Many board members and C-suite executives recognize the telltale signs of an underperforming leadership team. Meetings drag on with little to show for it, the same few voices dominate discussions, and decisions are revisited over and over. These symptoms are more than just frustrating – they’re costly. Studies show that executives spend an average of 23 hours per week in meetings, yet 71% of senior managers feel those meetings are unproductive. Even when decisions are made, follow-through falters: in one survey, only 17% of executives strongly agreed their team members hold one another accountable, and just 30% believed there are no hidden agendas on their team leadership  Lack of trust and clarity can cripple a leadership team’s effectiveness. (Tellingly, only 14% of senior leaders feel truly comfortable openly challenging or disagreeing with their peers leadership) It’s no wonder many leadership teams leave value on the table – and in today’s environment, that’s a risk companies can’t afford.

The New Reality: Perform and Transform. Leading a company has never been more complex. In a fast-changing, always-on global market, leadership teams face a dual mandate: deliver near-term performance while also driving long-term transformation. They must hit quarterly targets and adapt to disruptive trends like technological shifts, evolving customer expectations, and economic uncertainties. The need for continuous reinvention is so pervasive that it can no longer be relegated to occasional one-off projects – transformation has become a constant, core part of doing business. Yet, most executive teams are still primarily geared toward “running the business” (performance) and struggle to simultaneously “change the business” (transformation). The result? Many change efforts fall flat. In fact, research finds that only about 1 in 4 large-scale transformations succeeds in delivering lasting value, meaning roughly 75% of transformation initiatives fail to meet their goals. In this climate, an effective leadership team isn’t a “nice to have” – it’s essential for survival. To navigate relentless change, the top team must operate in unison, aligning quickly on strategic shifts and modeling adaptability for the entire organization.

So why do even well-intentioned leadership teams falter? Our experience and research point to three core reasons – and they suggest what executive teams must do differently to become a truly unified “super team” that can both perform and transform.

1. Shift from Star Players to One Enterprise-First Team

Most executives rise to the C-suite by being outstanding individual leaders – essentially superheroes for their business unit or function. They’re used to excelling in their domain, defending their team’s interests, and swooping in to put out fires. But what makes someone a great division leader can hinder their effectiveness on the enterprise leadership team. When each executive focuses only on their own turf, the LT (leadership team) becomes a loose federation of “superheroes” rather than a cohesive super team. Silos form, turf wars erupt, resources get hoarded, and decisions stall as members protect their “home base.” As one leadership coach bluntly put it, leaders must shift from “my team versus your team” thinking to “we are one team”. In practice, that means adopting an enterprise-first mindset in every discussion.

Put the Enterprise First. Executive teams should consciously reframe every decision: What is the right move for the organization as a whole? This can require painful trade-offs. If what’s best for the enterprise conflicts with what’s best for an individual leader’s department, an enterprise-first team will choose the greater good – even if it means diverting resources away from a pet project or scaling back one division’s budget. As difficult as this is, the payoff is huge: companies with highly aligned leadership teams grow revenue 58% faster and are 72% more profitable than those with misaligned teams. Alignment at the top drives tangible results. Every director and CEO should keep this in mind: a true leadership team can outperform a collection of star players.

Achieving this mindset often starts with explicitly setting expectations. Many CEOs now tell new executives that their “first team” is the executive leadership team, not the function they manage. In other words, as a member of the LT, your primary loyalty is to the collective mission and vision of the enterprise. To reinforce this, some organizations tie incentives to enterprise outcomes – for example, flipping performance metrics so that a larger portion of bonuses comes from overall company results, not just individual unit results. Leaders who continue to act as lone warriors quickly find that behavior corrected (or, if it persists, see themselves eased out).

Break down the silos. When the top team commits to an enterprise-first approach, they begin breaking the cycle of siloed thinking. They move from “many agendas” to a single shared agenda. A practical step is to agree on a common North Star – a clear, compelling organizational purpose and a few top enterprise-wide priorities that everyone rallies around. Then, they must translate that shared vision into concrete decisions about where to focus and where not to. Leadership teams can ask themselves a few hard questions to clarify this:

  • What are the truly critical issues and initiatives that we as a team must tackle together (versus those better delegated to others)?
  • Which decisions absolutely require our level of oversight, and which decisions will we empower our next-level leaders to make?
  • What metrics will define success for us as an enterprise (beyond our individual departmental KPIs)?
  • What key messages do we need to communicate with one voice to the rest of the organization, so everyone understands the direction and priorities?

By collectively answering these questions, the LT defines its mandate and avoids getting pulled into every operational detail. High-performing teams keep their eyes on the big rocks – the strategic choices and cross-cutting challenges that only they can resolve – and trust their people to handle the rest. As one CEO explained, “We set the strategy and key priorities together. Once we agree, we don’t micromanage execution in each area – we let the responsible leader run with it. But we all stay accountable for the end result.” That level of trust and clarity prevents the top team from drowning in minutiae. It also gives rising leaders room to make decisions and develop, creating a stronger leadership bench for the future.

2. Align Strategy, Trust, and Execution – The “Head, Heart, and Hands” of a Super Team

Operating as a unified team requires more than just good intentions – it demands that the leadership team excel on multiple fronts at once. A useful way to think about the critical attributes of an effective executive team is in three categories: Head, Heart, and Hands.

  • Head (Strategic Alignment): The “Head” of the team is about having a shared brain for the business – aligning on vision, strategy, and priorities. This means team members collectively commit to a common purpose and clear goals for the enterprise. They also establish robust decision-making processes. With complexity and uncertainty the norm, the best teams continually bring in outside-in perspectives – market trends, customer insights, external experts – to inform their strategy. They debate issues rigorously but then speak with one voice once a decision is made. Crucially, a leadership team must also decide what not to do: which legacy projects or lower-value activities to halt or hand off so they can focus on what matters most. (As the saying goes, strategy is as much about choosing what not to do as it is about what to do.) When the “Head” is working, the organization gets crystal-clear direction from the top. Yet many teams struggle here: roughly 60% of executives admit that at least half the time they spend on decision-making is ineffective. An aligned team addresses this by clarifying who decides what, streamlining meetings, and making sure every meeting ends with explicit next steps. (Indeed, failure to do so is epidemic – only 10% of execs in one survey strongly agreed that their meetings conclude with clear action items and accountabilities.)
  • Heart (Trust and Culture): The “Heart” of a leadership team is the trust, empathy, and open communication among members. High trust is the foundation of everything else – it enables honest debate, learning, and resilience in the face of setbacks. In a truly cohesive team, each member has each other’s backs. They can disagree passionately in meetings, but they do so openly and respectfully, and they never undermine or backstab one another afterward. Building this kind of trust requires vulnerability – leaders must be willing to admit mistakes, ask for help, and genuinely listen to differing views. Unfortunately, trust is often the weakest link: in the earlier survey, only 19% of top executives felt their team truly listens to and understands one another leadership. And if leaders don’t trust each other, it’s almost impossible for them to communicate candidly or to embrace the risks needed for transformation. To strengthen the “Heart,” the team should create a culture of inclusive communication. That means no hidden agendas (yet 70% of leadership teams suffer from them to some extent), no information hoarding, and no fear of speaking up. Leaders should encourage constructive conflict – inviting diverse perspectives and debate on big decisions – because it’s better to surface disagreements early than let them fester. Everyone on the team should feel a responsibility to voice concerns or “weak signals” from their part of the business. As one CEO noted, having a mix of viewpoints helps the team anticipate risks and spot opportunities that a homogenous group might miss. And once a decision is made, the “Heart” element means all members rally behind it publicly, showing unity. Finally, “Heart” also involves caring personally about each other. Great teams invest time in relationship-building – understanding each member’s strengths, motivations, and even personal aspirations. This creates empathy and a sense of “we’re in this together.” When trust and goodwill are high, team members can hold each other accountable or call out counterproductive behaviors without it turning toxic, because they know it’s coming from a place of mutual respect and commitment to the greater good.
  • Hands (Execution and Collaboration): The “Hands” of the team refer to the practical ways of working together to turn strategy into results. This starts with getting the right people in the room – a diverse mix of skills, backgrounds, and perspectives on the leadership team, tailored to the company’s needs. (If critical expertise is missing at the top table, decisions and execution will suffer.) Next, it’s about clarity of roles and responsibilities: each member needs to know what they are accountable for individually and what the team is accountable for collectively. High-performing teams establish a strong sense of peer accountability – not everything funnels through the CEO. If, say, the heads of Operations and Sales have an interdependent goal, they hold each other responsible for their parts. They don’t wait for the chief executive to mediate every disagreement or chase every follow-up. In fact, a hallmark of a mature leadership team is that members resolve conflicts directly and constructively among themselves. (One company took this so seriously that the CEO told his execs: “If you two VPs come to me to settle a dispute you could have handled, I will automatically decide against both of you.” The message: work it out together.) This peer-to-peer collaboration creates a powerful model for the rest of the organization. It sends a signal that “there’s no such thing as your problem or my problem – if one of us has an issue, it’s our problem to solve.” Leaders should regularly ask one another: “What do you need from me (and my team) to achieve your objectives? How can we help each other succeed?” When the top team operates with that collaborative, helping mentality, silos below begin to break down as well. It’s also important to institute disciplined team routines – for example, a cadence of meetings with clear agendas (focused on strategic priorities, not just updates), and agreed norms for decision-making (e.g. what requires consensus vs. a single accountable owner). By consciously designing their interactions, the team makes execution more efficient. Simple practices like ending each meeting by reviewing decisions and next steps can dramatically improve follow-through. Ultimately, the “Hands” is about turning the lofty goals (head) and good intentions (heart) into consistent action. When a leadership team gets this right, it not only achieves more, but also sets the tone for the whole company. Employees watch how the top team works together. If they see genuine collaboration, shared accountability, and mutual support at the highest level, they’ll mirror those behaviors in their own teams. (Conversely, if the execs are constantly in turf battles, you can bet the rest of the organization will be mired in politics as well.)

