Why Teambuilding for Leadership Teams Is Difficult

Leaders are very busy people. They don't have much time to spare, and many assignments can be handled individually. Real team efforts at the top are in direct conflict with the strong single-leader approach that exists in most organizations. It is very difficult to break that pattern of behavior. Executives have been conditioned to follow another set of rules that helped them get to their current position, and unfortunately most of those rules did not require the discipline needed to work as a true team. Jon Katzenbach's marvelous book Teams at the Top (1998) provides a list of contrasts between traditional single-leadership approaches and a true team approach.

Katzenbach points out that leaders at the top direct the actions of large numbers of people. Team leaders mold the talent and motivations of small numbers of people. Executives are supposed to exercise personal judgment to assess risks and options, whereas teams are supposed to make collective judgments by being open with each other and working through the conflict. Executives take on or pass on assignments according to individuals' formal position in the hierarchy. True teams make assignments according to who has the knowledge and skills to do the specific task regardless of formal position. Leaders at the top primarily look at the big picture. They are responsible for broad strategy and policy decisions. Teams need to be focused on specific goals and performance results to function well. Leaders have so many things to do that they are always looking for quick and efficient approaches to perform their duties and move on to the next thing on their list. Teams take time to discuss and debate matters. They may make better decisions as a result, but their decision-making process rarely feels efficient at the time. Finally, Katzenbach points out that leaders are held accountable individually for whatever happens on their watch, whereas teams emphasize mutual accountability and collective action.

I have also found that the egos of the members of the typical leadership team may also create added difficulty in efforts to help them work as a team. In their defense, they need to have strong egos to handle the responsibilities of their position. They are used to being the center of attention in their domain. Each is seen as the person responsible for setting the direction for the team's function and taking the heat if the team doesn't succeed. We expect so much from them and are often quick to revel when they fail. We have a long tradition in America of knocking people off their pedestal. Leaders must lead. They are in a position to scan the external environment and assess the apparent opportunities and threats. They must establish the sense of urgency required for change to happen. They need to set the bar regarding work and ethical standards. They need to be strong and perhaps be held to a higher standard than others in the organization.

While most high-level leaders want to be seen as being part of the leadership team, others see it as a necessary evil: another meeting to go to and one where they are likely to end up with additional assignments. Some use the opportunity to impress the recognized head leader, while others see it as an obligation aimed at making the head leader look good. In addition, leaders at facilities that are part of a corporation have dual reporting relationships. For example, a plant controller reports directly to the plant manager but also reports to the corporate finance leadership group . The controller may actually face conflicting objectives if the manager is pushing a team approach requiring sacrifices across functional areas while corporate management pushes strictly for cost-saving measures.