Your leadership team agrees in the room. Then works in silos.
One of the worst examples I’ve seen was a decentralised IT organisation where the IT leaders from different businesses came together quarterly at what was called the IT community table. They all worked for the same company, and the intention was sensible: share learning, discuss common priorities and commit to moving in the same direction. In the room, everyone appeared to agree but once they left, however, their own business, their own boss and their own agenda took priority. Commitments weren’t followed through, and there was little accountability for what had been agreed. Over time, trust eroded until the meeting became a performance, accompanied by quite a few eye rolls.
It’s an extreme example, but I’ve seen versions of this within IT leadership teams too. The CIO leaves the meeting believing there is agreement, while each leader leaves with a different interpretation of what they have committed to.
The team has changed, but expectations haven’t
I don’t think CIOs always realise how much changing one member of the leadership team can affect everyone around them. Someone new arrives with the expectations and ways of working from their previous organisation. Someone promoted internally continues working within their old scope, while colleagues assume they have taken on something different. Established members carry on with arrangements that everyone supposedly understands, although those arrangements were never clearly discussed.
At the same time, some people have been in their roles for so long that their experience of what good looks like has become quite narrow. They may know the organisation extremely well, but have stopped learning and growing or bringing different thinking to the table.
The CIO can see that the ambition has changed, yet the team’s capability, relationships and understanding of its responsibilities haven’t necessarily changed with it
Everyone has their own version of leadership
Different leadership styles become particularly visible in how people take collective decisions back to their teams. One leader explains how the IT strategy translates into their team’s priorities, keeps people involved and takes responsibility for the outcome.
Another forwards the presentation and considers the communication complete. Others distance themselves from a decision by explaining that it came from the CIO, particularly if they disagreed with it.
People across the organisation then experience very different expectations, depending on who they report to. Some understand where IT is heading and how they contribute, while others hear very little beyond the work immediately in front of them.
Meanwhile, the leadership team continue reporting that everyone is aligned.
There are overlaps, and gaps nobody owns
One of the biggest things I see missing is a clear understanding of the capabilities or processes each leader owns, contributes to and depends on.
People work from assumptions inherited from previous roles or arrangements. Two leaders may both believe they own a decision, while elsewhere each assumes the other is responsible. The gaps often become visible only when something goes wrong.
I’ve seen tickets closed because the issue didn’t belong to that team, without anyone helping it reach the person who could resolve it. From the team’s perspective, their part was complete. From the business’s perspective, IT still hadn’t helped. That same pattern can exist at leadership level, where each person manages their own area but nobody takes responsibility for how the whole thing works together.
Eventually, teams learn to operate around each other, commitments become less credible and trust gradually disappears. The CIO ends up resolving issues that the leadership team should have been able to work through together.
Putting this into practice:
Check that you have the right team for your ambition. Look honestly at capability, performance and behaviour. Invest in development where it can help, and make necessary changes where someone consistently underperforms or damages the team. Length of service alone shouldn’t determine whether someone remains in a leadership role.
Give the team attention whenever its membership changes. Revisit relationships, responsibilities and expectations rather than assuming a new leader can simply slot in. Allow time for people to establish trust, work through differences and settle into working together.
Create opportunities for personal connection and honest learning. Make room for people to share experiences, mistakes and challenges. Team building and personal moments matter because trust depends on knowing the people you are working with.
Put ownership and scope on paper. Build a capability or process map with clear owners and contributors. Clarify the overlaps, identify the unclaimed gaps and agree the handshakes between teams.
Build processes around the complete outcome. Involve people across the relevant teams so that responsibilities connect from beginning to end. Establish a “see it, own it” expectation, where people help an issue reach the right owner rather than simply passing it away.
Agree how you expect leaders to behave. Discuss how people challenge decisions, support the agreed direction, communicate with their teams and take collective responsibility. Capture this in a team charter that they help create, including how missed commitments and disagreements will be addressed.
Establish a clear rhythm for working together. Agree what belongs in strategic, tactical and operational discussions, supported by realistic measures and evidence. Use those conversations to review shared outcomes and commitments, alongside the performance of individual areas.
Check what might be pulling the team apart. Look at whether objectives, budgets and recognition reward people for protecting their own area while you are asking them to act collectively. Be clear about where a shared approach is required and where local autonomy is appropriate.
Before assuming the team needs another meeting, I would ask whether its members have the same understanding of what they collectively own and what being part of this leadership team requires.
I work alongside CIOs and their leadership teams through part-time coaching and advisory, helping clarify ownership, work through difficult team dynamics and establish shared expectations that carry through into how people lead.
Comments