How to Make Difficult Decisions that Impact Multiple Departments
Making difficult decisions that impact multiple departments is a common challenge for leaders in today's complex business environment. This article explores strategies for navigating these high-stakes situations, drawing on insights from seasoned experts across various industries. From pivoting strategies to sunsetting legacy products, readers will gain practical approaches to foster collaboration and drive effective decision-making across their organizations.
- Pivot Strategy Through Transparent Leadership
- Sunset Legacy Product with Cross-Departmental Input
- Establish Weekly Cross-Team Prioritization Meetings
- Navigate CRM Transition with Personalized Approach
- Shift to Self-Serve Model via Collaborative Process
- Prioritize Emergency Jobs During Resource Shortage
- Expedite Core Systems for Early Store Opening
- Redirect Resources to Improve Editorial Capacity
- Implement Agile QA Model Across Departments
- Guide Teams to Collaborative Product Launch Solution
- Phase Out Coffee Blend Through Inclusive Decision-Making
- Balance Luxury Service During Unexpected Booking Surge
Pivot Strategy Through Transparent Leadership
At Spectup, one situation that stands out was when we had to pivot a growth-stage client's positioning mid-way through a fundraising engagement. The client was pushing hard on a B2C angle that was emotionally appealing but made no financial sense once we broke it down. Marketing was already deep into messaging, the deck team had visualized the whole story, and our investor relations lead had begun soft outreach. Pulling the plug on that positioning meant unraveling weeks of coordinated work. But it had to be done. I called a joint session with everyone involved—not to dictate a decision, but to lay out the financial models, traction data, and investor feedback we'd started to collect. That transparency was key.
There was frustration, sure, but people understood the rationale, and we moved quickly to reposition toward a more defensible B2B2C model. Within two weeks, the revised deck landed interest from a VC we'd struggled to engage before. That moment reinforced how much leadership is about clarity, not control. Sometimes, the hardest decisions are the ones that protect long-term credibility—even if they burn short-term effort.
Sunset Legacy Product with Cross-Departmental Input
One of the toughest decisions I had to make involved sunsetting a legacy product that still had a loyal (but shrinking) user base. The product wasn't just a line item—it touched marketing, support, engineering, and finance. It had emotional weight too—teams had poured years into it. But it was increasingly misaligned with where the business was headed, and propping it up was draining resources from higher-growth opportunities.
The decision-making process started with brutal clarity: mapping the true cost of keeping the product alive, not just in dollars but in opportunity cost. We brought each department into the process—not just for input, but for shared ownership. Support helped forecast ticket volume if we phased it out. Marketing weighed in on customer communication risks. Engineering modeled what tech debt could be cleared. Everyone saw how the decision tied to the broader strategy—not just their silo.
We didn't rush it. I gave the teams space to process, push back, and propose alternatives. That made the final call more grounded—and more respected—even by those who didn't agree. When we rolled out the phase-out plan, the narrative wasn't "this is going away." It was: "We're freeing up resources to build what's next."
What made it work was transparency and timing. We didn't bury the tough choice or frame it as a win. We treated it as a strategic shift that required courage and collaboration. And because every department helped shape the process, alignment came faster than expected.
In ops, hard decisions don't get easier—but they get clearer when you widen the lens and bring others into the room early.
Establish Weekly Cross-Team Prioritization Meetings
One of the most challenging decisions I face regularly is prioritizing our SaaS product roadmap, which impacts our technology, product, and client services departments simultaneously. To manage this effectively, I established a weekly Tuesday morning meeting where representatives from each department come together to review accomplishments, assess new requests, and collaboratively decide what makes the cut. We evaluate each feature and bug request based on severity, development time required, and strategic alignment, which helps us make tough calls with clear rationale. This approach ensures that when we have to say no to a requested feature that one department champions, everyone understands why and can communicate that reasoning back to their teams. The transparency of this process has significantly reduced interdepartmental friction and helped us maintain focus on what truly matters for our customers and business growth.
Navigate CRM Transition with Personalized Approach
As the CEO of a recruiting firm working in the tech sector, I'm often tasked with making decisions that ripple across the entire organization, from reception to senior consultants. One of the more difficult decisions I faced recently was whether to adopt a new CRM system. The team was split right down the middle. Half were strongly opposed to the switch, while the other half were eager for the change. And the divide wasn't arbitrary -- they were using the CRM for very different purposes, so their needs and frustrations didn't align.
What made this especially challenging was that compromise wasn't really on the table. We couldn't operate on two systems. Everyone had to be on the same page, using the same software, or risk introducing more confusion and inefficiency.
So, I started where I always do in moments like this: with real conversation. I sat down with every team member and asked for just one top reason why they either supported or resisted the switch. These one-on-one chats were invaluable. They gave me a clear map of priorities, fears, and must-haves. I learned that the detractors were mostly concerned about losing specific customizations and workflows they'd relied on for years, while the supporters were excited about features that would streamline their pipeline and cut down on repetitive tasks.