3. Make Teamwork a Habit: Reflect, Commit, and Practice Continuously

Even when a leadership team understands the changes it needs to make – enterprise-first thinking, aligning on head/heart/hands attributes – getting there is not an overnight transformation. Many teams mistakenly believe a single workshop or a rousing offsite retreat will fix their dynamics. They might come away from a weekend of team-building with a burst of optimism, only to slip back into old patterns within weeks. The reality is that becoming a super team is an ongoing journey that requires intentional and sustained effort. It helps to think in terms of a repeating cycle: Reflect → Commit → Practice, again and again.

  1. Reflect on the current state. The first step is honest self-assessment – both as a team and as individual leaders. The executive team should periodically take time away from day-to-day issues to ask: How are we really working together? What’s working, and what isn’t? This reflection can be guided by the Head, Heart, Hands framework (or another model): Where are we strong, and where are the gaps? Perhaps the team discovers that, while they’re good at making strategic plans (Head), they don’t communicate openly (Heart) and thus struggle to execute across silos (Hands). Or maybe meetings are dominated by a few members while others disengage – a sign of low trust. It’s critical to identify root causes, not just symptoms. For example, if collaboration is lacking, is it because incentives still pit leaders against each other? If decisions get revisited, is it because there wasn’t real buy-in the first time? Candid feedback from outside facilitators, surveys, or even 360° reviews can help illuminate these dynamics. Individual leaders should also reflect on their own behaviors: Am I truly “showing up” as the teammate I aspire to be? In what situations do I tend to put my function’s interests above the enterprise? Are there biases or fears influencing my actions (like fear of losing control, or an assumption that others won’t do as good a job)? It’s human nature to see others as the problem – but true progress comes when each member takes responsibility for the part they personally can play in improving team cohesion. This kind of introspection can be uncomfortable, but it sets the stage for meaningful change.
  2. Commit to new norms and behaviors. Reflection must lead to explicit commitments. The leadership team should come together and define a set of team norms or a “team charter” that encapsulates how they pledge to behave going forward. This might include agreements like “We challenge ideas, not people,” “Once a decision is made, we all support it,” “We share information proactively,” and “We hold one another accountable to results and to our norms.” Equally important is deciding what NOT to do anymore – calling out unproductive behaviors that have held the team back (e.g. multitasking in meetings, side conversations, public blame games) and agreeing to stop them. Creating this contract is a powerful exercise: it gives everyone permission to call out breaches and keeps the team honest. Along with behavioral norms, the team should revisit organizational mechanisms that may need adjusting to support the new ways of working. For instance, does the incentive and reward system encourage collaboration, or does it inadvertently reward siloed wins? (If it’s the latter, consider tilting it more toward collective outcomes to reinforce the “one team” mindset.) The team may also decide on structural or process changes – maybe reshuffling meeting cadences, altering who attends certain discussions, or implementing tools for better transparency. Each leader should make personal commitments too: whether it’s “I will solicit input from quieter team members” or “I’ll be more direct when I disagree rather than staying silent” – these individual pledges contribute to the whole. By formalizing these commitments, the leadership team builds accountability for itself. It often helps to literally write them down and publicize them (at least internally) so that the rest of the organization sees the top team holding itself to higher standards.
  3. Practice and reinforce relentlessly. Finally, the leadership team must practice its new habits consistently – in every meeting, every interaction – and hold each other accountable along the way. They won’t get everything perfect at first, but the key is to persist and learn from missteps. For example, if a meeting goes off-track or someone slips into old behavior (like a sarcastic jab or retreating from debate), the team can pause and acknowledge it: “We agreed to be honest and constructive – let’s reset.” Some teams build in a quick debrief at the end of each meeting to rate how well they lived up to their norms that day. This creates immediate feedback and keeps the agreed behaviors top-of-mind. Over time, these new ways of working become more natural. It’s also useful to celebrate wins – when the team navigates a tough issue with healthy debate and alignment, or when they collectively solve a problem that used to cause finger-pointing, call it out and recognize that progress. Ingraining a new team culture is like building muscle; it happens through deliberate repetition. Additionally, periodic check-ins (say, quarterly or semiannually) are vital to assess how the team has improved and where they need to adjust. New challenges will arise, or new members will join, and those developments might require renewing certain commitments or adding new ones. The journey really has no finish line. As one board member observed after seeing an executive team’s transformation in action: the difference in performance and cohesion was night and day – “complete unity of purpose, mutual accountability, no more finger-pointing” – and it translated into stellar business results. In one survey of CEOs and directors, 95% of CEOs said they plan to maintain or accelerate transformational change initiatives in the coming year. This underscores that continual adaptation is the norm now, not the exception. A super team embraces that reality, continually refining how they work together to meet new goals.

In summary, building a super leadership team is challenging work – it demands personal change from some of the most accomplished people in the company. But the rewards are immense. With an aligned, trust-filled, and execution-focused executive team, organizations are far better equipped to navigate disruption and outperform the competition. They innovate faster, respond to threats more decisively, and execute strategy more effectively. Perhaps most importantly, a great leadership team cascades excellence throughout the enterprise: when employees see their leaders united and collaborative, it inspires confidence and a shared sense of purpose. On the other hand, when the top is divided, the whole organization splinters. Board members and CEOs have a critical role to play in fostering the right conditions – setting the expectation of enterprise-first teamwork, investing in team development, and holding the team accountable not just for what they achieve but how they achieve it together. By shifting from a collection of superheroes to a super team, leadership groups can unleash their full collective power. In a world where change is the only constant, that is the ultimate competitive advantage.