Characteristics of High-Performing Executive Teams

Not all executive teams are high performing, many teams simply “play not to lose.” To be clear, being a high-performing team is not for everyone as the requirements are extensive and life changing. A good team is just that – it’s fine, comfortable and satisfying to many. Regardless of how hard that reality may be to swallow, there are opportunity costs (financial performance, staff engagement, executive team turnover, member experience, etc.) that ultimately result in mediocre organizational performance. All executive teams have the opportunity to recalibrate their mindset, shift their standard practices and elevate their performance. Good can always get better. The observable and repeatable characteristics listed below, when implemented together, will measurably increase executive team performance.

Start by Defining ‘Executive Team’ and ‘High Performing’

Before outlining the characteristics of high performing teams, we will define an executive team and what high performance means. Too often we will encounter a group of executives that just so happen to report to a CEO yet they, when they really consider it, do not identify as a “team.” In one instance, we worked with a “Direct Report Team,” a collection of C-level executives that reported to the CEO. Their meetings were an efficient way for the CEO to get operational updates. Unintentionally and absentmindedly, the structure of these meetings and even its name encouraged operating in silos. Beyond this example, executive leaders often identify their direct reports as their “team,” those they work most closely with, identify with and will go to bat for … again, admirable in some regards.

“High performance” is not necessarily achieved by burning the candle at both ends, emailing at 10 p.m. and working on vacations; it doesn’t necessarily exclude those characteristics either. It definitely does not mean an abundance of “collaboration.” To be clear, too much collaboration (exhaustively making sure everyone and their relative is “heard”) can come at the expense of progress. Team performance is causally related to degrees of coordination. Consider the directional and pace of action each executive takes after a strategic alignment meeting. Most move metaphorically North but one is moving North by Northeast. Some move with a sense of urgency and others move slowly and methodically. Consider the follow-up strategic alignment meeting – some executives are prepared, some are distracted, one is forgetful of prior decisions and rationale, and the CEO is tolerant of all of the above. Afterwards, those minor degrees of misalignment and coordination are then amplified. Now consider another year’s worth of those meetings. One could observe that there was collaboration but not high degrees of coordination. The definition of coordination is: A combination of several distinct movement patterns executed as if it were a singular action. How often can you definitively say that your executive team’s efforts were executed as if it were one movement?
The following characteristics of high-performing executive teams are offered not as an end-all list, but as readily observable and worthwhile.

1. Aligned on Strategy

Each executive is conclusively and unquestionably aligned on the well-defined go-forward strategy. This requires that multiple permutations of the strategy have been exhaustively considered, stress tested and documented. To arrive at full alignment, the directionality and allocation of resources must be outlined and it will likely require certain executives to willfully subjugate their area’s normal prerogatives for the sake of the organization’s goals. One of the ultimate observable actions that demonstrates executive team alignment is when the disseminated strategic priorities within the teams are the same, no matter which executive relays them. This increases the chances that mid-level talent will execute in a coordinated fashion.

2. Exceptionally Well Prepared

Some executives perform well enough by being good on their feet. They consider themselves smart enough, experienced enough and confident enough that they can make sound decisions with information that is presented to them in the moment. History may reflect a pattern of good decisions. However, as our business model is very much dependent upon increasing razor thin margins, “It’s worked for me so far” is different than prioritizing being exceptionally well prepared to engage in a robust dialogue that concludes with a 2% different decision, resulting in a few more basis points of margin; or coaching direct reports more thoughtfully or providing more actionable updates to peers.

Preparing is also the pursuit of understanding. Too many executives do not have a strong and demonstrative understanding of the core tenets (or opportunities) of their organization’s economic engine. To put it more plainly, the base-level of financial acumen in the room directly informs (enables/inhibits) the sophistication of strategic dialogue, plans and execution. Consider the opportunity and performance costs of all but one executive being exceptionally well prepared for an important discussion or lacking the economic understanding of the opportunity? It is measurable and unforgettable.

3. Putting Points on the Board

Everyone wants to be on a winning team, but to win, the quantitative and qualitative goals have to be defined at the onset of an initiative, calendar year, etc. Perhaps most importantly, all the executive team’s decisions and resource allocations have to be regularly measured against the well-defined and embraced goals. Goals are not ideas nor are they necessarily only met at the conclusion of the period. Conclusively reaching a milestone is synonymous with putting points on the board. Celebrating those achievements is important. Perhaps just as important is recalibrating team efforts at regular intervals to ensure points keep being put on the board.

Additionally, tracking strategically relevant progress, over the long term, with peer and competitor benchmarks is a necessary characteristic of a high performing team. Too often executive teams pat each other on the back at the end of the year even when their organization regularly performs in the lower half of the benchmark. Yes, they may be putting points on the board but not by comparison. High performing teams organize their efforts and resources to regularly put more points on the board than others.

4. Embracing Accountability

There is no way around it – high performing teams maintain an assessment rich environment. Breakdowns will occur and how a team addresses those friction points informs the trajectory of performance over the short and long term.

Consider the following example: One executive emails an update Friday at 5 p.m. when it was due Thursday. Maybe an excuse is offered but the miss goes unaddressed by everyone. It happens again and is not noticeably addressed. The other executives might not feel as compelled to provide their updates in a timely manner because, well, they have excuses too. A shared and unspoken commitment to untimely execution premises mediocrity and self-protection.

A shared commitment to accountability establishes the foundation for world-class performance. High performing teams include executives that ask each other, “How are my areas and I performing for you and your areas? What could we do to enhance our coordination, even if it is just by 5%?” Additionally, when things go awry, there is almost a race to be accountable (“I should have …”). The degree and timing to which an executive takes accountability directly empowers their ability to affect change. Said differently, if one is not accountable then they are disempowered. Accountability practices elevate high performers and weed out the non-committal.

5. Using the CEO as a Model

Perhaps the lynchpin of high performing teams is whether or not the CEO embodies all of the above characteristics. No one is perfect and CEOs who flex their strengths as well as own their shortcomings encourage others to do the same.

They have to sniff out where the team might not be fully aligned on the strategy and necessary evolution of the culture. They have to be exceptionally well prepared for meetings (consider the signal it sends if they’re not). They have to do what it takes to put points on the board and sometimes that means making timely and hard decisions. CEOs that are in transition to retirement often cite the difficult decisions they ultimately did not ever make as their biggest regrets.

They also have to readily and frequently demonstrate embracing accountability (especially asking for feedback). The CEO embodying the strategy is perhaps the most important. Taking the opportunity to consistently filter and reinforce the strategic framework whenever and wherever possible will have a lasting impact. Again, consider the alternative of a CEO not embodying the go-forward strategy and culture. The overall organizational results might be fine. But the organization, and therefore the team, will not be high performing.