Organizational Health Shows Up Between Functions

A credible budget can hide an unworkable plan

As 2027 budgets move toward approval, CEOs and boards should examine a risk that sits between the spreadsheets: several functions may be relying on the same people, decisions and delivery windows without having reconciled those demands.

Sales plans a new offer. Operations plans a service redesign. Finance plans a reporting change. Each proposal makes sense. All three require the same technology team and the same regional leaders during the first quarter.

The problem is not necessarily weak leadership within any function. It is an enterprise plan built from commitments that cannot all be met.

Research and practice described in Harvard Business Review’s “Too Many Projects” identify how initiative overload develops when organizations keep adding work without adequately addressing the cumulative burden. ^[1] The consequence is not just employee fatigue. It is delayed revenue, duplicated spending and priorities that change through informal negotiation rather than explicit executive decisions.

An organizational health review should expose this gap. Employee sentiment matters, but it cannot establish whether the organization can deliver its commitments. Leaders also need evidence about how work crosses functional boundaries.

Examine the handoffs, not just the functions

Start with three strategically important outcomes for the first half of 2027. Choose outcomes that require multiple functions, not projects that one executive can deliver independently.

For each, trace the critical handoffs. What must one team provide before another can proceed? Who has accepted that obligation? What competing work draws on the same capacity? What happens when a dependency slips?

A useful test is to ask both sides of a handoff separately. If the receiving team expects a finished deliverable in February while the supplying team has scheduled an initial review in March, the plan already contains a failure.

Look particularly closely at people who repeatedly bridge functions. Harvard Business Review’s “Collaborative Overload” describes how collaborative demands can become concentrated among a limited set of contributors. ^[2] These individuals may keep delivery moving while concealing a structural weakness: the business depends on their personal intervention rather than reliable working arrangements.

Use existing project records and direct conversations. Do not turn this exercise into individual activity tracking. The purpose is to find conflicting obligations, not to measure who appears busiest.

Resolve trade-offs before approving more work

When dependencies collide, “work together” is not a decision. Neither is asking every executive to treat the initiative as a priority.

The CEO and executive team need to make three choices explicit.

What takes precedence? Name the business outcome that wins when shared capacity is insufficient. If everything retains its original deadline, no trade-off has been made.

Who decides? Separate the people who provide input from the executive who makes the final decision. “Who Has the D?” argues that clear decision roles help organizations resolve ambiguity around consequential choices. ^[3] Consultation should improve a decision, not create an indefinite veto for every affected function.

What stops or moves? A new commitment should identify the work it displaces, the additional capacity it genuinely requires or the deadline that changes. An instruction to absorb the work is not evidence of available capacity.

Record these choices in the operating plan, including the obligations of supporting functions. Do not leave them buried in meeting notes. A commitment is incomplete until the team providing a critical dependency has agreed to its scope and timing.

For boards, the oversight question is whether management has reconciled the plan’s major dependencies—not whether directors should resolve individual scheduling disputes.

Track whether coordination is getting better

An Organizational Health Index should support action, not simply produce a reassuring overall result. Pair any broader assessment with a small set of operating indicators that show whether coordination is improving.

Track critical handoffs accepted by both parties. Review unresolved cross-functional decisions and how long they remain open. Examine milestones missed because an internal dependency was unavailable. Look for work that repeatedly returns to the executive team because the original decision did not settle ownership or priorities.

Interpret these indicators together. A rise in recorded dependency conflicts may initially mean leaders are making hidden problems visible. Fewer escalations may mean clearer decisions—or that teams have stopped seeking resolution. Review specific cases before drawing conclusions.

This week, select one major 2027 commitment and bring its contributing executives together. Ask each to state what they need, what they owe and what they would stop if capacity falls short.

The test of organizational health is not whether everyone supports the strategy. It is whether the organization can make and keep the agreements required to execute it.