the organisation has created two teams with different targets but has not clearly explained how those targets should work together. If HR can help create shared goals, clear ownership, simple communication rules and a fair way to negotiate disagreements, the same people can start working very differently.

So, the goal is not to make every department agree on everything. That is not realistic. The goal is to make disagreement useful instead of turning it into blame. Because at the end of the day, Sales and Marketing are not really competing against each other. They are both part of the same organisation, and if the customer loses, both departments lose.