The challenge of assembling a high-performing leadership team is a priority for any CEO. But how exactly should a leader go about building one? Marianna Zangrillo and Thomas Keil share the benefit of their experience
Leadership literature is replete with advice by academics, consultants and self-proclaimed gurus, each asserting they’ve found the optimal method – a universal winning formula that will help build the ultimate C-suite team. But is there such a thing?Our 10-year-long research into the leadership team approaches of CEOs and executives in large Asian, European and North American corporations, suggests otherwise.
The organisation of leadership teams
Leadership teams are organised in different ways. Some resemble loose confederacies that pursue individual goals and are only united by the fact that they both report to the CEO. Others foster intimate networks rooted in loyalty and friendship, where merit can sometimes be overshadowed. There are teams that harness collective synergy to solve problems, where the focus is on joint success rather than individual performance. Some teams thrive in a climate of robust competition, while others cultivate an ethos of collaboration. While some teams degenerate into ruthless ‘shark tanks’, others become toothless ‘petting zoos’ over time.
Clearly, not all teams are equally effective and dysfunction at leadership level can inflict significant damage on the entire organisation. The fall of Alcatel-Lucent, stemming from internal power struggles in the leadership team, serves as a stark cautionary tale. On the other hand, a robust leadership team can breathe new life into a stagnant company, a truth demonstrated by the remarkable turnaround of Microsoft by Satya Nadella.
Successful approaches
From our research, three different team-building approaches stand out that we’ve termed, Team of stars, the Synergistic team and the Stretch team. Each strategy requires unique leadership qualities to be successful.
- Team of stars: Leaders embracing this approach assemble teams of star performers, assigning them challenging targets and providing significant incentives. Jacques Sanche, CEO of Bucher Industries, a Swiss-headquartered engineering group, describes it like this: “We have common values, behaviours, ambitions and an organisational framework. Apart from that, each division has its own strategy and objectives. I set certain priorities – there is no need to force collaboration.”
This approach capitalises on the drive and ambition of top performers, offering swift decision-making and targeted focus. However, the intense competition it is built on can easily degenerate into politicking and back-stabbing. `
- Synergistic team: This thrives on collaboration, group problem-solving and consensus-building, minimising competition among team members. Stefan Nöken, former executive board member of Hilti Corporation, a manufacturer of tools and fasteners for the construction industry based in Lichtenstein, articulates this strategy.
“At the executive level, we are a team. Our task is simply too big to be fulfilled by any individual. We need collaboration and need to work together to successfully address it. It is also enriching for the individual to learn from different colleagues.” This method champions diverse input, consensus-based decision-making, plus a shared focus on company-wide solutions. However, decision-making is often slower, and members of synergistic teams often find it difficult to challenge each other and run the risk of becoming complacent.
- Stretch team: This approach seeks to balance competition and collaboration. Laurent Freixe, Nestlé executive vice-president and CEO for Latin America, succinctly summarises it.
“It is very important for me to bring into my team people who excel along the two dimensions of being strong team leaders but also strong team players.” While the this approach may seem the most appealing due to how well-balanced it appears to be, it often has a higher failure rate due to the challenges in harmonising competition and collaboration.
Selecting an effective approach to building the best leadership teams extends beyond personal leadership-style preferences. The approach needs to be influenced by broader contextual factors including the nature of the business, operational demands and strategic objectives. AkzoNobel CEO Greg Poux-Guillaume elaborates, “You can have the most talented people in the world, but if they do not fit the organisation that you are trying to implement, it is not going to work. You have to be able to implement your leadership approach in different ways based on the challenges you face.”
In conclusion, assembling an effective leadership team shouldn’t be about implementing a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, it requires an intricate process of aligning team member selection, leadership approach and strategic organisational needs. By recognising that leadership isn’t a one-dimensional endeavour, CEOs can design a tailored approach that significantly bolsters their odds of success. In the end, a leader’s ability to adapt and implement the appropriate approach for any given situation may prove to be the true winning formula.
Marianna Zangrillo and Thomas Keil are business partners at The Next Advisors and co-authors of the new book, The next leadership team: how to select, build, and optimise your top team, published by Routledge
