Learn how to build and lead effective leadership groups. Discover strategies for creating cohesive leadership teams that drive organisational success.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Wed 18th February 2026
A leadership group is a team of senior leaders who share responsibility for guiding an organisation's direction, culture, and performance. Unlike individual leadership, where one person holds primary authority, leadership groups distribute decision-making across multiple leaders who must collaborate effectively to succeed. Research from McKinsey indicates that organisations with high-performing leadership teams are 1.9 times more likely to achieve above-median financial performance, demonstrating that collective leadership capability significantly influences organisational outcomes.
The challenge of leadership groups lies not in assembling talented individuals—most organisations have capable senior leaders—but in enabling those individuals to function as a genuine team. Too often, leadership groups become collections of executives who compete more than they collaborate, protect territories rather than pursue shared objectives, and undermine collective effectiveness through interpersonal friction.
This guide explores how to build, develop, and lead effective leadership groups that multiply rather than fragment organisational capability.
A leadership group is a defined team of senior leaders who share collective responsibility for organisational performance. This group typically includes the chief executive and direct reports, though the configuration varies by organisation size and structure.
Leadership group characteristics:
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Shared purpose | Common commitment to organisational success |
| Collective accountability | Joint responsibility for outcomes |
| Interdependence | Success requires collaboration |
| Bounded membership | Clear definition of who belongs |
| Regular interaction | Frequent meaningful engagement |
Leadership groups differ from working groups where members work independently toward individual goals. True leadership groups require members to depend on each other—success for one requires success for all, and failure for one affects everyone.
Not all leadership groups function equally well. Research by Ruth Wageman and colleagues identifies conditions that distinguish high-performing leadership teams.
Conditions for leadership group effectiveness:
Real team structure: The group has clear boundaries, interdependent tasks, and stability of membership. People know who belongs, work truly requires collaboration, and membership does not constantly change.
Compelling direction: The group pursues purposes that are clear, challenging, and consequential. Ambiguous or trivial purposes fail to motivate or align.
Right people: Members possess the capabilities the work requires and the interpersonal skills collaboration demands. Talent without teamwork capability undermines the group.
Sound structure: The group operates with clear norms, defined roles, and appropriate size. Without structure, groups dissolve into ineffective discussions.
Supportive context: The organisation provides resources, information, and rewards that support team performance rather than individual competition.
Team coaching: The group receives guidance that helps members work together more effectively over time.
Leadership groups shape organisational performance through multiple mechanisms that individual leaders cannot replicate.
Impact mechanisms:
Strategic alignment: Leadership groups align strategy across functions and units. When leaders share understanding and commitment, implementation follows more coherently.
Cultural modelling: How leadership groups interact models expectations for the entire organisation. Collaborative leadership groups foster collaborative cultures; dysfunctional groups breed dysfunction throughout.
Decision quality: Complex decisions benefit from multiple perspectives. Leadership groups bring diverse expertise and viewpoints that improve decision quality when effectively leveraged.
Change capability: Major change requires coordinated effort across organisational boundaries. Leadership groups provide the coordination mechanism that individual leaders cannot.
Succession development: Leadership groups develop future senior leaders by exposing them to enterprise-wide challenges and peer relationships.
Performance impact data:
| Factor | High-Performing Groups | Low-Performing Groups |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic execution | 2.3x more effective | Baseline |
| Employee engagement | 21% higher | Baseline |
| Innovation | 1.8x more initiatives | Baseline |
| Talent retention | 34% lower turnover | Baseline |
Data synthesised from multiple organisational studies.
Dysfunctional leadership groups damage organisations in ways that cascade throughout.
Failure consequences:
Strategic fragmentation: Without alignment, different parts of the organisation pursue contradictory priorities, wasting resources and confusing employees.
Political behaviour: Dysfunctional groups foster political manoeuvring as leaders compete for resources, attention, and advantage rather than pursuing collective success.
Decision paralysis: Groups unable to work together cannot make timely decisions, causing opportunities to pass and problems to grow.
Cultural toxicity: Conflict at the top spreads throughout the organisation as employees align with competing leaders and replicate dysfunctional patterns.
Talent loss: High performers leave organisations where leadership dysfunction creates frustrating environments and limited growth opportunities.
Composition decisions significantly influence leadership group effectiveness. Getting the right people matters enormously.
