Leadership Fallout : Dysfuntionalities in the Top Management
In the quest for exceptional performance, CEOs and executives frequently neglect a pivotal aspect of organizational success: the well-being of their leadership teams. This oversight poses a significant challenge, as a dysfunctional team can severely hinder strategic execution and diminish morale. Moreover, the effectiveness of a senior leadership team can ultimately determine the success or failure of a CEO’s tenure. In a recent study conducted by HBR, wherein they interviewed more than 100 CEOs and senior executives in a multiyear research program, many executives disclosed that their teams faced numerous internal challenges that impeded effective collaboration. For understandable reasons, most CEOs are reluctant to publicly address issues within their leadership teams. However, in my experience, dysfunction is alarmingly prevalent in most organizations. Rather than collaborating to promote their organization’s interests, many teams engage in procrastination, political maneuvering, unproductive debates, and complacency, all of which adversely affect the companies they are meant to lead.
These leadership team dysfunctions can be classified on the basis of 3 primary dysfunction patterns:
- The first, marked by internal conflict and political maneuvering, is referred to as a “shark tank.”
- The second, characterized by a tendency to avoid conflict and an excessive focus on collaboration, is known as a “petting zoo.”
- The third pattern, defined by complacency, incompetence, and an unhealthy fixation on past achievements, is termed a “mediocracy.”
Each of these dysfunctions adversely impacts team and organizational performance, proving to be equally disruptive.
The Shark Tank
The top leadership team typically comprises highly ambitious individuals, leading to inevitable competition among them. This competition can manifest in efforts to promote their ideas, secure limited resources, or achieve promotions. While some level of competition is healthy and essential for fostering innovation and driving results, unchecked rivalry can spiral into a self-serving and destructive frenzy. In such an environment, meetings transform into battlegrounds for personal agendas, decisions are made through power struggles rather than collaborative discussions, and teams struggle to reach consensus and effectively execute strategic initiatives. This is the reality of life in the shark tank.
What causes leadership teams to transform into shark tanks? Research indicates that this often occurs when the CEO or the executive in charge fails to establish clear direction, set boundaries, and address emerging aggressive behaviors among team members. Even one rogue individual who acts in self-interest can prompt others to abandon their collaborative spirit, ultimately harming morale and team effectiveness. For instance, team members might start approaching the CEO individually to discuss matters that should be addressed in group meetings. They may also engage in negotiations or power struggles outside of formal discussions, sidestepping collaborative debate on critical decisions.
Another red flag is when decision-making devolves into heated arguments, or when even simple decisions become contentious tug-of-war scenarios. Executives may continue to question and criticize plans after they have been established or resist implementing them unless compelled. Additionally, they might begin to speak negatively about one another and form alliances against perceived rivals, prioritizing personal interests over the collective well-being of the team.
The Petting Zoo
The second pattern of dysfunction is characterized by an overly deferential approach to collaboration. While cooperation is vital for a healthy team, when leadership team members prioritize maintaining a facade of harmony over engaging in vigorous debate, organizational performance can suffer. What those trapped in the petting zoo often overlook is that executive work is inherently confrontational. The challenges faced by top teams rarely have straightforward solutions; if they did, they would have been resolved at lower organizational levels.
To tackle these complex issues, leadership team members must engage in active sparring. They need to challenge each other’s ideas, question assumptions, and push back during discussions. Even as they collaboratively work towards a common goal, they are driven by the dynamics of conflict, competition, and ambition. When these elements diminish, the result is a petting zoo, where ineffective niceness prevails. Team members shy away from confrontation, meetings become echo chambers, ideas go unchallenged, and decisions lack thorough critical evaluation. Consequently, teams miss out on opportunities for innovation, renewal, and growth.
Given the ambitious and competitive nature of most leadership teams, why do some devolve into petting zoos? Often, it stems from the team leader placing excessive emphasis on collaboration. While mutual trust and openness—essential components of collaboration—require vulnerability, team members who challenge or confront their colleagues may be perceived as exploiting that vulnerability for personal gain, even if their intentions are to benefit the team. On the surface, the leadership team may seem to function smoothly. Signs to watch for include subdued discussions, a lack of emotional engagement, and minimal robust debate. Often, the leadership team is unwilling—or unable—to engage in candid discussions to arrive at the best solutions. Instead of addressing issues directly, executives may engage in performance theater, emphasizing positive news while downplaying problems. You may also observe team members negotiating projects and decisions in private conversations to avoid conflict during meetings.
The Mediocracy
While the first two patterns of dysfunction arise from an overemphasis on either competition or collaboration, the third pattern occurs when neither is sufficiently prioritized. In this scenario, team members lack the skills or motivation necessary to enhance individual unit performance, and there is minimal collaborative spirit among the executives. As a result, they operate in silos, which hampers synergy and leads to duplicated efforts and missed opportunities.
In mediocracies, there is a disconnect between what the team needs to achieve and what it is capable of accomplishing. Prolonged periods of success can contribute to this issue: rather than challenging themselves and devising plans to address future demands, teams may become complacent, fixated on past achievements, and develop an unhealthy preference for the status quo. Additionally, problems can arise from a leader who allows the team to split into two factions — one favoring competition and the other favoring collaboration. Mediocracies can also emerge when leaders fail to adapt to changing circumstances. Teams that perform well in stable environments may struggle during economic downturns, while those suited for leading turnarounds may not be effective in guiding steady growth.
Recommendations
If you detect any of these warning signs, you’ll have to figure out how to get your team back on the path to high performance. How you do that depends on which kind of dysfunction you’re dealing with. Research suggests that it’s often a lack of clarity—strategic, operational, and behavioral—that paves the way for leadership-team dysfunction. Without clearly defined expectations, team members struggle to understand their roles and how their efforts contribute to the bigger picture. No matter what kind of dysfunction a company may need to address, there are several general steps that all leaders should take to ensure the health of their teams:
- Develop a clear vision and purpose: Articulate a compelling vision for your tenure that provides a road map for decision-making and creates a sense of shared purpose.
- Focus on alignment: Populate your team with people whose skills and temperament align with your vision and purpose. Make sure they possess backgrounds, experiences, and strengths that will contribute to the team’s collective success.
- Outline responsibilities: Clearly define goals, roles, and decision-making authority in order to avoid confusion and wasted effort.
- Establish behavioral norms: Make clear what norms you expect your team to observe, and encourage members to do so through coaching, role modeling, and giving individual and team feedback.
There is no organization that does not have dysfunctional teams, and tackling dysfunction within your leadership team can be challenging, as it involves making difficult decisions about those you collaborate with closely. However, this makes it all the more essential to put aside personal biases and adopt a more analytical and logical method by identifying the specific dysfunction affecting your team, and then implement a focused strategy to resolve it. By doing so, you will be better positioned to lead a team that can elevate your organization’s performance to new heights.
