“Sales make the promises and we deliver them”: conflict between sales and delivery

The contract is signed, but the deadline is nowhere in the schedule

Kamil from sales signed an order with a client for an implementation within three weeks. On Friday, he wrote to Ewa, the head of delivery: “We’ve got a great contract. Please make room in the schedule.” Ewa replied: “We don’t have the people for that deadline. Nobody asked us when the offer was approved.”

At the meeting, Kamil accused the delivery team of being inflexible: “If I checked every detail with you, we’d never sell anything.” Ewa retorted: “Sales make the promises, and then we’re the ones explaining the delays to clients.” Both sides believed they were protecting the company’s interests.

The client expected the system to go live as set out in the contract. The manager of both departments therefore had to make a decision about this delivery and, at the same time, establish who could approve similar deadlines in future.

What really happened

The coordination failure occurred before the offer was signed, at the point when the deadline stopped being an assumption and became a commitment to the client. Kamil may have acted in good faith, driven by the chance to close the deal. Ewa may have been just as conscientious in protecting quality and the availability of her specialists. That does not change the fact that a single decision required the knowledge of two departments, yet it was made in only one. An argument about who “always” lets everyone down distracts attention from the contract and the realistic options. The manager should first check exactly what was promised: the scope, the deadline, the acceptance conditions and any caveats. Then they should establish a workable option, the cost of speeding things up or a way of changing the terms agreed with the client. Separately, the approval process needs to be fixed so that a similar situation does not happen again in a month’s time with different people.

What research says about disputes between departments

In their classic studies, Lawrence and Lorsch described how departments within the same company develop different orientations towards time, the environment and goals. This is a historical organisational model, not a measurement of the company Kamil and Ewa work for today. Walton and Dutton drew attention to the structure of conflict between units and the influence of mutual dependencies. When sales are rewarded for contracts and delivery is held to account for deadlines and quality, conflict can stem from the rules, even if the people involved are courteous. A meta-analysis by Tannenbaum and Cerasoli also indicates that structured debriefs of completed work can improve effectiveness. This does not mean that a single retrospective will fix badly designed decision rights. From a communication perspective, what matters is distinguishing between three messages: “provisionally possible”, “confirmed by delivery” and “we have committed to the client”. If a company uses them interchangeably, even well-intentioned teams will keep talking past each other.

Where two different versions of the company’s interest come from

Kamil looks at the order through the lens of the sales opportunity, the competition and the client’s expectations. Ewa sees it in terms of available specialists, existing commitments and the cost of mistakes. Neither perspective is by definition less business-minded. When commission depends on signed sales and delivery’s results depend on meeting deadlines, people can rationally optimise for different metrics. The conflict intensifies when nobody is responsible for signing off the point where the two meet. It is also worth considering the effects on an invisible third group: the employees who will be asked to work overtime or move their holidays. Their time cannot be an unlimited reserve in the sales model. Rather than explaining the two sides’ attitudes with “salespeople are reckless” and “operations are rigid”, carry out a simple process analysis: where did a decision arise that required another department’s knowledge, and why was that knowledge missing? This gives you a point of leverage that both sides can influence.

How to approach it

At the meeting, the manager might begin: “First, let’s establish what we put in writing for the client and what deadline we can actually meet. Only then will we discuss why the decision was made without consultation.” Kamil sets out the client’s requirements and the possible consequences of a delay. Ewa shows staff availability, the risks to quality and the possible phases of implementation. If a partial go-live is feasible, the company can offer the client a reduced scope by the original deadline and the rest later. If that is not possible, an honest renegotiation in line with the contract is needed. For the future, a simple rule is introduced: standard deadlines can be promised from an approved table, while non-standard ones require sign-off from the person responsible for delivery. Every offer should have its status and the person approving it on record. Once the project is finished, it is worth returning to three questions: what did we know, where was a decision missing, and how can we spot the risk earlier next time?

How to safeguard offers and still sell quickly

A company can publish a catalogue of standard lead times for which delivery has already confirmed capacity. Sales are entitled to promise these without a separate meeting. Orders above a value threshold, with a non-standard scope or with the shortest possible deadline need quick sign-off from the person responsible for resources. When a client presses for a date before approval, the salesperson can say: “I’ll check the team’s availability and confirm the date by tomorrow.” This is not a sign of negotiating weakness, but a promise that can be relied on. After a difficult implementation, the team holds a 30-minute debrief: what the client actually heard, where information was missing and what to change in the process. Apportioning blame is not rewarded at this meeting. If the two departments’ metrics remain in conflict, even the best communication script will not remove the source of the dispute. The decision to align them rests with the management board.

The client and the company have an interest in the same outcome: a promise that can be kept. Sales and delivery need a shared definition of a commitment and a clear right to approve non-standard deadlines. Once a contract has been signed, they should first agree how the order will be delivered, and only then close the gap in the process that led to the conflict.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Ewa is preparing for a meeting with Kamil and gives Em a factual description: the deadline in the contract, the lack of approval from delivery and the actual resource constraints. She asks for an opening that avoids the accusation “you always promise miracles”. Em helps her say: “I want to find an option that works for the client. Let’s first check what we’ve confirmed and what we can’t deliver yet.” Ewa then practises responding to Kamil’s concern that the client will cancel the contract. On the other side, Kamil can work with Em on how to present the client’s pressure without implying that delivery simply does not want to help. If the organisation has context available on how these two people work together, the tips can be tailored to their communication styles. After the conversation, both sides have a short list of agreed points and a joint message for the client. Em supports the preparation of the dialogue, but it is still the company that decides on the deadline and on who has the authority to approve it.