This chapter focuses on how effectively you lead at the true enterprise level through the team that surrounds you. Boards understand that no CEO succeeds alone; the quality, composition, and dynamics of the executive team are among the strongest predictors of organizational performance. The skills in this chapter assess whether you can select, shape, and evolve a top team that is greater than the sum of its parts—and whether you can create the conditions for that team to execute the company’s agenda with discipline and unity. Ultimately, this chapter helps you examine whether you are already acting as an architect of the leadership system, not just a high-performing individual contributor at the top.
2.1 Building and shaping a high-performing executive team
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to build and shape a high-performing executive team, they are looking for evidence that the person has already acted as a true architect of senior talent. They want to see that the candidate has made tough calls on who is on the team, upgraded roles and people where needed, and attracted leaders who are stronger than they are in key areas. They also look for a track record of improving the performance and cohesion of the top team over time, not just inheriting a strong team and riding that advantage. Above all, they want to know whether this candidate can put in place and continually evolve the leadership team that will actually run the company.
Open-ended question
“Tell us about a time when you took responsibility for reshaping a senior leadership or executive team—what changes you made to who was on the team, how you approached those decisions, how the team’s performance and dynamics evolved, and what impact that had on business results.”
Rubric – 2.1 Building and shaping a high-performing executive team
Nascent
- Has not yet had end-to-end accountability for the composition and performance of a full executive or senior leadership team.
- In prior roles, largely inherited teams with only minor changes to membership, roles, or expectations.
- Few examples of making difficult calls on senior underperformers or misaligned leaders.
- Limited evidence of systematically assessing senior team capability, diversity, or potential against the needs of the strategy.
Developing
- Has led a senior team at functional or business-unit level, with some responsibility for hiring, promotions, and exits.
- Can point to a few targeted changes (additions, role shifts, removals) that improved team capability or fit.
- Has taken some steps to clarify roles, expectations, and ways of working for the team, with mixed but improving results.
- Feedback suggests progress in addressing obvious gaps, but some misalignment or underperformance at the senior level persisted longer than ideal.
CEO-Ready
- Has had clear accountability for an executive or equivalent top team and has materially reshaped it over time to fit the strategy.
- Can demonstrate multiple cases of upgrading talent (hires, promotions, exits) that significantly raised the team’s overall caliber and diversity.
- Has established effective routines, norms, and decision processes that improved team cohesion, trust, and collective performance.
- Senior team performance is reflected in measurable business outcomes (growth, profitability, transformation delivery) during their tenure.
Distinctive
- Has turned a fragmented or underpowered executive team into a high-performing, widely admired leadership bench within a few years.
- Track record shows bold, timely moves on senior talent—including difficult removals and inspired hires—that changed the organization’s trajectory.
- Successors and future leaders have emerged from teams they built, with several going on to CEO or equivalent roles elsewhere.
- Across organizations, is known by Boards and senior leaders as an exceptional builder of leadership teams that endure and perform beyond their tenure.
2.2 Clarifying roles, accountabilities, and decision rights at the top
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to clarify roles, accountabilities, and decision rights at the top, they are looking for proof that the person can turn a group of senior individuals into a coherent leadership system. They want to see that the candidate has reduced ambiguity and overlap, created clear ownership for critical outcomes, and established decision processes that are both efficient and robust. They also look for whether this clarity has held under pressure—during crises, transformations, or major growth—rather than collapsing back into ad hoc decision-making. Ultimately, they want someone who can design and maintain a top-team operating model that enables speed, accountability, and alignment.
Open-ended question
“Describe a time when you significantly clarified roles, accountabilities, or decision rights among your senior leadership team—what problems were you trying to solve, what changes you made, how you implemented them, and what impact this had on decision speed, accountability, and business performance.”
Rubric – 2.2 Clarifying roles, accountabilities, and decision rights at the top
Nascent
- Has not had primary responsibility for defining or redesigning roles and decision rights for a senior leadership team.
- In prior teams, tolerated overlapping mandates, unclear ownership, or frequent escalation of routine issues without addressing root causes.
- Few examples of establishing explicit decision forums, charters, or escalation paths for key enterprise decisions.
- Feedback and outcomes show recurring confusion about “who owns what” at senior levels under their leadership.
Developing
- Has taken some steps to clarify responsibilities within a senior or cross-functional team, usually through updated job descriptions or meeting structures.
- Can point to at least one instance where clarifying ownership or decision rights reduced friction or duplication, though issues persisted in other areas.
