Building a Team of Leaders.

Article written by Multi Award Winning Leadership Coach, Nick Roud. August 18th, Auckland, New Zealand.

A leadership team is more than a collection of capable individuals. It is a system of relationships, decisions, conversations and shared accountability. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being truly amazing, how well is your team performing right now?

When that system works well, the organisation benefits from greater clarity, faster decision-making and stronger execution. When it does not, even highly experienced leaders can become isolated, defensive or overly focused on their own area of responsibility. With leaders ill prepared for the ebbs and flows of team work the last 12 months we have seen a growing demand for better alignment of teams. This isn’t a quick fix a few hours spent off-site no this is daily work that is required by one and all.

This is why building a team of leaders requires more than appointing talented people to a leadership group. It requires deliberate attention to how those leaders work together.

For Chief Executive Officers, HR Directors and senior executives, the question is not simply:

“Do we have good leaders?”

It is also:

“Do our leaders operate as a team?”

The difference between a leadership group and a leadership team

A leadership group consists of people who attend the same meetings. Typically a 9am stand up on a Monday morning!

A leadership team consists of people who share responsibility for the organisation’s most important outcomes. Typically this is elite performance in it’s raw state, emerging and setting high standards.

The distinction is significant.

A group may exchange updates, report on departmental activity and leave with a general awareness of what others are doing. A team goes further. It works through complex issues collectively, makes decisions together and accepts that organisational performance cannot be separated neatly into functional areas. As I observe these teams they are not afraid to place the elephant in the room and get to work on that one critical aspect. How have they gotten themselves to this level of team maturity? My observations over the past couple of years show

In a leadership team:

• The Chief Executive is not carrying the whole organisational strategy alone.
• The HR Director understands how people decisions influence operations, customer experience and financial performance.
• The Finance leader contributes to discussions about culture, capability and change.
• The Operations leader considers the workforce implications of delivery decisions.
• Each leader remains accountable for their function while also taking responsibility for the organisation as a collective whole.

This is the shift from functional leadership to enterprise leadership.

It is also where many leadership teams encounter difficulty.

Why leadership teams operate in silos

Silos rarely develop because people deliberately decide to undermine teamwork. More often, they emerge gradually through a combination of structural, cultural and behavioural factors. In my own observations they have been set up wrong. The intent is not aligned. Egos have been allowed to explode and certain voices have been smothered out over a period of time. Those leaders take the rooms lead rather than leading the room.

Functional accountability

Historically most leaders are appointed to lead a particular area. Their goals, budgets, reporting lines and performance measures are often tied to that function. I call this the head down bump up approach to a team. Nothing to see here let me just do my job Nick!.

This is reasonable and necessary. However, it can create an unintended message and this unravels when pressure is on, your first responsibility is to protect and advance your own area. Save face, protect your people.

Over time, leaders can begin to prioritise functional success over enterprise success. They may focus on securing resources for their team, defending their budget or delivering their own targets, even when a different decision would create greater value for the organisation overall.

Pressure and limited time

Senior leaders are often sharing with me in our 1:1 leadership coaching sessions managing competing demands, urgent issues and complex stakeholder expectations. When time is limited, collaboration can feel like an additional task rather than a critical part of the work.

A leader may think:

• “I will make the decision in my area and inform the team later.”
• “There is no time to consult everyone.”
• “This issue is primarily a people problem.”
• “That decision belongs to Operations.”
• “We can discuss the wider implications when things settle down.”

The problem is that leadership decisions rarely stay within one function. A decision about structure affects culture. A technology decision affects capability. A commercial decision affects workload, engagement and customer experience. Are you starting to see that at times team leadership is complex. But I believe whole heartedly that we can simplify this.

Previous experiences

Some leadership teams have inherited a history of mistrust, unresolved conflict or perceived competition. New members may also bring assumptions based on previous workplaces. Dysfunctional teams are deadly. They can break an organisation in months.

A leader who has experienced criticism for raising concerns may become cautious. Someone who has been rewarded for appearing decisive may interpret questions as resistance. A newly appointed executive may avoid challenging established views until they feel secure in the group. These patterns may not be discussed openly, but they still influence the way the team communicates. If you have ever witnessed first hand a disjointed team you will see firstly a lack of business trust (not people trust) business trust and there is a massive difference here.

Status and hierarchy

Leadership teams are not naturally equal spaces. The Chief Executive may hold ultimate authority. The Board Chair trumps that. Some leaders may have longer tenure, greater organisational influence or a stronger relationship with the board. So how can we bring about an even field to play on?

Hierarchy becomes a problem when it discourages honest contribution.

