How Work Styles Inform Leadership

 by Alison Beard

STRATEGY

Adam Malamut

Chief Customer Experience Officer, Marriott

Two years ago, when I was chief talent officer for Marriott, I was tasked with streamlining and modernizing our learning and development capabilities. I’d assembled a new team and wanted to make sure we understood one another, our roles and responsibilities, and our strategic objectives before embarking on this journey. We used the personality style framework not only to understand our own strengths and weaknesses and how to work more effectively together but also to identify where we needed to augment the team and what we could realistically accomplish in our first year, and then our second.

As one of the initial steps in the strategic planning process, everyone considered their own profiles and those of their respective teams and started to staff them more appropriately. For example, the groups working on the design and development of our learning content and delivery approaches had a strong Guardian and Driver orientation; they needed to be pushed from a creative standpoint, so we added a Pioneer to lead an arm of that team. And when I staffed the group charged with the detail-oriented and collaborative process of organizing and integrating our learning and delivery offerings, I made sure to include Guardians and Integrators. As a Pioneer and Driver, I need those types around me personally, too.

Now I’m in a new role—chief customer experience officer—and getting ready to launch a series of change initiatives following our merger with Starwood. My peers and I—a group of seven senior leaders—plan to use this approach to improve collaboration as we develop and execute on our strategic plans.

MANAGING UP AND DOWN

Elizabeth Bryant

Vice President, Southwest Airlines University

When I took the personality style test six months ago—along with about 50 other senior Southwest executives—I had a real “aha” moment. The surprise wasn’t my own results: I’m strong on both the Pioneer and Integrator scales—a strategist and a communicator. It was that I hadn’t been thinking carefully enough about how to temper those tendencies for people with different styles.

For example, my boss—who leads corporate services—is more of a Driver, so I can’t just talk through the vision of a particular initiative with him. I need to make it very clear that we’re hitting our milestones: “Here’s what we’ve accomplished, and here’s where we’re going.”

We’re both paying more attention to the mix of styles on our leadership team, too. It’s the two of us plus three Integrators, so we all need to put our Guardian hats on once in a while to make sure that we’re gathering the data, protecting our history and culture, and moving at the right pace.

I’ve also had my direct reports take the assessment, and I’ve learned that they’re mostly Integrators. That’s great, but I’m conscious that we need some Driver behavior as well: A goal is just a goal until you make it happen. My husband reminded me of this the other day. We’d been house hunting, and I’d found the perfect place for us to buy, so I felt my work was done. But then he said, “You know, Elizabeth, it’s great that you have this vision and go after it, but then everyone around you has to get to work. I’m the one who has to deal with the realtor, the lawyer, the inspector.” I shared this story with my team and asked that they tell me when an idea I suggest sounds challenging—or even impossible. And I’m now more conscientious when thinking out loud. Something I ask about offhandedly could, for an Integrator, Driver, or Guardian, be understood as an important to-do item.

HIRING AND JOB CRAFTING

Greg Keeley

Executive Vice President, American Express

I took the assessment as part of an executive evaluation, and I expected my results to show that I’m 100% Driver, because that was my role at American Express. But I was strongest on the Pioneer scale. This showed me that although I was doing what the firm needed me to do, many of the behaviors I’d adopted didn’t reflect who I really am.

I shared the findings with my boss and my team and asked my direct reports to take the test. I was pleasantly surprised by the diversity in our group and soon realized that I could dial down the Driver aspects of my job. Of course, we still had product, process, and revenue goals to hit, but I could use a scorecard to track those, delegate some duties, and spend more time on new-product development and strategy.

When I did, my job satisfaction shot way up. I’m in the same role, with the same boss and team, but I have so much more passion and energy than I did before. I’ve even changed the way I introduce myself to new colleagues or vendors. Before a meeting starts, I take a few minutes to say, “Here’s how I tend to think and act…” and I ask them to do the same for me. It’s a shortcut to better communication and engagement.

And personality now informs how I think about assignments, promotions, and hiring. When I was recently trying to fill a role, I met with a strong candidate who took the assessment and came up as a Driver/Guardian. But the job required vision and coordination with other groups. What I needed was a Pioneer/Integrator. I modified the job description and finally found the right person. The Driver/Guardian took a position in the company more suited to his personality. I’d love to see middle managers adopt this sort of thinking—they oversee an estimated 80% of the workforce—because it’s fundamental leadership training. You need to know who you are before you know what you can become.

TEAMWORK

Charles Derosa

U.S. Treasurer, National Grid

I’ve now led three teams at National Grid, ranging from about 25 people to about 200. I always talk to my staff about personality styles, because I believe it helps people work together more effectively.

I’m a Driver, one of those personalities that can push people hard. I like facts and figures, and goals and objectives. My natural instinct is to skip small talk. One of my bosses is a Pioneer; he enjoys brainstorming. One of my direct reports is an Integrator, who wants to make sure every view is expressed. Other people on my team are Guardians. They’re very reliable but not always flexible, and they often play devil’s advocate. To function effectively, we need to recognize and appreciate everyone’s style and to have open discussions about our differences: What does each of us like? And what really bugs us? This enables us to be more thoughtful in our interactions.

Since we started having these conversations, the people on my team have adapted their styles a bit: The Guardians recognize that their behavior can seem defensive, and they try to avoid ruffling feathers while still conveying important messages. The Drivers now show more patience. When dealing with me, everyone prepares more thoroughly and tries to get to the point more quickly. I have adapted as well; in the past I’d get frustrated, but now I realize how important each style is in reaching the best decision. And when the group has personality conflicts, I do my best to facilitate progress. In the end, we’re all better able to work together toward our goals and those of the department.

It’s human nature to gravitate toward people with work styles similar to our own. But there will always be (and we benefit from) personality diversity in the workplace. I believe in providing the right opportunity to all types.

DECISION MAKING

Gary Pilnick

Vice Chairman, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Kellogg

Executives need to be thinking in all four quadrants of personality when they’re making big decisions. For example, I’m a Pioneer/Integrator, which means I need to flex to Driver and Guardian mindsets sometimes. Otherwise all I’m doing is dreaming and talking to people. When I’m working with a fellow Pioneer/Integrator, I need to ask, “Where’s your data?” and set firm deadlines. With a Driver, I’ll say, “OK, we’ve clarified objectives and the schedule. What experts should you consult with now? Who needs to be informed?” With a Guardian, it’s about focusing on results: “Are we pushing hard enough?”

Because my team has been through the assessment process, we can all talk this way now. In a recent meeting with one of my leaders, we started by “pioneering” together, then I was reminded “OK, it’s time to ‘drive’ and make a decision.” And we did it with smiles on our faces.

Of course, it’s nice to lean into your dominant style, and most of us do when we’re under stress. But we all are able to shift mindsets, or think like the others, when we’re reminded to. It’s not like trying to write with the wrong hand. It’s more like going a little faster or slower than normal on the highway, or taking a new route to work. It feels different and maybe a little uncomfortable, but it’s not awkward. I’ve worked for several Pioneer/Drivers over the years, and I wouldn’t have survived without the ability to get things done. I have a strong Pioneer in a key compliance role, but I wouldn’t want anyone else because she can flex into Guardian when necessary. And I have a Driver on my team who now recognizes that he can deliver faster results with more-lasting outcomes by slowing down and getting colleagues to collaborate.

I see this framework as one way to move all our departments toward a more agile culture that values quick yet informed decisions. It’s a blueprint for touching all the bases.

Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team - Patrick Lencioni

Patrick Lencioni’s book, Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, is a very helpful and practical guide to overcoming the five most destructive traits in teams and learning how to become and maintain the best team possible. Though this book is primary focused on teams that work together in a secular work place, the information is also very applicable to teams found in churches, non-profits, and even within relationship structures like marriage and family. Patrick writes, “Teamwork remains the one sustainable competitive advantage that has been largely untapped.”

