What's a good way to approach decisions that other teams feel they should own vs. Demand Gen feels they should own?

I am fortunate to be a part of a journey where both the span and the scope of what a Demand generation team does have evolved over time. In my experience, the role of what a Demand gen team does will and should change as the organization matures. In the early days, in most orgs, Demand gen manages all things that touch a buyer - SEO, Website, Performance marketing, and Content marketing. As the org evolves, the role gets elevated in a few areas but leaner in others. For example, the concept of Integrated Campaigns/storytelling gets introduced, which becomes the primary driver of marketing-sourced revenue. At the same time, the organization hires experts to lead Website experience & strategy, and this role could move out and live under a separate team (product management or brand marketing). 

Two good ways to approach these decisions:

1. Be aware of your place under the sun: It is important to know where your organization is (what's working and not; how is marketing perceived internally; what should change) and map this intelligence to your current role and how it needs to evolve so you are able to add more value to the organization while still being in the same role

2. Do not negotiate on 'positions': The standard method of approaching these discussions is usually based on a 'position' that you and the other team choose to take. The more extreme these positions, the longer the time and effort it will take to discover whether an agreement is possible. It could also put your relationship in danger. What's worked for me in the past is to insist on a 'common criteria' that defines success for the business. Let's say you define the 'common criteria' as improving website conversion by X% and engagement by Y%. Which is a better team to own this initiative, and has the bandwidth, the better team structure, and capable and experienced resources?

A successful integrated marketing plan takes a village of marketers across a myriad of functions and specialties. When there are unclear swim lanes, I tend to like to address where the confusion lies and build a slide that defines the RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted, informed). If this doesn't help resolve, then I also request to sit down with the partner and document out the process. Often times, I find the confusion in ownership lays in mis-alignment on definitions of certain commonly used terms and the process itself.

Make a business case as to why the Demand Gen team should own the decision. This means making an argument based on the positive business impact or outcomes that will occur if the Demand Gen team makes this decision. This argument could include specifics like what skillsets/experience you have on the team, what information or tools you're armed with that other teams aren't, what kind of insights you have about your customers/clients, or what other work is connected to this decision that will benefit from the Demand Gen team's ownership and guidance.

It needs to be about what's best for the business and your customers/clients. That is how you move forward without making it political internally. If it's always about what is best for the customer/client/business, then teams should be able to remove their ego from the task and move forward together.

Start by establishing swimlanes with all key stakeholders and leaders, not just within Demand Gen. Map out the teams and define distinct areas of responsibility and roles within the wider organization to ensure that each team knows what they are accountable for. This involves creating boundaries around tasks, projects, and functions to minimize overlap and confusion. Document these roles and review them at least once a quarter, adjusting as needed. Additionally, don’t be afraid of conflict. By embracing disagreement and talking through it, you can build more trust with your internal partners and gain new perspectives that may lead to shifts in organizational planning or responsibilities, ultimately benefiting everyone.

Always approach the discussion with an open mind to understand the “why” behind the ask. When people come to you asking about ownership it may be to create clarity, remove duplicative work, or something else. Once you understand the “why” you can start to dive into the specifics of the project workflows and areas of ownership to have a discussion on the “how” to solve it. This then becomes a discussion on the process, pieces of the project, and potentially re-reviewing a RACI built previously. If this impacts headcount or resources leadership may need to weigh in. By coming in with a curious mindset, I’ve found people are excited to be heard, and you learn how to work better together and build a try compromise where needed. 

A good way to approach decisions that other teams feel they should own is to first start by opening up the lines of communication with transparency. The approach may be different if this is an established function versus a newer function that is being formed. Either way this comes down to communication and collaboration.

It’s important to note this can be a difficult conversation. Have a clear answer for the “why” or purpose. Why do you feel that X team should own the decision? What form of ownership best supports the overarching company goals? Transparency in these answers is helpful.

In an ideal scenario everyone would be in agreement, but this is often not the case. If communicated from a transparent perspective from an executive or leadership level, it may be the case where everyone isn’t in harmonious agreement. This has to be grounded in respect and empathy knowing where someone is coming from.