Over the years, I’ve worked with many organizations that have talented, experienced executives but struggle because those individuals aren’t functioning as a cohesive leadership team. They tend to operate in silos, hesitate to speak candidly about difficult issues, or rely too heavily on the CEO to make decisions. I’ve seen how these problems can undermine an organization’s performance.
Because I’ve encountered this challenge so often, I put together a short executive guide called Leading Together specifically for my clients. My goal was to help leadership teams recognize where they might be struggling and offer practical ideas for working together more effectively. I wanted to share this resource with you as well, and I hope you find it helpful.
The work only a leadership team can do
Organizations bring experienced executives together because some of their most important challenges cannot be resolved within a single department or business unit. Each leader may perform exceptionally well in their own area, yet the organization can still struggle when priorities compete, decisions affect several functions, or important information remains separated across the business. The distinctive value of a senior leadership team lies in its ability to address those points of interdependence.
Consider a decision that promises to improve one department’s results but creates additional work or risk elsewhere. The individual executive may have good reasons to favor it. Colleagues may see consequences that are not apparent from that executive’s vantage point. Bringing those perspectives together can reveal a better course of action, or at least make the trade-offs explicit. This requires members to understand their own responsibilities while also considering how their choices affect the organization as a whole.
The benefit of collective judgment, however, depends on using it selectively.
Organization-wide priorities, significant trade-offs, and decisions with broad consequences may warrant the attention of the full group. A question involving two closely connected areas may be better handled by those executives directly. Many operational decisions should remain with the person closest to the work who has the relevant authority. The number of people involved should reflect what the decision needs, rather than the seniority of the people available.
A useful starting question for any executive team is therefore: What do we need to accomplish together that would be difficult to accomplish separately? A clear answer helps the group devote its limited time to consequential issues, while leaving individual leaders free to act. Without that distinction, leadership meetings can become a mixture of status updates, routine approvals, and discussions whose purpose is unclear.
The quality of the conversation determines the quality of the information
Even when the right people are in the room, the group may not benefit from what they know. Important concerns can remain unspoken. Assumptions may go untested. A discussion may end in apparent agreement while members privately hold different views. The problem is not necessarily a lack of expertise; it is that the group has not brought its available knowledge into the decision.
Candor is the willingness to contribute relevant information, raise a concern, or challenge an idea when doing so may be uncomfortable.
It is especially valuable before consequential decisions, when a different perspective can still change the outcome. Constructive disagreement is not an argument to be won. Its purpose is to test the reasoning, expose risks, and improve the quality of the group’s judgment. That requires people to distinguish criticism of an idea from criticism of the person offering it.
Speaking openly also depends on how the discussion is conducted. People are more likely to contribute when questions are genuine, opposing views receive a fair hearing, and uncertainty can be acknowledged without embarrassment. They are less likely to contribute when a meeting moves too quickly, an issue appears to have been settled in advance, or disagreement is met with defensiveness. Silence can arise from several causes, including time pressure and unclear expectations; it should not automatically be interpreted as a lack of trust.
Members have responsibilities on both sides of the exchange.
Those who see a concern should raise it clearly and early enough to be useful, preferably with evidence and an alternative when possible. Those receiving a challenge should try to understand it before responding. A question such as “What are we missing?” or “What could go wrong with this approach?” can make it easier to examine an issue without making the conversation personal.
The aim is neither constant debate nor comfortable agreement. Effective teams make room for different views when the stakes warrant it, work through the differences, and then move forward. A useful test is whether people leave the discussion believing their perspective was genuinely considered, even if the final decision was not the one they preferred.
Better decisions without more bureaucracy
Once the group has surfaced the relevant information, another question becomes essential: Who is responsible for making the decision? Seeking input, sharing responsibility for implementation, and holding final decision authority are different roles. Confusing them creates delays. People may believe they have a vote when they have been asked for advice, or assume a decision requires broad approval when one person is accountable for making it.
Decision authority also needs to match the consequences of the choice. Routine, reversible decisions can often be made quickly by an accountable individual. Decisions involving significant risk, competing organizational priorities, or substantial commitments may require wider consideration. The goal is not to create a complicated classification system. It is to develop a shared understanding of when an issue should be handled individually, by a small group, or by the full leadership team.
Clarity matters after the decision as well.
A productive discussion can still lead to poor execution if participants leave with different interpretations of what was decided. Before moving on, the group should be able to state the decision, identify who is responsible for the next steps, establish when those steps will occur, and determine who needs to know. Those few moments of confirmation can prevent repeated conversations and unnecessary rework.
There is also an important distinction between disagreement before a decision and commitment afterward. Leaders should be expected to challenge assumptions while the decision is being considered. Once a legitimate decision has been made, they should support its implementation rather than reopen the same debate in other settings. That commitment does not require ignoring new evidence or concealing material risks. It means addressing new concerns through the appropriate channels while honoring the decision and the responsibilities that follow from it.
What members owe one another
A leadership team’s effectiveness ultimately depends on what happens between its meetings. Commitments made around the table must translate into coordinated action. When responsibilities intersect, members need to share relevant information, anticipate effects on colleagues, and raise obstacles before they become larger problems. Reliable performance in individual roles remains essential, but collective results also depend on how well those roles connect.
Mutual accountability is sometimes misunderstood as peers policing one another. In a strong team, it is more practical than that. Members make their commitments visible, follow through, ask for help when needed, and respectfully address gaps that affect shared work. A colleague who raises a missed dependency early is protecting the outcome, not intruding on someone else’s territory. The same is true of offering assistance when another area faces an unexpected constraint.
These expectations should influence how the group spends its time.
Information that can be read in advance may not need an extended presentation. Issues that require debate deserve enough room for genuine discussion. Decisions need an identified owner and a clear conclusion. Periodically, the team should also examine whether its meeting practices and working relationships are helping it accomplish the work that matters most.
There is no single formula for how every senior leadership team should operate. The appropriate balance of discussion, autonomy, coordination, and oversight depends on the organization and the decisions at hand. But the central discipline is consistent: use collective attention where it improves outcomes, make room for honest thinking, clarify who decides, and follow through together. These are practices that a leadership group can examine and improve deliberately.