Composition considerations:
Capability diversity: Include leaders with varied expertise, perspectives, and cognitive styles. Homogeneous groups miss blind spots and limit creative solutions.
Collaborative capacity: Prioritise leaders who can work interdependently. Individual brilliance without collaboration capability undermines group effectiveness.
Size discipline: Keep the group small enough for genuine interaction—typically five to nine members. Larger groups struggle to function as teams.
Role clarity: Ensure each member has a clear role that contributes distinctively to collective work. Overlap creates confusion and conflict.
Commitment alignment: Select leaders genuinely committed to the organisation's purpose. Self-interested leaders fragment the group.
Composition assessment questions:
| Dimension | Assessment Question |
|---|---|
| Capability | Do we have the expertise our challenges require? |
| Diversity | Do perspectives vary enough to prevent blind spots? |
| Collaboration | Can these individuals work together effectively? |
| Size | Is the group small enough to function as a team? |
| Commitment | Are members genuinely aligned to shared purpose? |
Structure creates the conditions that enable effective collaboration.
Essential structural elements:
Clear charter: Define the group's purpose, scope, and authority. Ambiguity about what the group does creates conflict and dysfunction.
Defined roles: Establish what each member contributes and how roles interconnect. Overlapping responsibilities cause friction; gaps create problems.
Operating norms: Agree on how the group will work together—decision-making processes, meeting conduct, communication expectations, conflict resolution.
Regular rhythms: Establish predictable meeting schedules that ensure consistent interaction. Irregular meetings undermine group cohesion.
Accountability mechanisms: Create processes for tracking commitments and addressing performance issues. Without accountability, agreements mean nothing.
The chief executive holds unique responsibility for leadership group effectiveness. How they lead the group largely determines whether it succeeds.
CEO leadership practices:
Set clear expectations: Articulate explicitly what you expect from the group collectively and from each member individually. Assumption creates misalignment.
Model desired behaviour: Demonstrate the collaboration, candour, and commitment you expect from others. Leaders follow what they observe more than what they hear.
Create psychological safety: Make it safe to raise difficult issues, challenge prevailing views, and acknowledge mistakes. Without safety, groups avoid essential conversations.
Facilitate productive conflict: Encourage substantive disagreement while preventing personal attacks. The best decisions emerge from robust debate conducted with respect.
Hold accountability: Address performance issues promptly and directly. Tolerating underperformance signals that standards do not matter.
Develop the team: Invest time in building the group's capability to work together effectively. Team development requires deliberate attention.
Leading a leadership group presents distinctive challenges that differ from leading other teams.
Common challenges:
Peer dynamics: Leadership group members are peers with their own authority and ego. They cannot be directed like subordinates.
Competing priorities: Each member leads a function or unit with its own demands. Balancing enterprise and unit perspectives creates tension.
Historical baggage: Members often have long histories together, including past conflicts that colour current interactions.
Time constraints: Senior leaders face intense time pressure. Finding time for genuine team development competes with operational demands.
Power sensitivity: Leadership groups operate in politically charged environments where actions carry symbolic weight beyond their direct impact.
Challenge navigation strategies:
| Challenge | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Peer dynamics | Lead through influence rather than authority |
| Competing priorities | Create shared goals with collective accountability |
| Historical baggage | Address past issues explicitly and reset relationships |
| Time constraints | Protect time for group development as strategic investment |
| Power sensitivity | Model openness and vulnerability |
Leadership groups develop through deliberate effort, not merely through time together. Improvement requires structured attention.
Development approaches:
Team assessment: Regularly assess group functioning using validated instruments or facilitated discussions. Understanding current state enables targeted improvement.
Skill building: Develop specific capabilities the group needs—conflict resolution, strategic thinking, decision-making. Identify gaps and address them systematically.
Process improvement: Refine how the group works together based on experience. Meetings, communications, and decision processes all can improve.
Relationship investment: Build genuine relationships among members through formal and informal interaction. Trust develops through connection.
External facilitation: Engage skilled facilitators for particularly challenging conversations or development sessions. Outside perspective often helps groups see what members cannot.
Development cycle:
Patrick Lencioni's influential model identifies five dysfunctions that plague leadership teams.
The five dysfunctions:
Absence of trust: Members do not feel safe being vulnerable with each other. Without trust, people protect themselves rather than engaging fully.