A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL

     As difficult as teamwork can be to achieve, it is not complicated. And so, if I can’t describe it in a page or two, then I’ve probably made it too complex. Here goes.
     The true measure of a team is that it accomplishes the results that it sets out to achieve. To do that on a consistent, ongoing basis, a team must overcome the five dysfunctions listed here by embodying the behaviors described for each one.

▲ Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust: Members of great teams trust one another on a fundamental, emotional level, and they are comfortable being vulnerable with each other about their weaknesses, mistakes, fears, and behaviors. They get to a point where they can be completely open with one another, without filters. This is essential because . . .

▲ Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict: . . . teams that trust one another are not afraid to engage in passionate dialogue around issues and decisions that are key to the organization’s success. They do not hesitate to disagree with, challenge, and question one another, all in the spirit of finding the best answers, discovering the truth, and making great decisions. This is important because . . .

▲ Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment . . . teams that engage in unfiltered conflict are able to achieve genuine buy-in around important decisions, even when various members of the team initially disagree. That’s because they ensure that all opinions and ideas are put on the table and considered, giving confidence to team members that no stone has been left unturned. This is critical because . . .

▲ Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability: . . . teams that commit to decisions and standards of performance do not hesitate to hold one another accountable for adhering to those decisions and standards.What is more, they don’t rely on the team leader as the primary source of accountability, they go directly to their peers.This matters because . . .

▲ Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results: . . . teams that trust one another, engage in conflict, commit to decisions, and hold one another accountable are very likely to set aside their individual needs and agendas and focus almost exclusively on what is best for the team.They do not give in to the temptation to place their departments, career aspirations, or ego-driven status ahead of the collective results that define team success.

That’s it.

The author uses a pyramid structure to illustrate the importance and priority of each dysfunction. The first dysfunction that the team must overcome and is illustrated as the foundation is, “absence of trust.” Trust is the foundation of the team as Lencioni states, “No quality or characteristic is more important than trust.”

KEY POINTS—BUILDING TRUST

▲ Trust is the foundation of teamwork.

▲ On a team, trust is all about vulnerability, which is difficult for most people.

▲ Building trust takes time, but the process can be greatly accelerated.

▲ Like a good marriage, trust on a team is never complete; it must be maintained over time.


Secondly, the most important dysfunction to overcome is the “fear of conflict” because without healthy confrontation the team cannot truly grow past their individual disagreements and unify their best ideas.

KEY POINTS—MASTERING CONFLICT 

▲ Good conflict among team members requires trust, which is all about engaging in unfiltered, passionate debate around issues. 

▲ Even among the best teams,conflict will at times be uncomfortable. 

▲ Conflict norms, though they will vary from team to team, must be discussed and made clear among the team. 

▲ The fear of occasional personal conflict should not deter a team from having regular, productive debate.

Next, “lack of commitment” needs to be overcome because if a team is not equally committed to accomplishing their tasks they will never achieve their goals.

KEY POINTS—ACHIEVING COMMITMENT 

▲ Commitment requires clarity and buy-in. 

▲ Clarity requires that teams avoid assumptions and ambiguity, and that they end discussions with a clear understanding about what they’ve decided upon. 

▲ Buy-in does not require consensus.Members of great teams learn to disagree with one another and still commit to a decision.

Second from the peak is “avoidance of accountability” because for each team member to give his or her best to the team they must be personally assessed, critiqued, and encouraged.

KEY POINTS—EMBRACING ACCOUNTABILITY 

▲ Accountability on a strong team occurs directly among peers. 

▲ For a culture of accountability to thrive, a leader must demonstrate a willingness to confront difficult issues. 

▲ The best opportunity for holding one another accountable occurs during meetings, and the regular review of a team scoreboard provides a clear context for doing so.

