Your Teams Don't Have a Personality Problem
They Have a Goals Problem
The promise gap between sales and engineering isn't a people problem. It's a goals problem that nobody mapped out loud.
You've seen the cartoon. A salesperson is in front of a customer, grinning, promising the moon. Behind them, an engineer is waving their arms, mouthing "we can't do that." The customer is nodding. The salesperson keeps going. The engineer starts quietly updating their resume.
It's funny because it's painfully familiar.
And when you ask people why this happens, the answer almost always sounds like a personality diagnosis. Sales is pushy. Engineering is rigid. Product is unrealistic. Ops is a bottleneck. The language is always about who people are, not what they've been asked to do.
It feels like a personality problem because that's the easiest thing to see. You're in a meeting and someone from another department says something that makes your eye twitch, and the most natural conclusion in the world is "that person doesn't get it." Multiply that by every interaction across every department and you've got an entire organization where everyone has an opinion about everyone else's character.
Sales thinks engineering is a bunch of perfectionists who don't understand urgency. Engineering thinks sales will say anything to close a deal. Product thinks engineering is slow. Engineering thinks product lives in a fantasy world. And all of these opinions feel completely justified because everyone has stories to back them up.
But here's what's actually happening. Both groups are doing exactly what they've been told to do. Sales was told to close deals. Engineering was told to ship reliable products. Neither team is wrong. They're just playing different games on the same field, and nobody told them to look at each other's scoreboard.
The personality read is a symptom. The disease is goals that were never shared out loud.
This is a communication problem. Just not the one you think.
When people say "we have a communication problem," they usually mean the wrong emails went to the wrong people, or someone didn't loop in the right stakeholder. That's logistics. The real communication problem is bigger. These two groups have never sat down and explained their actual goals to each other. Not their job descriptions. Not their quarterly OKRs on a slide. Their real, lived, day-to-day definition of what winning looks like.
Sales doesn't know that engineering's sprint is already maxed when they promise a custom build. Engineering doesn't know that sales just lost three deals in a row to a competitor who said yes. They aren't withholding this from each other on purpose. It just never comes up. There's no forum for it. No structure. No habit.
And without that information, the only explanation available is personality. "They're just like that."
Every department in an organization has its own definition of success. Sales measures closed revenue. Engineering measures uptime, code quality, and shipping on time. Product measures feature adoption. Ops measures efficiency. Finance measures margins. Each group is running hard toward their own finish line.
The trouble starts when one team's finish line runs directly through another team's lane.
Sales closes a deal with a custom feature promise. Engineering now has to derail their roadmap to build it. Product has to reprioritize. Ops has to figure out how to support something nobody planned for. Everyone is frustrated, and everyone is also right. From their own scoreboard, they made the correct call.
This doesn't just happen between sales and engineering. Product and engineering have this fight constantly. So do sales and ops. And marketing and product. And (let's be honest) sales and pretty much everyone. Sales has a brutally hard job. They are sitting across from a customer who can say no, and their entire livelihood depends on that person saying yes. Cut them some slack. But also, help them see the full picture.
The Lowest Common Goal
I use a concept called the Lowest Common Goal, or LCG. Think of it as the goal that sits above all the individual department metrics. Not sales's number. Not engineering's sprint velocity. The shared outcome that both teams need to be true for the organization to succeed.
For sales and engineering, the LCG might be "deliver on promises that keep customers coming back." It's the thing that sales's closed deals and engineering's shipped code both ladder up into. It's the goal that makes both of their individual goals matter.
When teams can name their LCG together, something shifts. The conversation stops being "your priorities versus mine" and starts being "what do we both need to protect." It doesn't erase the tension. Sales will still push. Engineering will still push back. But now there's a shared reference point above both of them for how far is too far. The individual goals don't go away. They just get context.
And something else happens too. The personality judgments start to soften. When you understand that the salesperson isn't being pushy, they're protecting a deal they need to feed their family, "pushy" stops being a personality trait and starts being a reasonable response to pressure you didn't know about. When you understand that the engineer isn't being rigid, they're protecting a system that twelve other clients depend on, "rigid" becomes responsible.
The personality problem dissolves when the goals become visible.
The Us vs. Them Trap
Here's the pattern I see constantly. Teams that work well together almost always have a shared sense of "us." The problem is that many teams build that sense of "us" by creating a "them." And when "them" is another department in your own organization, you have a real problem.
Engineering bonds over how unreasonable sales is. Sales bonds over how inflexible engineering is. Both teams get tighter internally. Both teams get further apart from each other. The cohesion is real, but it's pointed in the wrong direction.
What actually works
In our workshops, one of the most powerful moments happens when cross-functional teams build what they each need from the other group to succeed. Not what they want. What they need. And then they see what happens when those needs get cut off.
The salesperson builds a model showing they need flexibility and fast turnaround to close competitive deals. The engineer builds a model showing they need predictability and scope clarity to deliver quality. Neither one is wrong. But until they see each other's model sitting on the same table, they've never actually understood what's at stake on the other side.
That understanding turns into agreements. In our team.build() process, teams move from surfacing needs to defining working agreements. Actual written commitments about how two groups will operate together. Not vague promises to "communicate better." Specific, documented standards that both teams helped create and both teams can point to when things start drifting.
Something like: "Sales will flag any custom feature request with engineering before confirming timelines with the customer. Engineering will provide a feasibility response within 48 hours, not two weeks." That's an agreement. That's actionable. That gives both teams a reference point instead of a recurring argument.
The cartoon isn't the problem. The missing conversation is.
That salesperson and that engineer will never stop being in tension. Their jobs create it. The question is whether that tension is productive or destructive. And the answer almost always comes down to whether they've ever sat in the same room, shared what they each need, named where their goals collide, and identified the Lowest Common Goal that sits above both of them.
It was never a personality problem. It just looked like one because nobody had the conversation that makes the goals visible.
If the "them" on your team is another department down the hall, that's the conversation you're not having yet.
If your teams are getting along great internally and fighting with everyone else, that's the pattern. We help cross-functional teams in NYC and beyond surface what's actually driving the friction and build working agreements that stick. Ready to have the conversation your teams have been avoiding?
Related posts:
