3 Types of Executive Team Dysfunction

Summary

HBR On Leadership: Episode Summary – "3 Types of Executive Team Dysfunction"

Release Date: July 30, 2025

In this insightful episode of HBR On Leadership, host Kurt Nickish delves into the intricate dynamics of executive teams. Joined by Tomas Kyle, a Management Professor at the University of Zurich, and Mariana Zangrillo, a Partner at Next Advisors, the discussion centers around their extensive research on leadership team dysfunctions. Drawing from interviews with over 100 CEOs and senior executives, Kyle and Zangrillo identify three primary patterns of dysfunction within top-tier leadership teams: the Shark Tank, the Petting Zoo, and Mediocrity. This comprehensive summary explores each dysfunction, its implications, and strategies for CEOs to cultivate more effective leadership teams.

---

1. Overview of the Study

Kurt Nickish introduces the episode by highlighting the critical role of leadership teams in driving organizational success. He emphasizes common challenges such as drained morale and inflated costs due to dysfunctional interactions among senior leaders. Kyle and Zangrillo's research, spanning a decade, reveals that leadership teams often exhibit one of three main dysfunction patterns, each posing unique challenges to organizational performance.

2. Three Types of Executive Team Dysfunction

a. Shark Tank

Definition & Characteristics: The Shark Tank dysfunction is characterized by intense competition, frequent infighting, and political maneuvering among team members. While some level of competition can be healthy, excessive rivalry undermines cooperation and overall team cohesion.

Insights from the Experts: Tomas Kyle explains, “'When competition is taken to the extreme, problems basically start.'” (02:45). This environment shifts focus from organizational goals to individual agendas, eroding trust and collaboration.

CEO Intervention Strategies: To mitigate the Shark Tank dynamic, CEOs must establish clear boundaries for acceptable competition. Mariana Zangrillo advises, “'Set limits very clearly, define where competition is acceptable, and shut down when behaviors escalate into a political domain.'” (09:43). This may sometimes require letting go of high performers whose actions compromise the team's integrity for the sake of the organization's well-being.

b. Petting Zoo

Definition & Characteristics: The Petting Zoo dysfunction presents as an overly harmonious team that avoids conflict and lacks ambition. Executives often agree with each other without constructive criticism, leading to stagnation and a lack of innovative solutions.

Insights from the Experts: Tomas Kyle describes, “'When one executive speaks, everybody else nods. That is a clear sign the team is not doing their job.'” (09:56). This complacency hinders the team's ability to challenge ideas and strive for excellence.

CEO Intervention Strategies: To transform a Petting Zoo into a more dynamic team, Mariana Zangrillo suggests fostering an environment of trust and encouraging healthy debates. “'Define your purpose, shift meeting focuses to interpretation of purpose and principles, and push executives to contribute new perspectives.'” (13:31). Building trust is essential to ensure that debates are constructive and aimed at organizational improvement rather than personal disagreements.

c. Mediocrity

Definition & Characteristics: Mediocrity emerges when a leadership team is marked by complacency, lack of competence, and a focus on past achievements rather than future growth. This dysfunction often results from insufficient skills and outdated approaches that fail to meet current organizational demands.

Insights from the Experts: Tomas Kyle notes, “'Leaders in mediocre teams are ill-suited for their roles and not up to the task.'” (14:57). Such teams require substantial changes, frequently involving significant personnel shifts to enhance capability and performance.

CEO Intervention Strategies: Addressing mediocrity involves comprehensive team restructuring. Mariana Zangrillo emphasizes, “'Changing people is just the first step. You need to rebuild the team with the right mix of skills and clearly define roles and responsibilities.'” (16:39). This process may include redefining the team's purpose, aligning individual strengths with organizational goals, and ensuring diverse perspectives to drive innovation.

---

3. Prevalence and Awareness of Dysfunction

Kyle and Zangrillo reveal that dysfunctional leadership teams are more common than typically perceived. Mariana Zangrillo states, “'Surprisingly common... CEOs were not really aware of the dysfunctions in their team, thinking they had a well-working team.'” (03:18). This disconnect underscores the importance of external assessments and open communication channels within organizations to uncover underlying issues.