Lastly, but not the least important, just simply the last thing to do in an effective team, is to overcome “inattention to results” because without team assessments and goal reviews the team cannot achieve its goals and reach beyond them.

KEY  POINTS — FOCUSING  ON  RESULTS

▲ The true measure of a great team is that it accomplishes the results it sets out to achieve.

▲ To avoid distractions, team members must prioritize the results of the team over their individual or departmental needs.

▲ To stay focused, teams must publicly clarify their desired results and keep them visible.

TEAM PROBLEM SOLVING

The book takes time to give practical insight to establishing each level of the healthy team pyramid by correcting the dysfunctions. In other words, the book instructs the reader on what to do right by avoiding the common pitfalls. The book ends with giving the reader a basic “Team Building Field Plan” regarding how to build a successful team on good practices that will help insure a strong foundation. Most of the insight in the plan is common sense and probably will not strike the reader as, “new information.” However, I do believe the chart and brief description regarding “Conflict Resolution” is very good and insightful.

Basically, Lencioni illustrates getting to the “heart of the matter” with circles within circles getting smaller as one gets closer to the resolution. The four main circles are:

1. Individual Obstacles
2. Relationship Obstacles
3. Environmental Obstacles
4. Informational Obstacles

Therefore, when a team can properly understand and move effectively through the various obstacles they can truly resolve the conflict in a beneficial and efficient way for the team to achieve its goals.

Organisational Structure

What is organisational structure?


Organisational structure refers to the levels of management and division of responsibilities within a business, which could be presented in an organisational chart.


For simpler businesses in which the owner employs only himself, there is no need for an organisational structure. However, if the business expands and employs other people, an organisational structure is needed. When employing people, everybody needs a job description. These are its main advantages:

• People who apply can see what they are expected to do.
• People who are already employed will know exactly what to do.

Here is an example of a Job Description taken from the book:

When there are more than one person in a small business and they all do different things, it means that they are specialising in different jobs.

Delegation

Delegation refers to giving a subordinate the responsibility and authority to do a given task. However, the final responsibility still lies with the person who delegated the job to the subordinate. Here are the advantages of delegation for managers and employees, as well as why some managers choose not to delegate.

Pros for the manager:

• By letting subordinate do smaller tasks, managers have more time to do more important tasks.
• Managers are less likely to make mistakes if tasks are done byspecialist employees.
• Managers can measure the success of their task more easily.

Pros for the subordinates:

• Work becomes more interesting and rewarding.
• Employees feel important and trusted.
• Helps train workers, giving them better career opportunities.

Why some managers don't want to delegate:

• Managers are afraid that their employees will fail.
• Managers want total control.
• Managers are scared that the subordinate will do tasks better than them, making them feel insecure.

Delegation must mean:

• A reduction in direct control by managers or supervisors.
• An increase in trust of workers by managers or supervisors.

Organisational charts

Eventually, when a business grows larger and employs many people, they will have to create an organisational chart to work out a clear structure for their company. Here is another example of an organisational chart from the book:

Here are the most important features of the chart:

• It is a hierarchy. There are different levels in the business which has different degrees of authority. People on the same level have the same degree of authority.
• It is organised into departments, which has their own function.
• It shows the chain of command, which is how power and authority is passed down from the top of the hierarchy, and span of control, meaning how many subordinates one person controls, of the business.

Advantages of an organisational chart:

• The charts shows how everybody is linked together. Makes employees aware of the communication channel that will be used for messages to reach them.
• Employees can see their position and power, and who they take orders from.
• It shows the relationship between departments.
• Gives people a sense of belonging since they are always in one particular department.

Chain of command and span of control:

Here are two organisations, one having a long chain of command and the other a wide span of control. Therefore, the longer the chain of command, the taller the business hierarchy and the narrower the span of control.  When it is short, the business will have a wider span of control. 