Fear of conflict: Groups avoid difficult conversations, allowing problems to fester. Artificial harmony prevents the robust debate that produces good decisions.
Lack of commitment: Without genuine debate, decisions lack buy-in. People leave meetings without clarity or commitment to agreed actions.
Avoidance of accountability: Members hesitate to hold each other accountable for commitments. Low standards become acceptable.
Inattention to results: Individual interests eclipse collective results. Members prioritise personal success over team success.
Dysfunction cascade:
| Dysfunction | Consequence | Symptom |
|---|---|---|
| Absence of trust | Invulnerability | Carefully managed interactions |
| Fear of conflict | Artificial harmony | Lack of passionate debate |
| Lack of commitment | Ambiguity | Unclear decisions |
| Avoidance of accountability | Low standards | Missed commitments |
| Inattention to results | Status and ego | Individual focus |
Decision-making processes significantly influence leadership group effectiveness. The right process depends on the decision type.
Decision-making approaches:
Consensus: All members must agree before proceeding. Appropriate for major decisions requiring full commitment but time-consuming and sometimes impossible.
Consultative: One leader decides after consulting the group. Faster than consensus while incorporating multiple perspectives.
Democratic: The group votes, with majority or supermajority determining outcomes. Clear but may leave minorities uncommitted.
Delegated: Decisions are delegated to individuals or subgroups with defined authority. Efficient but requires clear boundaries.
Decision process selection:
| Decision Type | Recommended Process | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic direction | Consensus | Requires full commitment |
| Policy decisions | Consultative | Leader accountability with input |
| Resource allocation | Democratic | Fair resolution of competing claims |
| Operational matters | Delegated | Efficiency within boundaries |
Beyond process, several practices improve decision quality.
Decision quality practices:
Prepare thoroughly: Distribute relevant information in advance. Decisions made without preparation suffer from superficiality.
Encourage dissent: Actively seek contrary views. Assign someone to argue the opposing position. Welcome challenges to prevailing assumptions.
Separate discussion from decision: Allow time for exploration before requiring resolution. Premature closure limits consideration of alternatives.
Document clearly: Record decisions explicitly, including rationale, owner, and timeline. Ambiguous records create misalignment.
Review outcomes: Evaluate decisions after implementation to learn what worked and what did not. Continuous improvement requires feedback.
Meetings are where leadership groups succeed or fail. Effective meetings enable productivity; ineffective meetings waste time and damage morale.
Meeting effectiveness principles:
Purpose clarity: Every meeting should have clear objectives. Meetings without purpose become unfocused and frustrating.
Appropriate frequency: Meet often enough to maintain alignment but not so often that meetings crowd out other work. Weekly or fortnightly meetings typically work well.
Disciplined agendas: Create focused agendas that prioritise the most important matters. Cramped agendas that attempt too much accomplish little.
Active participation: Ensure all members contribute meaningfully. Silent members add nothing; dominating members prevent others from contributing.
Action orientation: Conclude with clear decisions and assigned actions. Meetings that produce only discussion waste everyone's time.
Time respect: Start and end on time. Respecting time signals respect for people.
Meeting structure template:
| Component | Duration | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Check-in | 5-10 minutes | Connect personally, surface concerns |
| Progress review | 15-20 minutes | Track prior commitments |
| Strategic issues | 60-90 minutes | Address major decisions |
| Information sharing | 15-20 minutes | Align on key developments |
| Action summary | 5-10 minutes | Confirm decisions and assignments |
Leadership group meetings differ from other meetings in important ways.
Distinctive characteristics:
Strategic focus: Leadership group meetings address enterprise-level matters, not operational details that belong elsewhere.
Integrative perspective: Discussions should transcend functional boundaries to address cross-cutting challenges and opportunities.
Modelling function: How the leadership group meets models expectations for the entire organisation. Meeting behaviours cascade.
Confidentiality requirements: Sensitive topics require trust that discussions remain confidential. Leaks undermine candour.
Development opportunity: Meetings provide ongoing development through peer learning, feedback, and collaborative problem-solving.
Conflict is inevitable in leadership groups where capable people hold strong views. The question is not whether conflict occurs but how it is managed.
Healthy conflict characteristics:
Issue-focused: Disagreement centres on ideas, strategies, and decisions—not on personalities or motives.
Respectful: Debate occurs with courtesy. Challenging ideas differs from attacking people.