4. Assessing Team Effectiveness

To evaluate the health of a leadership team, CEOs should vigilantly monitor both overt and subtle signals of dysfunction. Mariana Zangrillo advises, “'Watch for telltale signals like shouting matches or lack of communication in meetings.'” (04:34). Observing interactions both during and outside of formal meetings can provide valuable insights into the team's dynamics and areas needing attention.

5. Addressing Dysfunction Across Different Types

a. Shark Tank Solutions Recap:

• Set Clear Boundaries: Define acceptable competition levels.
• Strong Leadership: Actively manage and regulate team behaviors.
• Potential Personnel Changes: Remove high performers who undermine team integrity.

b. Petting Zoo Solutions Recap:

• Foster Trust: Build an environment where healthy debates are encouraged.
• Shift Meeting Focus: Emphasize purpose and principles to stimulate discussion.
• Encourage Active Participation: Push executives to contribute diverse perspectives.

c. Mediocrity Solutions Recap:

• Rebuild the Team: Replace or restructure team members to enhance capability.
• Define Clear Roles: Align individual strengths with organizational needs.
• Promote Diversity and Innovation: Ensure a mix of skills and perspectives to drive progress.

6. Common CEO Pitfalls

Kyle and Zangrillo identify two primary stumbling blocks for CEOs attempting to rectify team dysfunctions:

1. Recognition of Issues: CEOs may struggle to identify dysfunctions due to masked interactions among team members.
2. Consistent Leadership: Even after recognizing issues, CEOs may fail to consistently model the behaviors required to implement change effectively.

Mariana Zangrillo emphasizes, “'How the CEO acts themselves as a leader is an important driver and often inconsistent behavior derails change.'” (17:45).

7. General Advice for Effective Leadership Teams

Concluding the discussion, Kyle and Zangrillo offer actionable strategies for CEOs to build and maintain high-performing leadership teams:

• Develop a Clear Vision and Purpose: Articulate a compelling vision that aligns with organizational goals.
• Ensure Alignment: Align team members' skills and behaviors with the vision.
• Define Responsibilities and Decision-Making Processes: Clarify roles, responsibilities, and how decisions are made.
• Establish Behavioral Norms: Set and uphold behavioral standards through coaching and role modeling.

Tomas Kyle summarizes, “'Establishing clarity in vision, alignment, responsibilities, and behavioral norms is crucial for high-performing teams.'” (19:01).

Additionally, Mariana Zangrillo challenges the notion that CEOs alone are responsible for team effectiveness, advocating for collective ownership of team dynamics. “'Teams can take charge of changing and engaging as a group in change. It's not only top-down.'” (20:39). This perspective encourages a collaborative approach to fostering a functional and dynamic leadership team.

---

8. Conclusion

In "3 Types of Executive Team Dysfunction," HBR On Leadership provides a deep dive into the common challenges that executive teams face. Through the expertise of Tomas Kyle and Mariana Zangrillo, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the Shark Tank, Petting Zoo, and Mediocrity dysfunctions. The episode not only highlights the prevalence of these issues but also offers practical strategies for CEOs to diagnose and address dysfunctions effectively. By fostering clear communication, establishing trust, and aligning team dynamics with organizational goals, leaders can cultivate high-performing teams that drive sustained success.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Tomas Kyle (02:45): “When competition is taken to the extreme, problems basically start.”
• Mariana Zangrillo (09:43): “Set limits very clearly, define where competition is acceptable, and shut down when behaviors escalate into a political domain.”
• Tomas Kyle (09:56): “When one executive speaks, everybody else nods. That is a clear sign the team is not doing their job.”
• Mariana Zangrillo (13:31): “Define your purpose, shift meeting focuses to interpretation of purpose and principles, and push executives to contribute new perspectives.”
• Tomas Kyle (14:57): “Leaders in mediocre teams are ill-suited for their roles and not up to the task.”
• Mariana Zangrillo (16:39): “Changing people is just the first step. You need to rebuild the team with the right mix of skills and clearly define roles and responsibilities.”
• Mariana Zangrillo (17:45): “How the CEO acts themselves as a leader is an important driver and often inconsistent behavior derails change.”

---

This episode serves as a crucial resource for CEOs, senior executives, and anyone interested in understanding and improving the dynamics of leadership teams. By identifying common dysfunctions and providing actionable solutions, HBR On Leadership empowers leaders to foster more effective and harmonious executive teams.

Transcript

[Amanda Kersey]

Deal has helped over 35,000 businesses simplify global hiring, onboarding, payroll and compliance. Visit deal.com to learn more. That'S-E-E-L.com welcome to HBR on leadership case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts hand hand selected to help you unlock the best in those around you. I'm HBR Senior Editor and Producer Amanda Kersey. If you lead an executive team or are part of one, how confident are you in its ability to drive success? Do interactions among senior leaders ever seem to drain morale or inflate costs? Could your team be operating under the radar of dysfunction? In the HBR IdeaCast episode you're about to hear, host Kurt Nickish explores these questions with two experts in executive behavior. Their interviews with over 100 senior leaders revealed three recurring patterns of dysfunction in top teams and more importantly, what CEOs can do about them. This episode was originally titled Dysfunctional Leadership Teams and how to fix them.

[Kurt Nickish]

Here's Kurt Our guests today are Tomas Kyle, Management professor at the University of Zurich, and Mariana Zangrillo, a partner at the Next Advisors. They wrote the HBR why Leadership Teams Fail and they join me now. Tomas and Mariana, thanks for joining me.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

Thanks for having us.

[Tomas Kyle]

Thank you for having us.

[Kurt Nickish]

I guess we should start by defining exactly what you studied. You spoke to people in leadership teams.

[Tomas Kyle]

That's correct. So we know that basically the health of the leadership team is quite crucial and very often is underestimated. And to learn about what kind of problems might affect these teams, we have interviewed more than 100 CEOs and senior executives while pursuing a multi year research program of about 10 years. And in our study, while of course there are differences across different companies and situations, we noticed that leadership teams tend to exhibit one or three main patterns of dysfunction. The first being very competitive, a lot of infighting, and considerable political maneuvering. We do know that some competition is necessary, but when that gets taken to the extreme, problems basically start. The second pattern we observed is the one of extreme conflict avoidance where team members just pursue collaboration, don't challenge anymore each other because there is also a guarantee of no all being challenged back. And then the third pattern that we notice is too much complacency, lack of competence and fundamentally focus on past performance, which is probably one of the most complicated of the patterns that we identified.

[Kurt Nickish]

I'm curious how common this is to have a leadership team that is dysfunctional.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

Initially, when we started our study we were not really looking at failing leadership teams, but as we spoke with people and as they often talked in more detail and often also asking to stay anonymous, they opened up that they had a lot of issues with the leadership team. And it was surprisingly common. In fact, you don't often hear about that, you don't often read about that, because of course, we all try to project a picture of success and of a strong team. But when you really go beyond that surface, it is very common in the top leadership teams. And it is very interesting that in some instances CEOs were not really aware of the dysfunctions in their team, that they thought they had a well working team. And when we spoke with some of the executives reporting to them, they portrayed a very different picture.

[Kurt Nickish]

It sounds like the strength of a leadership team can make or break the job of the CEO. And they're also the person who probably has the most control over shaping that team. But if they're not aware of it themselves, what can they do to kind of assess the effectiveness of their own team?

[Mariana Zangrillo]

In our view, one of the first things is to watch out very carefully for telltale signals. For each of these dysfunctions that we identified, there are signs, sometimes small signs, that you need to be very carefully attuned to where you have to watch out very carefully, listen carefully what people say, what different people say. Those are often signals, signal that there is a problem well before it deteriorates to the extent that it really drives down the performance. For instance, if people are starting to be too emotional when you have shouting matches in the meetings, or when people are decidedly not communicating in the meeting but try to take you aside afterwards, these are very strong signals that your team is starting to become too political. If you have the other extreme, that you have no emotion in the team, People don't challenge each other, they rather play to each other's proposals. That's a sign that you're lacking the level of ambition, you're lacking the level of energy. You're ending up in what we call a petting zoo. Or if people are fundamentally backward oriented, have no ideas, then you don't have the right caliber in your team and you're in a mediocrity. So it's really about monitoring very clearly what's going on both inside the meetings but also outside of the meeting to get a sense of where your team is at.

[Kurt Nickish]

Often CEOs will inherit that team. They may bring certain people in. They're not always building it from scratch. Is part of the problem just the fact that it could take a long time to actually switch the team over or have the people in place that you think are optimal.

[Tomas Kyle]

We see a lot of differences depending also on the current situation that the CEO find. But we do see that in situations like a shark tank, it is often just one or two team members which may be the problem. And if the CEO pays attention to how the individuals behave, may quickly identify the one who might be the problem, have conversations with him and her, and if the person can kind of get back on track and work with the rest of the team, it may even be possible that no change is needed. But if the person is really not adjusting the behaviors and keeps being self serving, then a different situation is at hand and more changes are needed. The other extreme, we typically see instead in the third type of dysfunction. So when we are looking at a team where we have a mediocrity, then basically we see the situation where CEO may have to carry out many more changes.

[Kurt Nickish]

There's a famous story of Howard Schultz, the Starbucks CEO, going to Steve Jobs and complaining about his team. And apparently Steve Jobs said fire everybody. And Schultz didn't, but he said within a year everybody had left anyway. So sometimes these are, you know, do you want the pain now or do you want the pain later?

[Mariana Zangrillo]

And we have a number of instances where we actually had CEOs that changed anything from 80% to 100% of the team simply because they needed to transform the organization so radically that this wasn't possible with the existing team.

[Kurt Nickish]

So it sounds like a lot of judgment calls here to turn their teams into better performing ones. Let's spend a little bit of time on each of these three main types and how to navigate those. The shark tank analogy is pretty vivid, right? This is one where there is a lot of infighting, whether outright or, you know, clandestine. How does this dynamic come about and what influence does the CEO have on that?

[Mariana Zangrillo]

In the shark tank you really have competition taken to the extreme. When you start to say, okay, winning is more important than paying fair, then what? What you find is that where you would need cooperation, it no longer happens. And that is where the organization becomes political, where people only drive their own agenda and no longer the agenda of the company. And that's really a place where you need a very strong leader that actually reins in these behaviors, that sets limits very clearly, that sets a very clear direction, defines where competition is acceptable, defines what behaviors are acceptable, and also very clearly shuts down when behaviors escalate into a, into a political domain, which is unfortunately even may mean that you have to lose a high performer. Because in a shark tank you often have many High performers. But when you perform at the expense of the organization, it's no longer in the interest of the organization. And you may have to in the short run accept that you are losing a high performing individual. But then the team as a whole becomes stronger.

[Kurt Nickish]

Well, let's get to the maybe the opposite problem, which is the petting zoo. What does that look like in practice at an organization?

[Tomas Kyle]

Well, when we have Petting Zoo, basically.

[Kurt Nickish]

We have, I love that name by the way. It's great.

[Tomas Kyle]

When we have the petting zoo, we have executives which tend to be extremely collaborative. Sometimes they've been with organization for a very long time, tend to support each other, to protect each other. Disagreement doesn't happen. And in the, in the executive meetings, when one executive speaks, everybody else nods. And that is a clear sign the team is not basically doing their job because they are not constructively criticizing each other, pushing a little bit the boundaries and ultimately breaking or going against the nature of what leadership teams really need to do. We had one case where a CEO told us people just did not want to talk openly. They all were supporting each other, were not speaking up, conversations were not happening. And then he basically decided to shift the focus of executive meetings from questions of policies and procedures to interpretation of purpose and principles. And during the various meeting he carefully followed up on how much discussion was happening, who was speaking, who was raising issues and challenging colleagues, and who was simply nodding. And then from there he was basically testing the temperature to see how well the team was functioning. So more debate is always necessary in these cases and that's to CEO jobs to try to push each of the executives to participate more actively to the conversation, contribute with new perspectives to come to more optimal outcome.

[Kurt Nickish]

Some people will hear that description of that team and think it's maybe okay. It might be calming to the rest of the organization too to see, you know, there's no apparent disagreement at the top. Why is the petting zoo so damaging?

[Mariana Zangrillo]

What the petting zoo fundamentally misses is the level of ambition and the level of challenging each other that is needed that people get out of their comfort zone. If we want to drive performance in a modern organization, we need to step out of the comfort zone and we need to work together on creating novel solutions. But if I'm just accepting my peers solutions, that's just not happening. So we are essentially taking it too easy.

[Tomas Kyle]

The petting zoo sometime is the outcome of many years working together. So we see teams which have worked together for 5, 10, 15 years and whoever new was brought in was someone who had to be fitting into that ways of working and not really a type of person who would challenge. And as we know very well, when there is no change, no novelty, no diversity, no new thinking, then very difficult to make progress. So they favor stability and calmness over progress, which sometimes can be also a choice. But certainly the overall performance and profitability in the long run tends to suffer.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

And it may in fact be a sign of a lack of trust in the team. Because to really engage each other constructively, critically, you do need to trust that. That people will not attack you on the person, that it's about the issues, it's about the idea, it's about building on each other. And when that trust isn't there, you often find people acting nicely because it feels safe, but fundamentally not trusting that any debate is actually meant to help me rather than to hurt my position in the organization.

[Kurt Nickish]

Can a CEO in that petting zoo then replace one or two people? Can they simply try to change the culture of the team by challenging them more, by changing the budgets more, so that there's more competition over new projects? Like any other tactics that a CEO can do in that situation, in our.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

View, it often depends on what is the underlying root cause of this behavior. If it's a matter of trust, then you need to start with building the trust in the team. If it's a matter of some degree of complacency in the team, then you need to start to change the behavior by processes, by for instance, forcing numbers onto the table, by debating numbers. If it is a matter of people having been too long in a role, then one of the things a CEO can do is for instance, also switching around roles so that nobody feels they are the opposite expert in their domain. And therefore you get some more of this challenging into the team.

[Kurt Nickish]

Let me ask about the mediocrity. It sounds like this is a team where you could have people who are appropriately competitive, who are appropriately collaborative, but just not excellent in their work and what they're doing. Is that the issue?

[Tomas Kyle]

Well, in the mediocracy, we typically find leaders that are ill suited for their roles and they are not up to the task. These are the situations where we have seen CEOs carrying out the highest amount of executive changes. In this situation, we typically find teams where some people are competing excessively, some people are collaborating excessively, they can be different groups which are created, and they are not really working with each other. So we have seen a number of CEOs which had basically two significantly remake the team, if not entirely typically much more than 50% gets changed in these situations.

[Kurt Nickish]

I'm just going to underline something that you said, that these teams, they can look almost like shark tanks. They can also look like petting zoos, or they can look like good teams, but they're just still made up of people who aren't up to the task.

[Tomas Kyle]

It is true, but actually in the mediocrity, what we actually see is people which are not fundamentally capable or suitable for the job. So it's not anymore an interpersonal issue, the way people deal with each other, but there is an objective issue with the capability and the fit of the individual or many individuals within that organization. And that's probably what makes the role of the CEOs most difficult in these cases, because it's not anymore enough to address the behaviors. But you fundamentally have an issue also with the individual, many individuals, independently of how they interact with each other.

[Kurt Nickish]

What else can you do to right the ship?

[Mariana Zangrillo]

In this case, changing people is always just the first step. You need to be very careful, of course, in this case with the selection of people so that you get then the right mix of skills and again the ability to compete, collaborate, as is needed for the mandate of the CEO. But then also you need to very clearly define how you're going to run this team. So because you're essentially rebuilding the team, you really need to start from thinking about what is your purpose, what is your mandate as a CEO, how do you align a team around that, what kind of people will serve that best, what are the kind of mixes of responsibilities, and where do you then design, collaboration, competition around that. So it is really in the end more or less a complete rebuild of the top team.