In recent years, people have began to prefer to have their business have a wider span of control and shorter chain of command. In some cases, whole levels of management were removed. This is called de-layering. This is because short chains of commands have these advantages:

• Communication is faster and more accurate. The message has to pass through less people.
• Managers are closer to all employees so that they can understand the business better.
• Spans of control will be wider, meaning that the manager would have to take care of more subordinates, this makes:
• The manager delegate more, and we already know the advantages of delegation.
• Workers gain more job satisfaction and feel trustedbecause of delegation.

However, if the span of control is too wide, managers could lose control. If the subordinates are poorly trained, many mistakes would be made.

Functional departments

Here is an example of an organisational chart from a larger business from the book:

Here are they key features of this graph:

• The business is divided into functional departments. They usespecialists for each job and this creates more efficiency. However, workers are more loyal to their department than to the organisation as a whole. Therefore, conflict can occur between different departments. Managers working in these departments are called line managers, who have direct authority and the power to put their decisions into effect over their department.
• Not only are there departments, there are also other regional divisionsthat take care of outlets that are situated in other countries. They use the local knowledge to their advantage.
• There are some departments which do not have a distinctive function but still employs specialists and report directly to the CEO/Board of Directors. These departments are the IT department, and theEconomic Forecasting department. Some say the HR department fits in this category. These departments give specialist advice andsupport to the board of Directors and line managers, and the managers of these departments are called staff managers. They are often very highly qualified personnel who specialises in only their area. 

Here are the pros and cons of employing staff managers:

Pros:

• Staff managers help and provide advice for line managers on things such as computer systems.
• Helps line managers concentrate on their main tasks.

Cons:

• There may be conflict between the two groups on important decisions and views.
• Line employees may be confused and do not know who to take orders form, line or staff managers.

Decentralisation

Decentralisation refers to a business delegating important decisions to lower divisions in the business. In a centralised structure important decisions are taken at the centre, or higher levels of management.

Advantages of a decentralised structure:

• Decisions are made by managers who are "closer to the action".
• Managers feel more trusted and get more job satisfaction due todelegation.
• Decisions can be made much more quickly.
• The business can adapt to change much more quickly.

Decentralisation means that:

• Less central control.
• More delegation.
• Decisions taken "lower down" in the organisation.
• Authority given to departments/regions

Different forms of decentralisation:

• Functional decentralisation: Specialist departments are given the authority to make decisions. The most common of these are:
• Human Resources.
• Marketing.
• Finance.
• Production.
• Federal decentralisation: Authority is divided between differentproduct lines. e.g separate truck/car/bus divisions.
• Regional decentralisation: In multinationals, each base in each country has authority to make its own decisions.
• Decentralisation by project means: For a certain project, decision-making authority is given to a team chosen from all functional departments.

Is complete decentralisation a good idea?

It is dangerous to let the lower-level management make all the decisions. Therefore, it is wise for the central management to decide on major issues, long-term decisions, growth and business objectives. If these issues are notcentralised then there would be a lack of purpose or direction in the business.

Three steps to building a better top team

When a top team fails to function, it can paralyze a whole company. Here’s what CEOs need to watch out for.

byMichiel Kruyt, Judy Malan, and Rachel Tuffield

Few teams function as well as they could. But the stakes get higher with senior-executive teams: dysfunctional ones can slow down, derail, or even paralyze a whole company. In our work with top teams at more than 100 leading multinational companies,¹ including surveys with 600 senior executives at 30 of them, we’ve identified three crucial priorities for constructing and managing effective top teams. Getting these priorities right can help drive better business outcomes in areas ranging from customer satisfaction to worker productivity and many more as well.

1. Get the right people on the team . . . and the wrong ones off

Determining the membership of a top team is the CEO’s responsibility—and frequently the most powerful lever to shape a team’s performance. Many CEOs regret not employing this lever early enough or thoroughly enough. Still others neglect it entirely, assuming instead that factors such as titles, pay grades, or an executive’s position on the org chart are enough to warrant default membership. Little surprise, then, that more than one-third of the executives we surveyed said their top teams did not have the right people and capabilities.