Transparent: Disagreements are expressed openly in the group, not behind backs or in side conversations.
Resolution-oriented: Conflict serves decision-making. Productive conflict moves toward resolution.
Contained: Disputes resolved within the group stay resolved. Public displays of division undermine authority.
Conflict navigation process:
Sometimes conflict exceeds productive bounds and damages the group.
Intervention triggers:
Intervention approaches:
Direct address: Name the problem explicitly. Groups often avoid acknowledging dysfunction even when everyone sees it.
Private conversations: Meet individually with key parties to understand perspectives and explore resolution.
Facilitated discussion: Bring an external facilitator to help the group address underlying issues.
Structural changes: Sometimes composition changes are necessary. Leaders who cannot function within the group may need to exit.
Mediation: In serious disputes, professional mediation may help parties reach resolution.
Measurement enables improvement. Without assessment, groups cannot know whether they are improving or declining.
Assessment dimensions:
Process quality: How well does the group work together? Are meetings productive? Do members collaborate effectively?
Decision quality: Do decisions prove sound over time? Are they implemented successfully?
Stakeholder perception: How do others in the organisation view the leadership group? Do they see coherence and competence?
Business outcomes: Is the organisation achieving its strategic objectives? Are financial and operational results improving?
Member experience: Do members find the group valuable? Are they engaged and committed?
Assessment methods:
| Method | What It Measures | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Team effectiveness surveys | Process quality | Quarterly or annually |
| Decision tracking | Decision quality | Ongoing |
| 360-degree feedback | Stakeholder perception | Annually |
| Performance metrics | Business outcomes | Ongoing |
| Member pulse checks | Member experience | Quarterly |
A leadership group is a team of senior leaders who share collective responsibility for guiding an organisation's direction, strategy, and performance. Typically comprising the chief executive and direct reports, leadership groups differ from ordinary management teams in their interdependence—members must collaborate effectively, not merely coordinate, to succeed.
Effective leadership groups typically include five to nine members. Smaller groups may lack necessary diversity; larger groups struggle to function as genuine teams. Research consistently shows that group effectiveness declines as size increases beyond ten members, with coordination costs exceeding collaboration benefits.
Leadership groups fail when members compete rather than collaborate, prioritise individual interests over collective success, avoid difficult conversations, tolerate underperformance, or lack genuine commitment to shared purpose. The five dysfunctions identified by Patrick Lencioni—absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results—capture common failure patterns.
Trust builds through vulnerability, reliability, and positive history. Leaders build trust by admitting mistakes, asking for help, following through on commitments, maintaining confidentiality, and demonstrating concern for colleagues' success. Trust develops gradually through consistent trustworthy behaviour and shared experience.
No—effective leadership groups engage in robust debate. Healthy disagreement improves decisions by surfacing different perspectives and challenging assumptions. What matters is that disagreement focuses on issues rather than personalities, occurs in appropriate settings, and resolves into commitment once decisions are made.
Most effective leadership groups meet weekly or fortnightly for substantive sessions, with additional meetings as needed for specific issues. Meeting frequency should provide sufficient interaction to maintain alignment without consuming excessive time. Quality matters more than quantity—effective meetings accomplish more than frequent ineffective ones.
Leadership groups can function virtually, though with additional challenges. Virtual groups must work harder to build relationships, ensure full participation, and maintain trust. Periodic in-person meetings—quarterly at minimum—help sustain connection that pure virtual interaction struggles to build.
Leadership groups represent the highest-leverage point for organisational improvement. When leadership groups function effectively, their impact cascades throughout the organisation—strategy aligns, culture coheres, decisions improve, and change accelerates. When they dysfunction, their failures similarly propagate, fragmenting strategy, toxifying culture, and paralysing decision-making.
Building an effective leadership group requires deliberate attention to composition, structure, process, and development. It demands leaders who value collective success above individual glory and who invest the effort genuine collaboration requires. It needs chief executives who understand that their most important team is the one they lead directly.
The investment repays richly. Organisations with high-performing leadership groups consistently outperform those without. They attract better talent, execute strategy more effectively, adapt more readily to change, and create more sustainable value.
If you lead a leadership group, your most important work may be making that group function effectively. If you belong to one, your contribution to collective effectiveness matters more than most individual achievements. Leadership groups that work well multiply what individuals can achieve alone.
That multiplication is worth pursuing.