Why Your Team’s Not Working: How CEOs Can Foster World-Class Leadership Teams

As one CEO told us after taking her team through the exercise of defining their vision and mission, "The bigger we think, the easier things tend to get." Carving out time to consider the big picture opens the team up to all kinds of different possibilities — unexpected partnerships, creative solutions to vexing problems — that might never emerge when the team is caught up in the internal day-to-day issues that narrow their perspective.

CEOs often assume that the vision and mission of the senior leadership team are self-evident, but it is not unusual for different executives to have varying views on the team’s purpose. When the specific role of the team in achieving business goals isn’t explicitly stated — and translated into objectives for each member of the team — it can slow decision-making, cause teams to work at cross-purposes and make it harder to get the right things done.

What kind of leadership team does our business need?

Teams can be more like golf teams — where individuals compete more or less individually and their scores are tallied — or like American football teams, where action is highly coordinated, and if one person misses an assignment, the play will fail.

The golf team model can be appealing because it’s clear: everyone has a specific job, things get done, and it’s easy to see each person’s “score” based on the performance of the parts of the business the individual is managing.

Today, however, more unity and collaboration among management teams are required. Market forces require that organizations be able to change very quickly and they can't do that working in silos.

The highest-performing leadership teams recognize their shared responsibility in reading the external context for the business and shepherding the organization to get the outcomes their strategy requires. Together, they set direction and strategy and help define and role model a culture that supports the strategy. They do this through the people they lead and the processes and structures they establish. They also keep an eye on the organization’s informal routines and communications to make sure they are helping to drive the right outcomes.

Do we have the right people?

The new CEO of a South African insurance company recognized that conflicts on his team were keeping them from working together on some key priorities. That this group would have disagreements and misunderstandings wasn’t altogether surprising, given that the leadership team had been assembled from the combination of formerly separate companies and included a mix of expats and locals. The CEO suspected that the team’s problems stemmed from lingering mistrust between groups of different backgrounds. Our diagnostic revealed something quite different: in fact, regardless of their background, executives on the team were frustrated about the underperformance of one person that wasn’t being addressed.

It’s not uncommon for CEOs to underestimate the disruption caused by the behavior or underperformance of a few people on the team. CEOs may over-focus on individual outcomes rather than the leadership behaviors that affect team responsibilities and dynamics. They may lack visibility into who is carrying more than their share of team responsibilities, or who is regarded as a less reliable player by their peers. Or they may not have a good sense of what best-in-class looks like in individual functional roles, especially those who have spent their entire careers in one organization.

Members of the top leadership team not only should be experts in their domain, but also be able to contribute credibly to key business issues outside of their specific area of expertise. CEOs should make sure they understand the strengths and weaknesses of individual team members and how their styles help or hinder the collective work of the team. Executive assessments, including external benchmarking, and a team diagnostic can surface weaknesses in capabilities, problematic behavior or differences in work styles and communication styles that can be addressed.

Does the team hold one another accountable for shared responsibilities?

Every member of a CEO’s team is responsible both for their specific operational or functional area and the enterprise-level responsibilities they share as a team. But teams sometimes don’t explicitly define the aspects of the organization that they will co-own and co-create or hold themselves accountable for making progress on these shared responsibilities. Other times, teams over focus on short-term priorities to the exclusion of the long-term vision they should be working toward together.

Frustrated that the organization wasn’t making progress on key business priorities, the CEO of an energy company determined that members of his team were more focused on their respective areas and individual agendas than their shared responsibilities. He decided to use a culture change initiative to help align the team, assigning each person as a sponsor for specific projects requiring collaboration across the business — such as increasing agility in the organization and improving cross-functional interactions.

Finding ways to bring the team together around a shared goal — such as culture change or long-term “blue sky” planning — can reinforce the leadership team’s shared responsibilities and provide a platform for team members to agree on how they will individually support the enterprise goals. The CEO’s role is to ensure the team remains anchored to the longer-term vision and how to get there, even as they tackle short-term goals.

Do we make decisions and stick with them?

The best teams actively debate issues and then come together to work toward what was agreed upon. Some teams, though, don’t fully deliberate — sometimes because leaders avoid challenging their peers, choosing to “pick their battles,” and sometimes because of behind-the-scenes agreements not to challenge one another’s projects. On other teams, too much time is spent driving consensus without coming to agreement. The CEO’s role is to make sure that diverse perspectives are heard and that debates lead to decisions.

Once a decision is made, the team is responsible for carrying it out. Some organizations have trouble making progress on enterprise-level initiatives because team members “re-negotiate” the decision behind the scenes. They drag their feet on change, and, with a wink and nod, maintain the status quo. More effective teams encourage rich debate about issues, but once a decision is made, team members are committed to defending and carrying out the decision, both publicly and privately.

All eyes are on the management team, so dissent or a lack of commitment to a decision at the top team level cascades through the organization, crippling its ability to act. The team should role model and embody the direction they have agreed to take and collectively agree on how they will communicate the decision to the organization, considering questions like: How are we going to talk about the key objectives outside of this room? How will we respond to specific questions or concerns? What are the practical implications of this decision for my business unit or function? What will we do — or stop doing — to model the behaviors we want to encourage?

Are we making the most of meeting time?

A common complaint about teams is that meetings become platforms for updates on individual functional and business unit results or devolve into lower-level problem solving. In more command-and-control style teams, for example, team members may wait for the CEO to signal his or her view. Or they are reluctant to raise concerns in a group setting, and a “you leave my turf alone and I’ll leave yours alone” mentality emerges.

Some CEOs are comfortable with the go-around-the-room approach to meetings, believing it helps shine a light on problems the team is having. But this approach can waste an enormous amount of energy and encourage politicking, as individuals scramble to prepare their updates and practice in anticipation of every possible challenge.

Ideally, team meetings provide an environment where leaders can raise questions about key team issues, ask for help solving the problems they’re facing and focus on the work that only they can do — cross-enterprise direction-setting, resource-sharing, prioritization and road block removal. Everyone’s engaged and contributing, and the team is drawing on all the minds around the table. The CEO’s role is to set the agenda for their meetings, keep discussions focused and make sure they lead to decisions, and ensure that there are agreed-upon norms for meeting behavior, such as attendance, participation and even cell phone use.

Are we better together?

High-performing teams bring out the best in one another. They work in concert on shared goals and priorities. Individuals on these teams trust one another, communicate effectively and deal with conflicts constructively.

Teams build trust not just through familiarity — knowledge gained over time about one another’s personal preferences, styles and how they’ll react in certain situations — but by the willingness to be vulnerable within the team. Individuals feel safe sharing thoughts and doubts without fear of criticism or backlash. Low-performing teams have an atmosphere of distrust and cynicism; they feel restrictive and there is no multiplying effect where the sum is greater than the parts.

High-performing teams also interact differently from lower-performing teams. On high-performing teams, individual leaders balance advocacy — pushing individual points of view — with inquiry, listening to and building upon the opinions and ideas of others. They are outward looking — focused on clients, markets and competitors — and prioritize the needs of the overall business over their individual department or business unit. For example, a leader might be willing to give up head count in his or her own department to serve a greater business purpose. They also use much more positive than negative language, and they don’t slip into bad habits when challenges arise or they are under increased pressure.

CEOs help create this environment by inviting the team into the dialogue. They model an open, transparent way of interacting, putting issues on the table, openly discussing the wins and the challenges of the business as a whole and its individual parts. They provide opportunities for the team to get to know one another on a more personal level and build trust. They have a pulse on interpersonal dynamics and how individuals on the team are feeling. CEOs also should consider how their leadership style affects these team dynamics, being willing to adjust the style based on the situation.

Conclusion

High-functioning senior teams that are aligned behind a clear vision and mission for the business have a multiplying power. Their influence radiates throughout the organization, influencing the decisions, behaviors, engagement and work of people at every level. CEOs should consider what kind of team they need for the business and how to foster the environment that makes that kind of team possible. Finally, fostering a high-performing team is a continual process, requiring ongoing coaching, regular interactions, and clarity of purpose and mission.

The myths that can hurt team performance