The key to getting a top team’s composition right is deciding what contributions the team as a whole, and its members as individuals, must make to achieve an organization’s performance aspirations and then making the necessary changes in the team. This sounds straight-forward, but it typically requires conscious attention and courage from the CEO; otherwise, the top team can underdeliver for an extended period of time.

That was certainly the case at a technology services company that had a struggling top team: fewer than one in five of its members thought it was highly respected or shared a common vision for the future, and only one in three thought it made a valuable contribution to corporate performance. The company’s customers were very dissatisfied—they rated its cost, quality, and service delivery at only 2.3 on a 7-point scale—and the team couldn’t even agree on the root causes.

A new CEO reorganized the company, creating a new strategy group and moving from a geography-based structure to one based on two customer-focused business units—for wholesale and for retail. He adapted the composition of his top team, making the difficult decision to remove two influential regional executives who had strongly resisted cross-organizational collaboration and adding the executive leading the strategy group and the two executives leading the retail and the wholesale businesses, respectively. The CEO then used a series of workshops to build trust and a spirit of collaboration among the members of his new team and to eliminate the old regional silo mentality. The team also changed its own performance metrics, adding customer service and satisfaction performance indicators to the traditional short-term sales ones.

Customers rated the company’s service at 4.3 a year later and at 5.4 two years later. Meanwhile, the top team, buoyed by these results, was now confident that it was better prepared to improve the company’s performance. In the words of one team member, “I wouldn’t have believed we could have come this far in just one year.”

2. Make sure the top team does just the work only it can do

Many top teams struggle to find purpose and focus. Only 38 percent of the executives we surveyed said their teams focused on work that truly benefited from a top-team perspective. Only 35 percent said their top teams allocated the right amounts of time among the various topics they considered important, such as strategy and people.

What are they doing instead? Everything else. Too often, top teams fail to set or enforce priorities and instead try to cover the waterfront. In other cases, they fail to distinguish between topics they must act on collectively and those they should merely monitor. These shortcomings create jam-packed agendas that no top team can manage properly. Often, the result is energy-sapping meetings that drag on far too long and don’t engage the team, leaving members wondering when they can get back to “real work.” CEOs typically need to respond when such dysfunctions arise; it’s unlikely that the senior team’s members—who have their own business unit goals and personal career incentives—will be able to sort out a coherent set of collective top-team priorities without a concerted effort.

The CEO and the top team at a European consumer goods company rationalized their priorities by creating a long list of potential topics they could address. Then they asked which of these had a high value to the business, given where they wanted to take it, and would allow them, as a group, to add extraordinary value. While narrowing the list down to ten items, team members spent considerable time challenging each other about which topics individual team members could handle or delegate. They concluded, for example, that projects requiring no cross-functional or cross-regional work, such as addressing lagging performance in a single region, did not require the top team’s collective attention even when these projects were the responsibility of an individual team member. For delegated responsibilities, they created a transparent and consistent set of performance indicators to help them monitor progress.

This change gave the top team breathing room to do more valuable work. For the first time, it could focus enough effort on setting and dynamically adapting cross-category and cross-geography priorities and resource allocations and on deploying the top 50 leaders across regional and functional boundaries, thus building a more effective extended leadership group for the company. This, in turn, proved crucial as the team led a turnaround that took the company from a declining to a growing market share. The team’s tighter focus also helped boost morale and performance at the company’s lower levels, where employees now had more delegated responsibility. Employee satisfaction scores improved to 79 percent, from 54 percent, in just one year.

3. Address team dynamics and processes

A final area demanding unrelenting attention from CEOs is effective team dynamics, whose absence is a frequent problem: among the top teams we studied, members reported that only about 30 percent of their time was spent in “productive collaboration”—a figure that dropped even more when teams dealt with high-stakes topics where members had differing, entrenched interests. Here are three examples of how poor dynamics depress performance:

The top team at a large mining company formed two camps with opposing views on how to address an important strategic challenge. The discussions on this topic hijacked the team’s agenda for an extended period, yet no decisions were made.

