Go-to-Market teams, while essential for business growth, frequently encounter a range of challenges that can hinder their effectiveness and even lead to failed product launches. One of the most common problems, and arguably most critical, is the internal disconnect between Marketing, Sales, and R&D teams.
In fact, according to our latest market research – Mural’s 2025 Global Go-to-Market (GTM) Alignment Gap Index – a striking 85% of teams report ongoing organizational misalignment, even when 85% express confidence in their GTM strategies. This huge difference between perception and reality is so alarming that we named it the “85/85 Go-to-Market Alignment Gap.”
The global survey dug deeper into the causes of misalignment, and to no one’s surprise, decision makers and individual contributors frequently disagree on the causes. What leaders think is happening often differs considerably from the reality experienced by employees on the ground.
This stark difference in reality causes a deep enough gap between contributors and decision makers, impacting their business and working relationships. If you want to fix this, you must first address where and why the disagreement exists and create concrete, actionable strategies to bridge the perception gap and drive greater workplace efficiency.
Understanding organizational misalignment
The survey explored six causes of organizational misalignment, and respondents could select more than one answer. The leading cause cited by 43% of all participants was “difficulty in clear communication between teams.” Notably, this was the top reason for both decision makers and individual contributors. The second-leading cause to emerge from the survey: “Complexity of internal & external coordination needed.” 38% of respondents selected this, and decision makers and contributors were closely aligned.
But leaders and individual contributors didn’t see eye to eye on the remaining four causes of internal disconnect. Decision makers are twice as likely (43%) to attribute misalignment to a lack of clear strategy and goals compared to individual contributors (22%). Decision makers are also more than twice as likely to attribute it to unclear deadlines and priorities (24% vs 10%). These initial findings suggest that decision makers seem to focus more on top-of-the-funnel issues when it comes to the impact of misalignment
Additionally, 35% of decision makers blamed misalignment on the absence of a clear and effective GTM process to follow, compared to 25% of individual contributors. There was also a 10 percentage point gap on the cause described as “large & frequent organizational changes,” with 25% of decision makers ticking this box, compared with 15% of contributors. With decision makers attributing misalignment to strategic and organizational issues, could this mean that they’re missing the forest for the trees?
The research also examined a business problem known as “collaboration drag,” which refers to the friction that arises when teams try to work together but are bogged down by too many meetings, too much peer feedback, too many decision makers, and too much time spent getting buy-in from stakeholders. Leaders (55%) and contributors (46%) both cited unclear decision-making authority as the biggest challenge to cross-functional collaboration. When there is confusion over who is responsible for what, decision-making becomes slow and inefficient.
Participants said “too much time spent getting buy-in from stakeholders” was the second biggest contributor to collaboration drag. This can lead to missed deadlines and increased project costs. But decision makers (54%) were much more likely to cite this as a reason than contributors (38%). Both groups generally agreed that too many meetings and too much feedback were obstacles to collaboration.
Why leaders and individual contributors disagree on misalignment causes
Bringing some order to the chaos is imperative, or GTM teams will behave like a Roomba stuck in a corner of a room. But first, let’s examine why and how disagreement between decision makers and employees manifests.
As previously mentioned, decision makers tend to operate at a strategic, high-level view. They see the overall company goals, financial performance, and external market pressures. Their focus is often on the "what" (what needs to be achieved), and they might assume the "how" is being effectively executed by their teams. They might rely on reports and dashboards, which can sometimes abstract the messy reality of day-to-day operations.
Individual contributors, on the other hand, experience the day-to-day operational realities, the direct impact of processes, tools, and communication flows. They see the workplace inefficiencies, the communication gaps, the resource constraints, and the direct impact on their ability to do their job and serve customers. Their focus is more on the "how" and "why" their immediate work environment functions (or doesn't).
Cross-functional collaboration is also hard to pull off in practice because of the information gap between leaders and employees. Leaders often have access to more complete information about company strategy, financial health, and future plans. They might assume that this information trickles down effectively. What usually ends up happening, however, is that employees, especially in larger organizations, may only receive filtered or fragmented information, leading to an imbalance in understanding about the bigger picture and how their work contributes. For example, a marketing decision maker, along with their colleagues in leadership, has decided on a company-wide campaign. They know the goals of said campaign and how they feel it should be done. As the campaign strategy trickles down, goals might become miscommunicated, prioritizations can become muddled, and ownership of individual tasks might get juggled; all resulting in a breakdown of collaboration.
These issues might then result in disagreements. In such cases, disagreements are the result of role-based priorities. Decision makers and contributors have distinct responsibilities and expectations, which influence how they interpret events. As we said earlier, leaders prioritize long-term strategic goals, while individual contributors might focus on immediate customer needs. This can result in misunderstandings and conflict if not recognized and addressed
How can decision makers and contributors identify organizational misalignment? There are symptoms that are as recognizable as the signs of the common cold. Missed deadlines. Duplicated efforts. Inefficient workflow. Slow decision-making. These symptoms can have a negative effect on employees who constantly battle internal friction and see their efforts undermined. This can create a vicious cycle of poor performance, low morale, and turnover that ultimately derails a company’s ability to acquire, retain, and grow its customer base.
Actionable strategies to foster alignment
Working across functions can be messy, political, and frustrating. But fostering GTM alignment is critical to ensuring the right product reaches the right audience at the right time. Our global survey identified several solutions and asked participants to select ones that would better align GTM teams.
The top three solutions for breaking down functional barriers were:
- Being able to track and report on the same metrics (31%)
- Having a central system for cross-functional collaboration (31%)
- Understanding key moments to collaborate with my go-to-market teams (30%)
This question seemed to resonate more with decision makers than with individual contributors. That should come as no surprise because it’s generally the responsibility of decision makers to fix the broader collaboration environment.
These solutions will only work, however, if GTM leaders start by transparently communicating vision and goals. Clear explanations of the “why” behind the GTM strategy create a shared understanding and sense of purpose. From there, teams can co-create the specific methods and approaches that they will use to reach and acquire customers. In addition to empowering teams with autonomy and accountability, leaders need to break down traditional silos between departments by establishing clear processes for communicating and working together.
Having centralized tools to collaborate can improve alignment. Dashboards that display shared KPIs, journey maps that illustrate the customer experience across touchpoints, and visual collaborative platforms provide a central source of truth from which decisions get buy-in and are made.
By actively addressing organizational misalignment, GTM teams can move from fragmented efforts to a synchronized, customer-centric approach that drives sustainable growth.
View Mural’s full 2025 Global Go-to-Market (GTM) Alignment Gap Index for additional survey insights and guidance on achieving GTM alignment.