If team members only express agreement in the meeting and raise concerns privately afterwards, the team does not have genuine alignment. It has compliance, ambiguity or delayed disagreement.

Different priorities and language

Each function sees the organisation through a different lens. I often say if you are speaking French and your colleagues are speaking German then we have already got it wrong. This must be addressed if you are ever to build a team of leaders.

Finance may focus on sustainability, risk and return. People and Culture may focus on capability, engagement and organisational health. Sales may prioritise growth and customer relationships. Operations may focus on capacity, quality and consistency.

These differences are valuable. However, without a shared language and a common purpose, they can become competing interpretations of what matters most. Just to be very clear here, a common purpose must be reviewed each nudged along each quarter. Team who take a once a year one and done may also struggle to build a team of leaders.

Diversity of thought is an organisational asset (and this goes way beyond men + women).

A strong leadership team should not aim to think alike. It should aim to work well with difference.

Diversity of thought may arise from:

• Different professional disciplines.
• Different cultural and personal backgrounds.
• Different levels of organisational tenure.
• Different experiences of customers and stakeholders.
• Different approaches to risk.
• Different ways of interpreting data.
• Different leadership styles and decision preferences. Different stages of life. Recently I saw for the very first time of 10 years coaching the perfect formed team, it was a shock and a real pleasure to coach. I asked the team if I could bottle them 🙂

This diversity gives a leadership team access to a broader range of questions and possibilities. It can help the team identify risks earlier, challenge assumptions and develop more creative responses to uncertainty.

However, diversity does not automatically create better decisions.

Without trust, structure and psychological safety, difference can lead to withdrawal, misunderstanding or conflict. Research on diverse teams has found that psychological safety can help unlock the positive contribution of diversity by making it safer for people to offer ideas, questions and concerns. from hbs paper from INSEAD + Harvard Business School

The practical implication is important:

Difference creates potential. The way the team works together determines whether that potential becomes performance.

A leadership team should therefore make room for constructive disagreement. The goal is not to eliminate tension, but to make the tension useful.

A helpful question is:

“What are we not seeing because we are looking at this issue from only one perspective?”

Another is:

“Which assumption would we challenge if we were advising another organisation?”

These questions encourage leaders to contribute beyond their functional role.

The nuances that derail teamwork

Leadership team dysfunction is not always obvious. Most teams do not collapse in dramatic fashion. More often, small patterns accumulate until they begin to affect trust, speed and decision quality.

The meeting after the meeting

One of the clearest signs of limited alignment is the meeting after the meeting. A decision appears to have been made, but one or more leaders continue to question it privately. They may express concern to their own teams, delay implementation or wait for circumstances to change. This creates confusion throughout the organisation. Employees receive different messages from different leaders, and the executive team loses credibility.

A team does not need unanimous enthusiasm for every decision. It does need clarity about what has been decided, who owns the next action and how leaders will communicate it consistently. My view point is get 80% agreement and get on the bus, move forwards.

Selective information sharing

Silos are reinforced when information is treated as power. Leaders may share only what supports their position, provide updates without meaningful context or hold back information until they have developed a preferred solution. This limits the team’s ability to make sound decisions. It also encourages other leaders to behave in the same way.

Visibility is not the same as reporting. A series of functional updates may create the appearance of transparency while concealing the dependencies, risks and trade-offs that matter most.

Avoided conversations

Teams often spend too much time discussing safe topics and too little time addressing the real issue. If you are a leader and you are invited into the room – GET INTO THE ROOM AND GET TO WORK.

They may debate the detail of a project while avoiding the fact that two leaders do not trust each other. They may talk about employee engagement survey results without discussing the leadership behaviours contributing to the results. They may revisit a decision repeatedly because no one is willing to name the disagreement.

The cost of avoided conversations is usually paid later through delay, frustration and reduced performance. Typically brining in an external coach who can facilitate this will really help the team.

Over-reliance on the most senior voice

A strong personality can unintentionally dominate a leadership team. Others may defer, particularly if the leader has formal authority or a reputation for having the answer. This can create a narrow decision-making process. The team may move quickly, but it may not be moving wisely.

The role of the most senior leader is not to provide every answer. It is to create the conditions in which the best thinking can emerge and be translated into action. Set the field up with the right players makes for Building a team of leaders. First choice players must be in each area of the company. First choice means team players not individuals!

Confusing harmony with health

A team that never disagrees may appear cohesive. It may also be avoiding challenge. In a workshop recently I asked the leadership team, when was the last time you disagreed about something? Never Nick came the response from one, we don’t disagree. Well that changed quickly when we started to talk about profitability and people!

