Cross-Cutting Management. Expectations and Results

The increasing complexity of our society is forcing public organisations to take a fresh look at the mechanisms by which they structure their government processes, and to seek new forms of organisation that will give them a wider range of performance. Cross-functionality, or cross-functional management, sometimes implemented in mainstreaming or cross-cutting issues, is probably one of the most significant and complex of these new ways of working.

Cross-cutting management is designed to overcome the limitations of the traditional departmental structuring of public organisation when relating to groups of the population or implementing policies that cannot be sectorized. As well as the traditional “functional” policies (human resources, corporate communications, corporate information systems, etc.), there is a growing need for new policies directly linked to social priorities, but for which departmentalised treatment is not appropriate. Gender equality, environmental sustainability, anti-poverty measures and policies for the elderly are all examples of new political challenges that cannot be allocated to any one ministry. Cross-cutting management has been welcomed as an adequate response to the question.

However, experience increasingly indicates that cross-cutting management is not living up to expectations. What is not clear is whether its poor results are due to structural weakness, inadequate conceptualisation or failures in implementation. The most popular hypothesis is that the latter two factors are to blame. Not only has cross-cutting management raised expectations out of all proportion to its ability to deliver, the way it is implemented often simply reproduces traditional departmentalist patterns.

If good use is to be made of the potential of cross-cutting management, its nature must be thoroughly understood and its specific input identified. As an organisational instrument it is essentially a “soft” mechanism, for use in analysis, strategic design, horizontal cooperation, social relationship and evaluation. What it cannot provide is an alternative to operational management, service production, policy implementation or resource management, all functions that must still be allocated to the stable vertical structure of the public organisation.

This special nature must also be borne in mind when designing the operational management of cross-cutting. Cross-cutting organs do not have a sectorized focus, nor do they fit into the organisation in the same way as their vertical counterparts. Rather than having executive or operational functions they contribute to strategic design and knowledge creation. If this special nature is understood, they will find their place within the organisation. If not, internal inconsistencies may arise between cross-cutting and vertical organs, neutralizing any possible advantages and creating unsustainable organisational costs. Those responsible for cross-cutting management in public corporations must establish exactly what their objectives and working methods are if they are to ensure its positive contribution both to the organisation as a whole and to the ground-level departments.