A fall-out in your Exco? Do this first...

We’ve all seen it: Two people in an executive team ‘don’t get on’, and the ripples of that relational fracture impact not just the Exco but the entire organisation. Others on the team take sides. Business functions don’t collaborate effectively because the bosses are point-scoring. This causes stress and underperformance. It’s not an issue that can be left to simmer.

If there are interpersonal or relational difficulties in your executive team, it’s usual to assume that the best way to tackle them is with some type of facilitated intervention to build trust, develop psychological safety, improve communication or otherwise do something that ‘tackles the problem head-on’.

There are two reasons why I wouldn’t start here and recommend you don’t either.

1.??? The team’s capability ?

2.??? The root cause

The first reason is pragmatic, and it’s about the team’s current capability to resolve the issue. At this point in the team process, typically, there isn’t enough trust, psychological safety or communication agility in the team to do this work well. It’s a case of trying to solve the problem by deploying the very thing with which there’s a problem. I’ve seen this come unstuck too often to recommend a team begin with this approach.?

The second reason is that these types of interventions aren’t targeted at the root cause, so the chances of success are limited. We often assume that two people ‘just don’t like each other’ or that they don’t get on because of … [fill in the blank of a historical event]. ‘ This may well be part of the problem, but in my experience, there’s usually something else at play that creates a holding pattern for these relational dynamics to continue.

?

So, what should you do instead?

In these situations, teams need to proceed gently and begin replenishing their relational tank by sharing their experience of doing good work together.

At Waldencroft, we believe that executive teams must attend to three domains to be high-functioning and well-performing.

Even when an executive team’s primary challenge is presenting as relational, in my experience, it’s exacerbated by issues in the other two areas. And most often, in the structural domain.

?

A team structure that fractures relationships

If your executive team largely exists to ratify work done elsewhere and team meetings are characterised as bilateral round-robin updates to the CEO, then you have the perfect conditions for breeding simmering interpersonal difficulties.

In these executive teams, team members are encouraged—albeit unwittingly—to prioritise competition over collaboration.

When the team sees its primary responsibility as functional leadership rather than collective enterprise leadership, it’s common for leaders to focus on their own area at the expense of the whole, blame other teams when something goes wrong, and compete for scarce resources like budget or airtime.

So, what might have started as a small relational challenge is allowed to develop into a full-blown fallout.

What might have started as a small relational challenge can develop into a full-blown fallout.

??

A collective purpose that unifies the team

The first step is for the team to be very clear about why it exists. What is it uniquely able to do in the organisation? This should be clear, compelling, and consequential. It should stretch executive team members sufficiently, so they realise two important things. Their ‘A’ team isn’t their functional area: far more consequential is the work they do to help ensure the organisation adapts in what is a very challenging world. Secondly, they, therefore, need to start delegating their day-to-day functional responsibilities to the appropriate level – to heads of service.

Once the team has a compelling team purpose that they’re working towards, the focus is all about exploring the conditions the team needs to cultivate to work optimally. All with the realisation that they are on the same side.

This, in itself, doesn’t solve interpersonal challenges. However, it does create the conditions for the team to begin a conversation about relational dynamics.

When you’ve attended to team purpose in a carefully facilitated container, when you then turn attention to the interpersonal relationships, the team are discussing them with some relational wins under their belt. They appreciate the reasons why a cohesive executive team is so important to the whole organisation, and the team can then explore their relationship difficulties with some distance from the events.

This allows team members to save face enough to admit that a new way of relating to each other going forward will be more effective. The shame, blame and stuckness that were present at the beginning of the process are looser now. It’s easier for the team to agree on new ways of relating in the service of a consequential purpose for them to work together effectively.

Now, you can begin to work directly on the team’s relational domain.

?

A word about the role of the CEO

All of this is predicated on the CEO's behaviour. Ideally, you want a CEO who doesn’t play favourites or countenance poor behaviour. But you also want one who can tolerate differences of opinion and stay with them long enough to help the team resolve difficult issues. Most CEOs need support in doing these things well – and that should be accepted without judgement so she/he can access a space of their own learning.

I'm an executive team coach who works with CEOs and their executive teams to transform their impact and effectiveness. I also write about team effectiveness and collective enterprise leadership and conduct research in this area.

I consult globally alongside an exceptional team at Waldencroft.

Check out my podcast, Advance Executive Leadership. If you’d like to find out more about the Integrated Framework of Team Effectiveness, you can access a copy of our report on executive team effectiveness here.