With that knowledge, I got to work. First, I identified ways to preserve some of the most valued functions from the old CRM, through integrations, custom fields, or retraining, even if the platform was changing. Then, I made sure to highlight the specific features in the new system that directly addressed the pain points of those pushing for change.
Finally, I created a phased transition plan. For those most hesitant, that meant extra support: one-on-one training, cheat sheets tailored to their daily workflows, and even a few shadow sessions with team members who were more enthusiastic about the new system. We also built in time for feedback and tweaks, so people felt like they were still part of the process rather than just subject to it.
In the end, the transition was smooth, and I believe the process actually helped build a little more empathy across roles.
Shift to Self-Serve Model via Collaborative Process
One of the more difficult decisions I've made at Zapiy was deciding to transition from a service-heavy client onboarding model to a more self-serve, product-led approach. On the surface, it looked like an efficiency upgrade. But in reality, it had ripple effects across product, sales, customer success, and marketing.
Sales was concerned about losing the high-touch angle that helped close enterprise deals. Customer success worried about churn from clients who relied heavily on guided onboarding. Product was under pressure to quickly build out features that would support self-service adoption. And marketing had to adjust positioning almost overnight.
Instead of pushing the change top-down, I took a collaborative approach. We brought in representatives from each department to pressure-test the idea. We ran a pilot with a small cohort of clients and measured activation rates, support ticket volume, and time-to-value. The data helped cut through the noise and anchored the conversation in outcomes, not just preferences.
What made it successful wasn't just the outcome—it was the alignment. Each team saw how the shift served the bigger picture, even if it meant short-term friction. We invested in better onboarding UX, built automated touchpoints to simulate that "human" onboarding feel, and retrained the sales team to position it as a feature, not a sacrifice.
Looking back, it was a pivotal moment. It forced us to operate more cross-functionally and reinforced that tough decisions get a lot easier when people feel heard and involved in shaping the solution.
Prioritize Emergency Jobs During Resource Shortage
One of the most challenging decisions I've ever had to make occurred during a period when material costs were skyrocketing and labor availability was at an all-time low. We had multiple crews booked on overlapping projects — residential re-roofs, commercial repairs, gutter installations — and not enough manpower or supplies to complete every job on time. As the owner of Achilles Roofing and Exterior, I had to decide: either stretch our teams thin and risk poor-quality work, or delay some jobs and face upset clients.
It wasn't just about production. This decision was going to impact operations, finance, sales, and customer relations all at once. I sat down with every department lead — foremen, office administrators, sales representatives — and laid it out honestly. We examined every active contract, job size, risk level, client communication history, and the availability of key materials.
What I ultimately did was prioritize the jobs that involved emergency repairs — homes with active leaks, elderly clients, and those with insurance deadlines. Then I personally called every customer whose job we needed to delay. Not an email. Not a text. A call. I explained the situation, took responsibility for it, and gave them my word on a new timeline. Most respected the honesty.
That decision slowed short-term revenue, ruffled some feathers, and stretched us — but it saved our reputation. We didn't rush a single job. No callbacks. No compromise. Our reputation remained solid, and the teams appreciated that I didn't burn them out just to chase profit.
The lesson? When a decision affects multiple departments, don't make it in isolation. Involve your people. Be transparent. Own the difficult conversations. In roofing, just like in leadership, you can't patch a leak with silence.
Expedite Core Systems for Early Store Opening
A while back, we took on a major commercial job—a full electrical upgrade for a multi-storey retail site in Western Sydney. The project had a tight deadline and involved multiple departments: general electricians, data cabling crew, solar installers, and even air-conditioning technicians from a partner company. Everyone had their own timeline and priorities.
Midway through, the property owner presented us with a challenge: they wanted to bring forward the grand opening by two weeks. There would be no extensions or compromises. That decision forced my hand.
Here's where it became difficult—I had to revise the original rollout plan and expedite essential systems. This meant pausing some non-critical installations like EV chargers and smart automation, and reassigning those crews to complete main switchboard works and tenant-level connections. Understandably, some weren't pleased. The data cabling team lost momentum, and the solar crew was temporarily sidelined. However, the reality was that the core power supply had to take precedence.
Before making the decision, I didn't simply sit behind a desk and make assumptions. I went onsite, walked through each stage with every team leader, and carefully considered the consequences of any changes. No decisions were made based on guesswork. Everything was assessed in real-time, on the ground.
In the end, the store opened on schedule—with all critical systems in place, and the remaining works scheduled for night shifts after the launch. It wasn't the easiest decision, but when you run a business like Lightspeed Electrical, you learn this: the right decision rarely pleases everyone, but it always protects the job, the client, and your reputation.
That's how you lead when pressure's on—you don't panic, you prioritise.
Redirect Resources to Improve Editorial Capacity
One of the toughest decisions I made at eStorytellers was to pause a major marketing campaign to redirect resources toward improving our editorial team's capacity. At the time, the marketing team had already invested effort in planning, and sales were counting on the leads, but our editors were overloaded, and client quality was at risk.
