Start with the Collaboration of the Executive Team.

Some people ask me, where should an organization start withbuilding leadership capability, once it has a good idea about what it needs and why.

The answer is quite simple: If you want to assess and develop the effectiveness of leadership, look first at the collaboration within the executive team.

Fish do not rot from the head

People sometimes say “a fish rots from the head” — but that’s not quite right. A fish rots from the belly, from its weaker parts, and the rest of the body follows. If we extend the analogy to organizations, the rot would seem to start in middle management. Indeed, senior executives often complain about the impermeable barrier of resistance at that level. Some organizations have tried to remove that layer altogether, through delayering, flat structures, or adhocracies, assuming that middle managers are the problem.

But think again: who ensures things get done? Who solves problems and translates strategy into action? It’s certainly not the top executives, who can become detached and insulated behind their desks. Middle management is a vital pillar of any large organization. Instead of eliminating them, we should focus on strengthening their leadership.

The Executive Team shapes the leadership effectiveness in the entire organization.

So why does middle management sometimes seem ineffective? The real answer often lies higher up — in the executive team. They are ultimately responsible for the quality of leadership throughout the organization. And more often than not, issues at the top explain the poor execution of strategy. A key issue is how well the executive team cooperates.

Here are some common patterns that I see when working with management teams:

1. They say they are aligned on strategy — but often they are not. When asked, top managers give different interpretations of the strategy. Sometimes I let leaders write down the essence of their strategy. Eyes open when they realize they have been promoting different strategies. And the difference are sometimes huge.Sometimes the differences are subtle, but often they reflect fundamental disagreements.

2. They say they share the same objectives — but frequently they do not. Priorities diverge, and even eliminating individual short-term bonuses doesn’t always resolve the misalignment.

3. They say they learn from mistakes — but often they don’t. When strategy fails, they look downwards for blame rather than reflecting on their own role. Actually, strategies do not fail, people do. And executives are part of the system, contributing to failure and success.

4. They say they lead — but many are untrained in leadership. Some refuse to participate in leadership development, failing to set an example for their teams.

5. They say they have deep debates — but discussions are often shallow. Instead of meaningful dialogue, they talk at each other, focused on persuading rather than listening. Challenge is rare; it becomes “live and let live.” Silences or ecstatic language are signs of lack of debate.

6. They say they act coherently — but often they sow confusion. They alter nuances, omit information, or badmouth initiatives they don’t like, undermining consistency. People are often selective in what they do.

7. They say they represent the whole organization — but frequently they represent their own unit or function. Especially when they are confronted with a strong team, executives may budge.

8. They say they create safe spaces, but too often they do not. Executives should never underestimate the impact they have. They often do not get the feedback they need because people think it’s unsafe.

A double challenge for the Executive Team

Leading an organization together is difficult because it combines the challenges of leadership with those of collaboration. Both are complex human endeavors — and it is no surprise that many executive teams struggle.

When this happens, dysfunction ripples downwards: cooperation across the organization erodes; departments negotiate rather than collaborate; transversal functions are blocked from entering certain territories. With conflicting goals and ambiguous information, middle managers are left to defend their turf rather than cooperate. Strategy stalls and grinds to a halt.

What to do?

Trying to improve the effectives of the leadership as provided by executive teams is a process. I’d never one shot. And it’s a mater of design. Here’s how we go about it. And mind you, it’s not linear at all.

1. Ask the right, unbiased questions. The first step is always asking the right questions. What do we want to achieve? How do we want to achieve that? What are minimal and maximal standards and objectives?

2. Understand deeply what is going on. What is our situation today? What is the data? Where is the evidence? What do we know? What is missing? What are the benefits and the downsides of that? What brought us here? What are the missing qualities? When will we see progress? Did we ask the right questions (if not, go back)?

3. Design a solution empathically. Try and look for ways of improving. What could work? Who could help us? What do we need to do? WHo can help us? Where are the “assets” that we need to improve our collective leadership? Do we have a full understanding (if not, go back)?

4. Experiment Intensively. A group should learn by doing. So, it should decide on what to itry out. Not everything works immediately. It’s a longer process. Does the design work (if not, go back).

5. Implement organically. Experimentation flows into implementation. The group can decide to do something differently, but it often requires discipline to maintain new habits, new ways of working. But if it does not work, the team might need to go back to earlies stages.

6. Optimize Unstoppably. It’s never over. Teams can become complacent, but progress is fragile. So, when a leadership team wants to become and stay effective, they need to give the collective leadership constant attention.

We call this process Audeio(R) which is a combination between the Latin verbs audio (listening) and audere (dare, undertake).

Conclusion

If you want to understand the quality of leadership in an organization, start by examining how the top team works together. Do they truly cooperate? Do they really lead the organization together? The fish might not rot at the top, but the top might create the conditions for the belly to.

Photo by RDNE Stock project: https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-on-a-meeting-7648464/