The top team at a Latin American insurance company was completely demoralized when it began losing money after government reforms opened up the country to new competition. The team wandered, with little sense of direction or accountability, and blamed its situation on the government’s actions. As unproductive discussions prevented the top team from taking meaningful action, other employees became dissatisfied and costs got out of control.

The top team at a North American financial-services firm was not aligned effectively for a critical company-wide operational-improvement effort. As a result, different departments were taking counterproductive and sometimes contradictory actions. One group, for example, tried to increase cross-selling, while another refused to share relevant information about customers because it wanted to “own” relationships with them.

CEOs can take several steps to remedy problems with team dynamics. The first is to work with the team to develop a common, objective understanding of why its members aren’t collaborating effectively. There are several tools available for the purpose, including top-team surveys, interviews with team members, and 360-degree evaluations of individual leaders. The CEO of the Latin American insurance company used these methods to discover that the members of his top team needed to address building relationships and trust with one another and with the organization even before they agreed on a new corporate strategy and on the cultural changes necessary to meet its goals (for more on building trust, see “Dispatches from the front lines of management innovation”). One of the important cultural changes for this top team was that its members needed to take ownership of the changes in the company’s performance and culture and to hold one another accountable for living up to this commitment.

Correcting dysfunctional dynamics requires focused attention and interventions, preferably as soon as an ineffective pattern shows up. At the mining company, the CEO learned, during a board meeting focused on the team’s dynamics, that his approach—letting the unresolved discussion go on in hopes of gaining consensus and commitment from the team—wasn’t working and that his team expected him to step in. Once this became clear, the CEO brokered a decision and had the team jump-start its implementation.

Often more than a single intervention is needed. Once the CEO at the financial-services firm understood how poorly his team was aligned, for example, he held a series of top-team off-site meetings aimed specifically at generating greater agreement on strategy. One result: the team made aligning the organization part of its collective agenda, and its members committed themselves to communicating and checking in regularly with leaders at lower levels of the organization to ensure that they too were working consistently and collaboratively on the new strategy. One year later, the top team was much more unified around the aims of the operational-improvement initiative—the proportion of executives who said the team had clarity of direction doubled, to 70 percent, and the team was no longer working at cross-purposes. Meanwhile, operational improvements were gaining steam: costs came down by 20 percent over the same period, and the proportion of work completed on time rose by 8 percent, to 96.3 percent.

Finally, most teams need to change their support systems or processes to catalyze and embed change. At the insurer, for example, the CEO saw to it that each top-team member’s performance indicators in areas such as cost containment and employee satisfaction were aligned and pushed the team’s members to share their divisional performance data. The new approach allowed these executives to hold each other accountable for performance and made it impossible to continue avoiding tough conversations about lagging performance and cross-organizational issues. Within two years, the team’s dynamics had improved, along with the company’s financials—to a return on invested capital (ROIC) of 16.6 percent, from –8.8 percent, largely because the team collectively executed its roles more effectively and ensured that the company met its cost control and growth goals.

Each top team is unique, and every CEO will need to address a unique combination of challenges. As the earlier examples show, developing a highly effective top team typically requires good diagnostics, followed by a series of workshops and field work to address the dynamics of the team while it attends to hard business issues. When a CEO gets serious about making sure that her top team’s members are willing and able to help meet the company’s strategic goals, about ensuring that the team always focuses on the right topics, and about managing dynamics, she’s likely to get results. The best top teams will begin to take collective responsibility and to develop the ability to maintain and improve their own effectiveness, creating a lasting performance edge.

About the authors

Michiel Kruyt is an associate principal in McKinsey’s Amsterdam office, Judy Malan is a principal in the Johannesburg office, and Rachel Tuffield is an alumnus of the Sydney office.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Carolyn Aiken, a principal in McKinsey’s Toronto office, and Scott Keller, a director in the Chicago office.