I brought all department heads together for a transparent discussion. We mapped out the potential short-term losses versus the long-term brand damage if we didn't act. Everyone shared concerns, and we re-prioritized based on client impact, not just KPIs. That collective decision improved our turnaround times, increased repeat business, and ultimately helped our marketing efforts land better results later.
The key here was involving every department early and anchoring decisions in long-term trust, not short-term numbers.
Implement Agile QA Model Across Departments
One of the most difficult decisions I had to make was during the transition to a fully Agile-based QA delivery model across all departments: development, testing, client success, and operations. We were growing fast, and our traditional waterfall-influenced QA workflows just couldn't keep pace with the expectations of modern SaaS and enterprise clients. But changing processes that touched every corner of the company wasn't something I could take lightly.
I started by assembling a cross-functional task force with senior leads from QA, dev, project management, and client engagement. Instead of pushing a top-down change, I made sure we had real feedback from every stakeholder on what bottlenecks they were facing and what an ideal QA pipeline looked like. It quickly became clear this wasn't just a tech problem; it was a people problem too. Teams had to re-learn how to collaborate, report progress, and adjust to rapid iteration cycles.
Once we mapped out the friction points, I authorized a phased rollout starting with internal sandbox projects before scaling Agile to client-facing ones. It took months of training, experimentation, and real-time adjustment. There were setbacks, yes, but we eventually saw a 40% increase in release velocity and a noticeable drop in QA bottlenecks. That single decision not only changed how we operated, it rewired our company culture for speed and collaboration.
In hindsight, it was difficult not because of the technical overhaul but because I had to carry the emotional weight of disrupting processes people were used to. But making the call and seeing departments grow into the change? That's what leadership demands.
Guide Teams to Collaborative Product Launch Solution
There was one situation that comes to mind when we had to determine priorities for a product launch involving the product, marketing, and sales teams. The decision was challenging because it affected the timelines for marketing campaigns, was linked to sales incentives that had already been established, and the product team was trying to push for quality while we also had limited resources.
To address this, I conducted several one-on-one meetings with the leads in each department. I wanted to understand all the pain points and evaluate how the delays would affect sales targets, the limitations for marketing in terms of customers' expectations, and what was optimal for product features given our level of resources. I then brought the core teams together for a "solution brainstorm" so everyone had an opportunity to provide valuable input and feel like they were being heard. Instead of making the decision for the group, I guided them to an open conversation where they could brainstorm, knowing someone else would determine the priorities. I asked questions like, "What are the best-case scenarios?" and "What are the worst-case scenarios?"
By analyzing all the information I had gathered, I recognized that the most prudent next steps would be to slightly alter the product features and adjust the marketing schedule to align with the revised release. From there, we could focus our communication with customers to ensure they were aware of the changes, and this new launch would look completely different and even better than they had initially planned for.
Deciding to do that wasn't perfect, but by centering on clear communications and aligning the teams on a common goal, we were able to work together to make a decision, even though it was a tough one and there could be (and were) some bumps in the road between departments. Ultimately, it allowed us to satisfy the customer, delay other things while we achieved their product and sales plans. It proved that collaboration and a willingness to listen are equally important in making a decision as the actual final decision itself.
Phase Out Coffee Blend Through Inclusive Decision-Making
We once had to decide whether to discontinue a long-running coffee blend that was popular with some customers but increasingly difficult to produce consistently due to changes in bean availability. The decision affected sourcing, roasting, marketing, and customer service. Sourcing had to deal with unpredictable supply, roasting struggled to maintain the same profile, marketing had to manage expectations, and customer service would field the disappointment from loyal buyers.
I started by meeting with each department separately to understand their perspective and the trade-offs they were seeing. Once I had a full view of the operational, financial, and customer impacts, we brought everyone together to weigh the options. That transparency helped the team see why phasing out the blend was the best choice for long-term quality and consistency. It was not easy, but involving everyone early made the transition smoother and gave each department a role in shaping how we communicated the change.
Balance Luxury Service During Unexpected Booking Surge
Bookings at LAXcar skyrocketed, surpassing anything we had ever seen during a holiday rush. Our fleet, scheduling, and customer service personnel were completely maxed out. Complying with everything risked degrading our luxury standards, but turning clients away meant estranging people we had retained for years. However, I needed a way to make this work while maintaining the brand promise.
I pulled together the heads of department for a snap assessment immediately. Fleet availability, driver schedules, peak booking times, and the VIP client list were all examined. The teams then identified their largest limiting factors, or constraints, and narrowed down where changes would most likely have the greatest impact. We were able to rapidly build out what was truly possible, not just a knee-jerk reaction that it was impossible to proceed without a drop in the quality of service.
The final strategy struck a balance between flexibility and control. To help manage overflow, we expanded our small network of trusted subcontractors who assist in operations, capping at times more than 40 jobs a week. VIP arrangements remained in effect, which kept our most valuable customers loyal to us.