Healthy teams can hold different views while maintaining respect and commitment. They can debate the issue without attacking the person. They can change their minds when new information becomes available.

The objective is not harmony at any cost. The objective is constructive alignment.

Why perfect should not be the goal

Many leadership teams unintentionally pursue an unrealistic standard of perfection. We must aim for agreement not perfection.

They want every member to be fully aligned before a decision is made. They expect flawless communication, complete certainty and universal agreement. They may delay action because the discussion does not feel finished.

In a complex environment, perfect alignment is rarely possible. Take a company whose head offices are in France and they have global reach, multiple officers thousand of staff located in every corner of the world, we have to really take a step back and agree what is right for the future not the single country state.

There will always be incomplete information, competing priorities and unresolved questions. The more important capability is the ability to make a sound decision, act on it and learn from the results.

A useful alternative to perfection is disciplined progress.

This means asking:

• Do we understand the outcome we are trying to achieve?
• Have the relevant perspectives been heard?
• Have we identified the most significant risks?
• Is the decision clear enough to act on?
• Does everyone know what they are accountable for?
• Do we have a point at which we will review and adjust?

This approach allows the team to move forward without pretending to have certainty.

Perfection can also become a form of avoidance. If the team continues analysing every possible issue, it may be protecting itself from the discomfort of commitment.

Effective leadership teams accept that decisions can be both thoughtful and provisional. They create feedback loops rather than waiting for perfect conditions.

How team coaching makes a difference

Individual coaching helps leaders examine their own behaviour, mindset and effectiveness.

Team coaching focuses on the team as a collective system. It helps leaders understand not only what they do individually, but also what they create together.

Team coaching may explore:

• The team’s shared purpose.
• The quality of relationships.
• Decision-making practices.
• Patterns of conflict and avoidance.
• The balance between challenge and support.
• How information is shared.
• How accountability is maintained.
• Whether the team is working on strategic priorities or becoming absorbed in operational detail.

A team coach does not become the team’s problem-solver. Instead, the coach helps the team observe itself more accurately and take responsibility for improving how it operates. Like a great conductor the coach read’s the room. Shares the mirror and allows space to breathe.

This external perspective can be particularly valuable for newly formed leadership teams. When people are still learning how to work together, they may not have the language or confidence to discuss their emerging patterns. A coach can introduce structure, challenge assumptions and create a neutral space for honest conversation.

Team coaching can also help established teams that have become stuck. The team may know that meetings are unproductive or that decisions are not being implemented, but not understand why. Coaching can make the invisible dynamics visible.

Creating better visibility

Visibility is a foundation of effective teamwork.

Leaders cannot make enterprise-level decisions if they do not understand what is happening beyond their own function. Team coaching can help establish a more useful definition of visibility. Visibility is not about everyone knowing every detail. It is about ensuring that the team can see the information required to make good decisions.

This includes:

• Emerging risks.
• Cross-functional dependencies.
• Resource constraints.
• Stakeholder concerns.
• Decisions that may create unintended consequences.
• Progress against strategic priorities.
• Issues requiring collective ownership.

A team coaching process may introduce simple disciplines, such as a shared agenda built around enterprise priorities rather than departmental reporting. Leaders may be asked to bring one significant risk, one cross-functional dependency and one decision requiring collective input.

These practices shift the conversation from:

“Here is what my function has been doing.”

To:

“Here is what the leadership team needs to understand, decide or address.”

That shift can significantly improve the quality of the conversation.

Building alignment without uniformity

Alignment does not mean that every leader has the same opinion.

It means leaders understand the decision, its rationale, the trade-offs involved and their role in delivering it.

A well-aligned team can say:

• “I had a different view, but I understand the decision.”
• “I know what is expected of my function.”
• “I will communicate this consistently to my team.”
• “I will raise concerns early if new information changes the situation.”
• “We will review the outcome rather than defend the original decision indefinitely.”

This form of alignment is more robust than superficial agreement.

Team coaching helps establish the conditions for it by encouraging leaders to distinguish between three stages of conversation:

1. Exploration, where different perspectives and information are welcomed.
2. Decision, where the team determines a course of action.
3. Commitment, where leaders take shared responsibility for implementation.

Teams often struggle because they move between these stages without recognising it. A leader may continue debating after the decision has been made, while another assumes commitment has already occurred.

Making the stages explicit creates greater clarity.

Shorter meetings that drive outcomes

The goal should not be shorter meetings for their own sake.

A meeting is valuable when it produces clarity, decisions, ownership or learning. It is wasteful when it simply transfers information that could have been read elsewhere.