[Kurt Nickish]

Where do CEOs most often go wrong? Or what are the biggest stumbling blocks for CEOs when they're trying to change these teams into more functional ones.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

We see two important stumbling blocks. The first one, and you mentioned that already yourself earlier, is to actually recognize what are the issues in your team, because the team members will interact differently with the CEO than they interact as a team. Then they interact with each other when the CEO is not in the room. So it's not always easy for a CEO to really understand what dynamic is going on. But the next, and even if you have recognized and you want to institute change, is the fact that the CEO needs to be very controlled in instituting the change. How the CEO acts himself or herself as a leader, how he or she interacts with the individual team members interacts in those meetings is such an important driver and often CEOs talk one game and then themselves behave differently. And that completely derails any kind of change that they may try to institute.

[Kurt Nickish]

You study these teams, you advise these teams. I'm curious if you can just share some additional General advice for CEOs and leadership teams. How can they become more effective?

[Tomas Kyle]

Well, this basically goes back to the steps to high performing teams. Very often is the lack of clarity where the strategic, operational or behavioral which causes this leadership team dysfunctions. So if the CEOs go back to developing a clear vision and purpose so that they articulate a compelling vision, then we always tell the next step would be to focus focus on alignment. The team members have to have skills and behaviors that align with the vision and the purpose of the CEO and the organization. And on top of that clearly need to have backgrounds, experiences and strengths that will contribute to organizational performance. It is very important to outline responsibilities as clearly as possible, defining goals and roles and also how the decision making will happen. And finally establish behavioral norms. If it is clear what are the norms that are expected from the team and the team members are encouraged through coaching and role modeling, then it is more likely that the organization will function in the way the CEO basically envisions that to drive ultimate performance.

[Kurt Nickish]

I bet a lot of people listening to this episode, if they're not in leadership teams too, they're going to be wondering about their own and wondering about how well they perform. And they probably just don't have enough insight into that. It's the CEO, the manager of that team, who has the best idea of whether or not an outwardly effective team is actually effective.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

Let me challenge what you just said a little bit. I think very often the people in the teams have a very clear understanding of what is working, what is not working. And I think teams also can take charge of changing this and of engaging as a group in change. It's not only top down, we believe that there is a very important role for the executives in a top leadership team or then for team members to create the type of environment and that the team as a whole can perform.

[Kurt Nickish]

That's really interesting. You don't have to wait for the CEO to try to make a positive change and try to build trust.

[Tomas Kyle]

It is very important that every individual takes ownership of own behavior, own future, and also organizational success. If everybody thinks that it's only the CEO or the leader job to do the correct things, then the likelihood that the organization takes a good direction is much smaller. And if we are letting things happen to us or to our organization, then basically we are in the hand of fate and not in the hand of our competence.

[Kurt Nickish]

Tomas and Mariana, thank you for coming on the show to talk about this.

[Tomas Kyle]

Thank you very much for having us.

[Mariana Zangrillo]

It's been a real pleasure.

[Amanda Kersey]

You were listening to Tomas, Kyle and Mariana Zangrillo speak with HBR IdeaCast host Kurt Nickish. Tomas is a management professor at the University of Zurich. He and Mariana are partners in the next Advisors. Through their consultancy, they support boards and CEOs in building stronger leadership teams and making better succession decisions. HBR on Leadership will be back next Wednesday with another handpicked conversation from Harvard Business Review. If this episode helped, you share it with your friends and colleagues and follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts while you're there in the app, consider leaving us a review. And when you're ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books and videos with the world's top business and management experts, find it [e-mail] this episode will was produced by Mary Dew, Hannah Bates and me, Amanda Kersey On Leadership's team includes Maureen Hoch, Rob Eckhart, Erica Trexler, Ramsey Kabaz, Nicole Smith and Anne Bartholomew. Music is by Coma Media. Thanks for listening.