Why Leadership Development Alone Won't Create High-Performing Teams

We might be developing the wrong bloody thing.

Organisations spend a lot of money developing leaders.

Leadership programmes. Coaching. 360s. Qualifications. Management training. Workshops. Away days.

And before anyone gets excited, I'm not saying leadership development is a waste of money.

That would be a slightly awkward position for someone who sells leadership development.

I've spent a big chunk of my career designing and delivering it. I think it's hugely important.

But I've increasingly got a problem with where we put nearly all of our attention.

We spend thousands developing an individual leader.

We help them understand themselves. Build confidence. Give better feedback. Coach their people. Communicate more effectively. Become more strategic.

Brilliant.

Then we send them straight back into a team that has never spent any meaningful time working out how the hell they're supposed to work together.

And then we're surprised when nothing really changes.

That's the bit I think we're getting wrong.

A group of brilliant people can still make a sh*te team

Put six talented leaders around a table.

They're experienced. Capable. Motivated. They've all been on the programmes. They've probably got certificates somewhere to prove it.

Does that automatically make them a high-performing team?

Of course it doesn't.

They can still:

• avoid difficult conversations
• work in silos
• have meetings about meetings
• leave the same meeting with six different versions of what was agreed
• agree enthusiastically in the room and then disagree spectacularly outside it
• compete rather than collaborate
• avoid holding each other accountable
• rely on the boss to sort everything out

Because individual capability and team effectiveness aren't the same thing.

A team isn't high-performing because you've assembled a collection of high performers.

The interesting stuff happens between the people.

That's where team development comes in.

So what does a high-performing team actually need?

There are approximately 847 models of high-performing teams available on the internet.

I've probably used a fair few of them.

But underneath most of the clever diagrams, I keep coming back to a handful of things.

1. Clarity

What are we actually trying to achieve together?

Sounds obvious.

It isn't.

Ask ten people in a team:

"What does this team exist to achieve?"

If you get ten different answers, you've got somewhere useful to start.

And I'm not talking about everyone being able to recite the company strategy from the PowerPoint.

I mean genuinely understanding:

What are we here to do together that we can't achieve as individuals?

That's team clarity.

2. Trust

Trust isn't everyone getting along.

It isn't going for a pint together.

And it definitely isn't falling backwards into Steve from Procurement's arms on an away day.

Trust is whether I can say:

"I don't know."

"I need some help."

"I think we've got this wrong."

Or even:

"Adam, I completely disagree with you."

...without wondering whether I've just committed a career-limiting offence.

That's much more interesting.

3. Understanding

People are different.

Groundbreaking stuff, I know.

But teams regularly behave as though everyone else should think, communicate and make decisions exactly like they do.

This is one reason I love using CliftonStrengths with teams.

Not because everyone gets a nice list of words.

The magic isn't:

"Ooh, you've got Strategic."

Lovely.

What are we going to do with that information?

How does knowing each other's strengths change the way we communicate, divide work, make decisions, challenge each other and ask for help?

Knowing is interesting.

Using it is where the value is.

4. Challenge

High-performing teams don't agree all the time.

I'd be slightly worried if they did.

If you've got talented people with different experience, expertise and perspectives around a table, there should be disagreement.

The question is whether you've created enough trust to do something useful with it.

Can we challenge the idea without attacking the person?

Can we disagree with the most senior person in the room?

Can we say the thing everyone is thinking but nobody wants to say?

A team where everyone agrees with the boss isn't necessarily aligned.

It might just be scared.

5. Accountability

Here's a fun one.

Someone agrees to do something in a meeting.

Next meeting comes around.

They haven't done it.

What happens?

A) Someone challenges it.

B) The team has an honest conversation about what got in the way.

C) Everyone stares intently at their notebook until the leader moves on.

If C feels familiar, we've got work to do.

High-performing teams don't outsource accountability entirely to the boss.

They hold each other accountable.

6. Connection

And yes, people need to know each other.

They don't need matching friendship bracelets.

But they do need to understand the human beings behind the job titles.

What matters to them?

What pressure are they under?

What brings out their best?

What happens to them under stress?

What do they need from the rest of us?

The more we understand each other, the easier it becomes to work together.

Funny that.

So should we stop developing leaders?

No.

Please don't screenshot the headline and tell everyone That Training Guy says leadership development doesn't work.

That's not what I'm saying.

Leadership development matters enormously.

But I'd challenge organisations to stop asking only:

"How are we developing our leaders?"

and start asking:

"How are we developing our teams?"

Because they're not the same thing.

One develops the individual.

The other develops the relationships, behaviours and conditions around them.

We need both.

And no, team development doesn't mean trust falls

Mention a "team day" and you can almost see the fear in people's eyes.

Icebreakers.

Rafts.

Spaghetti towers.

Being forced to share an interesting fact about yourself at 9:03am.

It doesn't have to be that.

Good team development creates conversations that don't normally happen when everyone's flying between meetings.

Things like:

Why do we exist as a team?

What do we need from each other?

What are we brilliant at?

Where are our blind spots?

What happens to us under pressure?

What conversation are we avoiding?

What does good challenge look like here?

What are we going to do differently after today?

That final question is the important one.

Because I've said this before and I'll keep saying it:

A team away day should change more than everyone's location.

Have a laugh.

Have some good food.

Get away from Teams for a day.

Absolutely.

But make sure something is different on Monday morning.

My hill to die on

If organisations put even a fraction of the investment they make in developing individual leaders into developing teams together, I think we'd see a much bigger impact on performance.

Because leadership doesn't happen in isolation.

It happens in teams.

So next time you're looking at your development plan, don't just ask:

"Who's developing our leaders?"

Ask:

Who's developing the team?

And if the answer is "erm...", that's probably worth a conversation.