- Has experimented with tools (e.g., RACI, decision logs, charters) but application has been partial or inconsistently maintained over time.
- Under stress, some decisions still defaulted to informal influence or hierarchy rather than the agreed decision structure.
CEO-Ready
- Has led a structured effort to define or redesign roles, accountabilities, and decision rights for an executive or equivalent top team.
- Can demonstrate tangible improvements in decision speed, reduced escalation, and clearer ownership for key outcomes after the redesign.
- Established and sustained decision forums, charters, and governance routines that senior leaders actually use and respect.
- Feedback from executives and key stakeholders indicates significantly less duplication and conflict over ownership than before.
Distinctive
- Has repeatedly transformed ambiguous or politicized senior-team environments into sharply aligned leadership systems with clear mandates and decision flows.
- Can show how their work on roles and decision rights enabled major strategic moves (e.g., transformations, integrations, restructurings) to execute more smoothly.
- Their operating-model designs at the top have been reused or referenced as best-practice templates in other parts of the organization or in later roles.
- Across organizations, is known for turning “too many cooks at the top” into a disciplined, high-accountability leadership architecture that endures beyond their tenure.
2.3 Creating alignment, trust, and constructive conflict within the C-suite
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to create alignment, trust, and constructive conflict within the C-suite, they are looking for evidence that this person can turn strong, opinionated leaders into a cohesive, high-performing team. They want to see that the candidate has improved relationships and collaboration at the top, not by suppressing disagreement, but by channeling it into better decisions. They also look for how the candidate has handled real tension—between functions, businesses, or personalities—and whether those situations ended in stronger trust and clearer alignment, rather than politics and fragmentation. Ultimately, they want someone who can both unite the top team around shared enterprise goals and make robust, contested issues discussable and resolvable.
Open-ended question
“Tell us about a time when there were significant tensions or misalignment within your senior leadership team—what the issues were, how you intervened to address trust and conflict, what you did to build alignment, and how the team’s behavior and business outcomes changed as a result.”
Rubric – 2.3 Creating alignment, trust, and constructive conflict within the C-suite
Nascent
- Has limited experience directly addressing relationship, trust, or alignment issues among senior leaders.
- In past roles, allowed tensions or rivalries between senior stakeholders to persist without structured intervention.
- Difficult conversations at the top were often postponed, handled one-on-one, or moved offline, leaving underlying issues unresolved.
- Few examples where they deliberately created space for open, honest debate that led to better collective decisions.
Developing
- Has facilitated some alignment discussions among senior or cross-functional leaders, with partial improvement in collaboration.
- Can point to at least one situation where they helped resolve a visible conflict or misalignment between senior colleagues.
- Has begun to set expectations about “one team” behavior, though enforcement and follow-through have been inconsistent.
- In high-tension moments, has sometimes struggled to keep debates constructive, with occasional slide into personal or political dynamics.
CEO-Ready
- Has led a senior team through periods of significant tension or fragmentation and moved them to a more aligned, trusting state.
- Can demonstrate changes in how the C-suite (or equivalent team) debates issues—more open challenges, fewer side conversations, and clearer shared decisions.
- Has enforced enterprise-first behavior, including calling out siloed or political actions and backing this up with talent and reward decisions.
- Feedback from senior leaders indicates that they feel safe to disagree, believe their voices are heard, and ultimately align behind collective decisions.
Distinctive
- Has repeatedly transformed contentious, mistrustful, or highly political top-team environments into genuinely collaborative, high-challenge, high-trust teams.
- Can point to major strategic or transformational decisions where robust C-suite debate, facilitated by them, clearly improved the outcome.
- Is known for surfacing “undiscussable” issues and turning them into constructive dialogue, leaving the team stronger on the other side.
- Across organizations, has built leadership cultures where alignment, trust, and productive conflict at the top are seen as defining strengths.
2.4 Coaching, developing, and (when needed) upgrading senior leaders
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to coach, develop, and, when needed, upgrade senior leaders, they are looking for proof that this person consistently raises the quality of leadership around them. They want to see evidence that the candidate invests time in developing individual executives, provides honest feedback, and helps senior leaders grow into bigger roles. At the same time, they assess whether the candidate is willing and able to act decisively when someone is not the right fit—either by repositioning them or exiting them. Ultimately, they want someone who leaves behind a stronger, deeper, and more future-ready leadership bench than the one they inherited.
