7 things that can cause friction between customer-facing teams
It’s common for software as a service (SaaS) companies to have multiple customer-facing teams, each covering a separate function for customers. Examples include sales, account management, customer success, support, professional services, renewals, and more. In an ideal world, all these teams need to be aligned on global objectives and work together in synergy. However, if the specifics of each team are not taken into account when the processes around interaction with customers are being built, the room is created for misunderstandings and friction between the teams. Let’s discuss some of the reasons for this friction and what can be done to avoid it.
Lack of rules
The first and main reason is the lack of clear rules on each team’s areas of responsibility, who is supposed to engage the client and when, and, finally, who should get the credit for certain positive outcomes. The last point here is probably the most important — if some action or outcome is incentivized, a lack of clarity on the process around that action could become a constant source of conflict between teams.
For example, if both customer success managers and account managers can get a bonus for identifying an upsell opportunity, the conditions for eligibility for that bonus need to be crystal clear. Since both roles involve working with the same customer (and forming the account team), the last thing you want is for them to fight over who should get the credit. Clearly describing the scope of work for each team also allows you to avoid any “it’s not my job” statements by employees because, at least for common situations, the guidelines would be described in playbooks (or other types of internal documents).
Overstepping the boundaries of a different role
Team members in each role need to have a clear understanding of what is and isn’t in their scope of work. Stepping into another role’s territory creates room not only for the internal misunderstanding but also for poor customer experience. For example, in organizations where customer success management and account management are different roles, CSMs are usually not supposed to hold any conversations on commercial conditions. Imagine what would happen if a CSM informed a client about a certain discount, and then the account manager reached out to the customer and offered a different price. All teams need to know what other customer-facing teams do and in which situations they should redirect customers to those teams. Obviously, some extraordinary situations may occur every now and then, which would involve cross-functional collaboration. In such cases, the leaders of the respective teams must work together to develop the best strategy for resolving the situation.
Not following the timeline of interaction
It’s common for members of different customer-facing teams to interact with clients at different stages of the customer life cycle. For example, customer success managers engage the customers after the purchase, while renewals managers reach out to them closer to the contract end date. Team members need to keep in mind when they should contact customers so as not to disrupt their interactions with other customer-facing teams.
If a client is currently going through the deployment process and working with the professional services consultant, it would not be the best time for a CSM to engage them. Firstly, it creates room for confusion for the client on who they should be talking to. Secondly, PS consultants usually have a clear onboarding/training path, and if the CSM jumps in somewhere in the middle to provide guidance, the program the customer paid for may become confusing. It’s important that all customer-facing team members have a clear understanding of when it’s their time to engage the client and double-check whether any communication is already in progress.
Slow response time
In our busy world, we often need to focus and deprioritize any incoming messages to ensure that we’re progressing with core initiatives. However, it doesn’t mean that incoming requests from sister departments can stay unreviewed. If a certain aspect of an interaction with a customer requires the involvement of members of several customer-facing teams, it’s important to organize that involvement in the shortest time possible. Common examples include collaboration between CSM and AM to deliver a demo and close the deal or between AM and the renewals manager to facilitate an expansion upon contract renewal. I recommend agreeing at the leadership level on the acceptable ETAs for different categories of such requests and communicating these ETAs to the respective teams.
Lack of alignment on strategy
As highlighted above, it’s very important for members of different teams to have a clear understanding of when they should engage the customer from the timeline perspective. But there’s another thing on top of that — team members must be aligned on what’s communicated to customers, especially if it involves any commercial conditions. For example, a customer may have agreed with an account manager that if they sign up for the upgrade before the renewal, their discount would be retained for another year. The renewals manager may unknowingly reach out to inform the customer of a standard X% price increase upon their renewal. Obviously, even if this misleading communication has happened, it is still possible to manage the situation. But yet again, it creates a poor customer experience and may contribute to a decrease in trust between the client’s champion and the account team on your side.
Conflict of metrics
It’s critical that the leadership of different customer-facing teams aligns on the key metrics for their respective team members so there’s no room for direct conflict of interest. People usually act upon what they’re incentivized to do. If these incentives contradict each other, the business may suffer. One of the most common examples here is customer success and sales. The goal of CSMs is to retain as many customers in their books of business as possible, while salespeople need to hit their quotas by pushing through upsell opportunities. On the high level, it may seem that there’s no obvious room for conflict. But if one team starts to pursue its goals without considering the other team’s interests, it would be harder for the other team to achieve its goals. For example, when the relationship between the CSM and the client is already strained (e.g., because of a poor customer experience in the past), it probably isn’t the best time for AM to aggressively push the upgrade. Moving forward with this approach creates a risk of damaging the relationship further.
Incorrect expectations set for the client
Overall, I can confidently name incorrectly set expectations as one of the most common reasons for churn. Here, however, I would like to focus on another negative consequence of this: If one team sets wrong expectations that involve certain actions (or the lack of actions) by the other team, it can lead to misunderstandings. For example, an account manager may promise the customer five free sessions per month with the customer success manager, while the CSM, given their portfolio, can only afford a maximum of one session per month (not to mention that for customers who need hand-on-keyboard support, a paid professional services package is offered by the company). While pursuing the goal of earning the customer’s trust and building a good relationship, the AM jeopardizes the CSM’s interests. So it’s imperative to align with members of other teams if you’re planning to set any expectations for the clients on their behalf.
As you can see, the main drivers of friction between customer-facing teams are, overall, a lack of clarity, alignment, and communication. Only by continuously working together to mitigate these risks can team leaders minimize the number of potential conflicts that might emerge.
