Most leaders recognize the symptoms long before they attach a name to the problem. Teams are busy yet unaware of what others are doing. Decisions are made with incomplete information. Tensions rise between departments that should be working closely together. And despite the effort people put in, results do not add up the way they should. These are the telltale signs of organizational silos.

Silos are not created overnight. They emerge gradually when structures, habits and departmental priorities start to drift apart. In many organizations this drift accelerates during periods of fast growth, high workload or technological change. Our recent research into a rapidly expanding family owned company shows how quickly this can happen and what leaders can do to reverse it.

The company in our study had grown steadily for years. Revenues were healthy but the pace of that growth brought strain. Employees felt pressure from increasing workloads. Processes became harder to manage. A new ERP system added complexity. And while every team worked hard, they did so from their own point of view. As a result, tasks were duplicated, plans collided and valuable expertise remained locked within departments instead of flowing freely through the organization.

To tackle this, the company chose to apply a structured silo busting framework. This framework, originally developed through research in eleven organizations, identifies five areas that determine whether collaboration can thrive. Using it as the lens for our case study allowed us to see not only where the silos were located, but also why they had formed and what prevented people from working together more effectively.

What we saw inside the organization

Through surveys, interviews and network analysis, a clear picture emerged. The company’s four divisions operated as islands. Collaboration within divisions usually worked well but cooperation across them lagged behind. The network analysis, which mapped who shares information with whom, showed clusters that mirrored the organizational structure almost exactly. Even within the same division, physical locations played a role. Offices became small islands of their own.

Managers were central in the information network but employees were not. This meant that a great deal of knowledge stayed at the managerial level. When managers did not pass information on, unintentionally or simply because of work pressure, teams continued on their own path without seeing the bigger picture.

Interviews uncovered what this looked like in daily work. Commercial teams were highly reactive, driven by customer needs and short deadlines. Operations, by contrast, relied on planning and predictable workflows. The Americas division worked closely internally but struggled to connect with colleagues in the Netherlands due to time zones and unclear responsibilities. People in Support collaborated widely but often in a reactive way, stepping in only when something went wrong.

None of this was due to unwillingness. People cared deeply about their work and the success of the company. Yet without a shared framework or shared objectives, each team acted on what made sense from its own perspective. Over time this created tensions, delays and frustration. The organization’s efficiency suffered and employees experienced more stress and uncertainty than necessary.

What the silo busting framework revealed

The silo busting framework consists of five factors that together determine whether cross organizational collaboration can flourish.

1. The first factor is collaborative values. The company had positive intentions here. People liked working together and the idea of collaboration was supported. Yet it was not defined clearly enough as a core value, nor was it consistently reflected in day to day behaviour. The well meant One Company initiative existed but had little practical visibility.
2. The second factor is a collaborative operating model. This turned out to be one of the biggest gaps. There were no shared processes for collaboration and no joint goals across divisions. Targets shifted frequently and each department interpreted them independently. When Sales moved fast, R and D wanted more time to test, and Marketing needed alignment, there was no shared structure to reconcile those needs. Conflicts were handled informally and often left unresolved.
3. The third factor is the collaborative environment. People lacked structured opportunities to meet, exchange knowledge and build working relationships beyond their own division. Information about each other’s plans was limited. As a result, misunderstandings were common, not because people disagreed but because they simply did not know what others were doing.
4. The fourth factor is collaborative leadership. Managers were highly committed but focused on their own departmental performance. Their KPIs were vertical rather than horizontal. This made it difficult to feel responsible for company wide outcomes. Leaders collaborated when necessary but did not consistently act as a unified team.
5. The fifth factor is collaborative reward and development systems. Collaboration was not part of performance evaluations. New employees were hired mainly for technical or functional expertise, not for their ability to collaborate. Few people received training in cross departmental collaboration.

Together these findings explained why silos persisted even though people cared deeply about the organization. The conditions for cross boundary collaboration were simply not in place.

How organizations can break down silos in practice

The insights from this case offer several practical lessons for leaders who want to strengthen collaboration in their own organizations.

First, collaboration must become a shared value that is visible in everyday behaviour. This means defining it clearly, communicating it consistently and showing it through leadership actions.

Second, organizations need a structured framework for joint goals. A small number of shared objectives across divisions helps align plans, clarify priorities and reduce friction. When departments understand how their work fits into the value chain, they are more likely to coordinate their decisions.

Third, leaders should create an environment that encourages people to connect. Cross departmental networks, joint training, job shadowing and regular coordinated communication help employees understand one another’s work and build trust.

Fourth, leadership needs to model collaboration. Managers who are accountable not only for their own results but also for organization wide outcomes develop a broader mindset. A visible, unified leadership team sends a strong signal to the rest of the organization.

Finally, collaboration should be embedded in recruitment, development and reward systems. Hiring for collaborative competence and training people in concrete collaboration skills accelerates cultural change.

Moving forward

Breaking down silos is not a quick fix. It requires attention to systems, structures, leadership and culture. But when organizations invest in these conditions, collaboration becomes more natural. Workflows improve, employees feel more connected and the organization becomes more resilient.

The company in our study has taken the first steps by forming a cross divisional focus group to prioritize improvements and monitor progress. A follow up assessment in two years will help evaluate how far the organization has come and what still needs attention.

Other organizations can learn from this approach. Silos do not disappear by themselves. They dissolve when leaders make collaboration an explicit priority and create the conditions for people to work together effectively. The sooner organizations start, the sooner they can unlock the performance and engagement that true collaboration makes possible.

Interested?