Open-ended question
“Describe how you have developed and, where necessary, upgraded your senior leadership bench over the past few roles—what specific coaching or development you’ve provided, what tough calls you’ve made on underperforming or misaligned leaders, and how these actions have affected the overall strength and performance of your top team.”
Rubric – 2.4 Coaching, developing, and (when needed) upgrading senior leaders
Nascent
- Has had limited experience providing structured feedback or development support to senior leaders reporting to them.
- Tends to tolerate underperformance or misfit at senior levels for extended periods without decisive action.
- Few examples of initiating development plans, targeted assignments, or external support (e.g., coaching) for senior leaders.
- Track record shows little change in the overall caliber or future readiness of the senior team during their tenure.
Developing
- Can point to several instances where they provided meaningful feedback and informal coaching to senior leaders.
- Has supported at least one senior leader through a development plan, new role, or stretch assignment with visible growth.
- Has made a small number of role changes or exits at senior level, sometimes later than hindsight would suggest optimal.
- Shows growing comfort in balancing support and accountability, but still hesitates in some high-stakes talent decisions.
CEO-Ready
- Has a clear track record of systematically developing senior leaders through feedback, coaching, assignments, and exposure.
- Can demonstrate multiple cases where senior leaders under their sponsorship have stepped up into significantly bigger roles.
- Has taken timely, decisive action to reassign or exit underperforming or misaligned executives, improving team performance.
- Over several years, the leadership bench they own has visibly strengthened in depth, diversity, and readiness for succession.
Distinctive
- Has repeatedly built senior teams that became recognized internal “talent factories,” producing successors and future CEOs.
- Can point to multiple senior leaders whose careers were fundamentally accelerated by their coaching, advocacy, and stretch opportunities.
- Demonstrates a strong record of early, accurate calls on who can grow, who needs a different role, and who must exit.
- Across organizations, is known by Boards and senior leaders as an exceptional developer and upgrader of top talent, leaving behind leadership benches that outperform for years.
2.5 Delegating effectively while maintaining appropriate oversight
What the Board is looking for
When Boards evaluate a candidate’s ability to delegate effectively while maintaining appropriate oversight, they are looking for evidence that this person can scale beyond their own capacity. They want to see a track record of entrusting major responsibilities to senior leaders with clear expectations, while putting in place the right mechanisms to stay informed and intervene when necessary. They look for patterns that avoid both micromanagement and abdication—delegation that preserves accountability and control without suffocating the team. Over time, this shows up as businesses that run well without the leader being in every detail, and very few “nasty surprises.”
Open-ended question
“Tell us about how you have delegated major responsibilities or initiatives to your senior team—what you chose to delegate, how you set expectations and oversight mechanisms, how you resisted the temptation to take work back, and what the outcomes were for both performance and the development of your leaders.”
Rubric – 2.5 Delegating effectively while maintaining appropriate oversight
Nascent
- Has tended to stay deeply involved in many operational details, limiting room for senior leaders to own major responsibilities.
- Can point to few examples where they explicitly delegated significant decisions or initiatives with clear expectations and autonomy.
- Oversight has often been informal or ad hoc, leading either to unpleasant surprises or frequent last-minute interventions.
- Feedback suggests they are seen as a bottleneck or micromanager in critical workflows.
Developing
- Has delegated some substantial projects or domains, with mixed success in balancing autonomy and control.
- Can describe situations where unclear expectations or insufficient check-ins led to rework, delay, or quality issues.
- Has begun to use more structured mechanisms (e.g., milestone reviews, dashboards) to stay informed without doing the work themselves.
- Shows progress in stepping back from day-to-day tasks, though still tends to dive in when pressure or ambiguity rises.
CEO-Ready
- Has a clear pattern of delegating major responsibilities and decisions to senior leaders with well-defined scope and success criteria.
- Can demonstrate multiple cases where strong delegations delivered results while they stayed focused on enterprise-level issues.
- Uses systematic oversight mechanisms (cadenced reviews, KPIs, risk flags) that surface issues early without disempowering their team.
- Feedback from senior leaders indicates they feel trusted and accountable, not micromanaged, and that surprises are rare and manageable.
Distinctive
- Has repeatedly scaled their impact by building leadership teams and systems that can run complex businesses with minimal direct intervention.
- Can point to transformations, growth journeys, or crises where effective delegation and oversight were crucial to success at scale.
- Is known for developing leaders through stretch delegations that are well-supported but not over-controlled, producing stronger successors.
- Across roles, leaves behind organizations with robust decision and oversight routines that continue to function effectively after their departure.
