Your team isn't fighting, its missions are misaligned

This is a consultation I often receive from member-level staff rather than from executives or leaders.

I also often hear leaders grumbling, vaguely sensing friction and irritation among their members but unable to pin down where it comes from.

So what exactly is a “mission mismatch”?

Let’s think about it using the analogy of “the gatekeeper and the merchant.” (This one is my own.)

There was once a country called N, surrounded by castle walls.

Trade was tightly restricted, and there was only a single gate through which anyone could enter or leave N.

Conducting transactions freely outside the country was forbidden; all trade had to take place at the domestic exchange under government oversight.

The merchants had received the following instruction from the Minister of Finance: “War with Country B will begin next spring. Procure twice as much iron and gunpowder as last year. The budget only allows for 1.5 times last year’s amount, though, so make every effort to negotiate lower prices.”

Meanwhile, the gatekeepers had received instructions from their battalion commander along these lines: “We are currently in a state of tension with Country B, and Country B is allied with Country C. We have intelligence suggesting they may send in spies, so entry and exit involving those two countries in particular must be tightly restricted. We also see a steady stream of illegal immigrants from Country D every year. After entering, they sometimes form criminal organizations within our borders. We normally see about 100 illegal immigrants from Country D per year, and the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have issued strict orders that this number must be brought to zero this year without exception.”

After traveling through various countries and conducting repeated investigations, the merchants determined that they could procure twice the amount for 1.6 times the budget from Country D, or roughly 1.8 times the budget from Country E.

But they discovered that Country C could actually supply twice the usual quantity at a far cheaper cost — roughly 1.3 times the budget.

The merchants were eager to trade with Country C and requested that Country C send a large delegation.

When the Country C delegation arrived, the gatekeepers were thrown into a panic.

They agreed to limit the number of people entering and to a partial disarmament, but they refused to fully disarm, citing the need for “minimum self-defense.” Was it not unreasonable, they argued, to expect anyone to enter N — a country with poor relations with Country B, C’s ally — completely unarmed?

The gatekeepers consulted their battalion commander about what to do, but the commander and everyone above him held firm: “If they will not agree to full disarmament, do not let the people of Country C in under any circumstances.”

Meanwhile, the merchants noticed that the delegation’s arrival was later than scheduled. They went to the gate to check and found the gatekeepers in the middle of some kind of dispute.

“Why can’t the delegation enter the country?”

“Because they won’t agree to disarm.”

“No, this is an emergency, and all they’re doing is trading. Surely some flexibility is in order?”

“No, no. As you all know, our country N is in a state of tension with Country B, and Country C is B’s ally. That reasoning simply doesn’t hold up. And why Country C, of all places, at a time like this?”

“For such-and-such reasons, we absolutely must trade with Country C.”

“In that case, what about Country E? They’re on friendly terms with us, and large numbers of people come and go from Country E every day.”

“Country E can’t meet our target. Then at the very least, let half the delegation enter this time. If we can complete half the deal now, we can settle the rest with Country D afterward and still meet our target.”

“Did you just say Country D? You must be joking. Country D is a hotbed of criminal organizations. It’s one of the countries we especially need to crack down on this year. I’ve heard that every organization in Country D that handles iron and gunpowder — materials used to make weapons — has ties to criminal groups.”

“But there has always been traffic of people between us and Country D. Tightening the regulations is one thing, but surely that doesn’t mean no trade is possible at all.”

“Well, that’s true enough, I suppose. Then Country D will be permitted. Forget Country C — arrange things so the deal goes through with Country D instead. Based on the earlier figures, that will run a bit over budget, but please take that up with the Minister of Finance.”

“What are you talking about? Don’t you know how strict the Minister is? He won’t compromise by a single penny. If we fail this mission, we’re certainly getting demoted. Just let the Country C delegation in, right now!”

“If you have a mission, so do we. Entry from Countries B and C in particular must be tightly restricted. Letting them carry weapons is simply out of the question. If any trouble occurs, it won’t end with just our heads rolling — it will become a major crisis!”

“Enough. If you have complaints, take them up with the Minister of Finance. We’re just following orders and carrying out our mission!”

“We’re also acting on policy handed down from the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If you have complaints, take them up your own chain!”

The two sides’ missions were at odds, and the argument went in circles.

So how should a situation like this be resolved?

To the executives and leaders who have read this far, I’m sorry, but this is not actually a moment for you to step in.

This is exactly the moment when “horizontal coordination” should come into play.

The missions given to both sides here are tied to a shared goal — in this case, “the prosperity of our own country.” Maintaining domestic security matters, but so does withstanding invasion from other countries, and at times even expanding one’s territory, both of which may be necessary for prosperity.

Leaders set appropriate missions for their own areas of expertise with that goal in mind. So even when a conflict like the one in this example arises, adjusting the mission itself is not desirable.

Adjust missions too readily, and the mission itself — and ultimately the goal itself — ends up hollowed out.

Ideal horizontal coordination creates not “compromise” but “conviction” on both sides.

Let’s try, as an experiment, to find some cooperative solutions to this case.