Many leadership meetings become lengthy because they are trying to perform too many functions at once: My invitation is less is more, great teams work on one thing and they do one thing exceptionally well then move to the next, rinse and repeat.

• Functional reporting.
• Strategic discussion.
• Problem-solving.
• Decision-making.
• Relationship repair.
• Information sharing.
• Status updates.
• Accountability reviews.

Team coaching can help separate these purposes and redesign the meeting rhythm.

A more effective leadership meeting might include:

• A brief review of the organisation’s most important outcomes.
• A focused discussion on two or three strategic issues.
• Clear identification of decisions required.
• Explicit ownership of actions.
• A review of unresolved risks and dependencies.
• A final check on what will be communicated and to whom.

Information that does not require discussion can be circulated in advance. Meeting time can then be reserved for matters requiring judgement, challenge and collective ownership.

Shorter meetings emerge when the team has developed better habits:

• Preparation before the meeting.
• Clear decision rights.
• Direct conversation.
• Fewer repetitive updates.
• Active listening.
• A willingness to close issues.
• Consistent follow-through.

The most important measure is not meeting length. It is the value created per meeting.

A practical team coaching focus

For a newly formed leadership team, the following questions can provide a useful starting point:

Purpose

Why does this team exist beyond sharing information?

What outcomes require the collective leadership team rather than one individual leader?

Contribution

What does each person need from the team to perform effectively?

What does the team need from each person?

Behaviour

What behaviours will build trust?

What behaviours will damage it?

How will the team respond when commitments are missed?

Challenge

How will disagreement be encouraged?

How will the team prevent challenge from becoming personal or destructive?

Decisions

Which decisions belong to the team?

How will decisions be made?

What does commitment look like after a decision?

Visibility

What information must be shared early?

What risks should never be carried by one function alone?

Review

How will the team know whether it is improving?

When will it pause to examine its own effectiveness?

These questions are not a one-off exercise. They need to become part of the team’s ongoing operating rhythm.

The role of HR and People leaders

For HR Directors, Heads of HR and Chief People Officers, leadership team effectiveness is a significant organisational priority. I have met with a number of organisations here in New Zealand and across the ditch in Australia where HR doesn’t have a seat on the executive table! Interesting view on the Board’s approach to people!.

The leadership team sets the tone for culture, accountability and employee experience. If senior leaders operate in silos, those silos are likely to be reproduced throughout the organisation.

Employees notice when leaders send contradictory messages. They notice when one function is blamed for an issue that requires collective ownership. They notice when leaders speak about collaboration but compete for influence behind closed doors.

HR and People leaders can help by:

• Making leadership team effectiveness part of the organisation’s people strategy.
• Connecting team behaviour to business outcomes.
• Using engagement and culture data as prompts for leadership discussion.
• Supporting leaders to address conflict early.
• Encouraging shared accountability for employee experience.
• Ensuring leadership development includes collective, not only individual, capability.
• Helping the team establish practical ways of measuring progress.

This work should not be framed as a remedial intervention for a “difficult” leadership team. Every leadership team benefits from periodically examining how it works.

The more senior the team, the greater the organisational consequences of its behaviour.

Building a team that can lead together

Building a team of leaders is not about creating a group that agrees on everything.

It is about creating a group that can think together, decide together and act together while retaining the diversity of perspective required for sound leadership.

The strongest leadership teams are not perfect. They still experience pressure, disagreement and uncertainty. The difference is that they have developed the capacity to work through those challenges without retreating into silos.

They make the important issues visible.

They create space for different perspectives.

They address tension before it becomes dysfunction.

They distinguish between debate and disunity.

They make decisions without waiting for certainty.

They hold one another accountable for the outcomes that matter most.

And they continue learning about how they work together.

For a newly formed leadership team, this capability will not develop by accident. It requires intentional conversations, practical operating agreements and a willingness to examine the team as carefully as it examines the organisation.

A conversation worth having

If your leadership team is new, growing or experiencing pressure, consider asking:

“What would become possible if we operated less as individual leaders and more as one leadership team?”

The answer may reveal opportunities to improve visibility, reduce duplication, strengthen alignment and make better use of valuable meeting time.

At Nick Roud Coaching, we work with leaders to build the trust, clarity and collective accountability required for meaningful organisational outcomes. Through tailored coaching, leaders can develop more productive conversations, stronger alignment and a shared commitment to leading beyond their individual functions.

If your leadership team is operating in silos, spending too much time in meetings or struggling to convert discussion into action, contact Nick Roud Coaching to arrange an initial conversation about what your team needs next.

Thanks for reading I hope it educates and builds your leadership effectiveness.

Nick