logo
How To Fix Executive Team Performance And Accountability

How To Fix Executive Team Performance And Accountability

Forbesa day ago
Even strong executive teams can struggle with creating shared accountability for enterprise results. getty
Want to have a high-performing executive team? It's easy to assume that when you bring together smart, capable executives, performance will naturally follow. But in practice, the real barriers to executive team performance aren't about intelligence, strategy, or even trust. They're about a much deeper level of dynamics—unspoken tensions, competing priorities, and the uncomfortable truth that many senior leadership teams never learn how to hold themselves accountable to each other.
Here's what's really going on behind the polished slides and well-run meetings—and what teams need to do differently if they want to drive real enterprise value.
Most leadership teams know accountability is important. The problem? We tell teams to hold each other accountable—but we don't teach them how.
Accountability requires conflict. It means naming when someone hasn't followed through, when priorities are drifting, or when a leader's actions are out of sync with what the team agreed to. That's hard in any environment—and exponentially harder when you're sitting across from someone who has more power, deeper relationships, or a longer tenure.
So we avoid it. We say, 'We'll follow up later," or tell ourselves it's not the right time and assume the team leader will step in. And slowly, accountability erodes—not because people don't care, but because we haven't built the skills to do it well.
Just telling teams to 'hold each other accountable' is naive. It's like handing someone a scalpel and telling them to perform surgery. It sounds simple—but without the training, it's not going to end well. The real fix is to help leaders learn how to have productive, high-stakes conversations where conflict, candor, and challenge are part of the process—not the exception. These are not soft skills. They are essential executive capabilities.
Practical Steps: Train for it. Teach executive teams how to give and receive direct feedback in high-stakes situations—without it getting personal or political.
Teach executive teams how to give and receive direct feedback in high-stakes situations—without it getting personal or political. Practice it. Build conflict into your meetings. Assign someone to challenge ideas or play devil's advocate. Reflect on what made a disagreement productive or not.
Build conflict into your meetings. Assign someone to challenge ideas or play devil's advocate. Reflect on what made a disagreement productive or not. Reward it. Don't just celebrate outcomes. Celebrate leaders who name hard truths, raise flags early, or hold a peer accountable in service of the team's goals. The Unspoken Rules Run the Room — And That's a Problem for High-Performing Executive Teams
Executive teams love to say they value open dialogue. But behind the scenes, there's often a long list of topics that never make it into the room—especially in front of the CEO. Power dynamics, relationships, and politics all play a role. And truthfully, it makes sense—not every conversation can or should happen in the team setting. That's why we pull each other aside in the hallway or debrief one-on-one after the meeting. It's faster, safer, and often, more efficient.
But here's the catch: when the real conversations only happen outside the room, the team never learns how to operate with full transparency inside it. And over time, that reinforces a dynamic where people second-guess what they can say, silence themselves, and make safer bets. We avoid the risk of speaking up in the room—so the room stays safe, but also stagnant.
The fix isn't to ban backchannels or pretend they don't exist. It's to balance them—and to gently build a culture where team members start saying to each other, 'I think that's something worth raising with the group.'
Practical Steps: Encourage transparency, without demanding perfection. It's not about saying everything out loud—it's about recognizing when the team deserves to hear it, more often.
It's not about saying everything out loud—it's about recognizing when the team deserves to hear it, more often. Model the shift. As a leader, bring something into the room that you used to handle privately. Show that it's useful to do so.
As a leader, bring something into the room that you used to handle privately. Show that it's useful to do so. Use team norms intentionally. Include agreements like, 'If we're having multiple side conversations about a topic, that's a sign it belongs in the room.'
If you want real performance, don't just focus on what's being said—start noticing what's being saved for later. Yes, It Can Feel Like Middle School Sometimes
On the surface, executive teams operate like composed, high-functioning professionals. But dig deeper and you'll often find something far more familiar: cliques, inside jokes, and informal in-groups that leave others on the outside.
Newer executives and external executive hires, especially, can struggle to break in. Long-standing relationships dominate conversations. Some leaders have shared history, inside language, or direct access to the CEO that others don't. It can feel like there's an A-team—and then everyone else.
But here's where it gets more complicated: this dynamic is real—but it's also a trap. Feeling excluded can easily lead to the mindset of, 'I'm being excluded,' or, 'This team is the problem, not me.' And that thinking, while understandable, often leads to behaviors—pulling back, judging others, staying quiet, thinking, 'why bother?'—that unintentionally deepen the divide.
The more we feel like we don't belong, the more we risk behaving in ways that reinforce our separateness. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's why fixing this dynamic takes the willingness to point out if this happening, and the courage to look in the mirror and ask how we're personally showing up.
Practical Steps: Treat onboarding to the team like onboarding to the company. Clarify norms, decision-making patterns, and implicit expectations. Assign mentors, sponsors, and coaches to help new members integrate faster.
Clarify norms, decision-making patterns, and implicit expectations. Assign mentors, sponsors, and coaches to help new members integrate faster. Leaders feeling like outsiders: Check your narrative. Stay engaged, ask for support. Don't let the dynamic define your value or contribution.
Check your narrative. Stay engaged, ask for support. Don't let the dynamic define your value or contribution. For the team as a whole: Normalize talking about inclusion—not just at the org level, but within the team itself. Who speaks most? Who rarely gets the floor? What patterns are we not seeing? Team belonging doesn't just happen. It's created—by the team and by every individual on it. Too Much Going On Limits Executive Team Performance
Today's executive teams are pulled in more directions than ever—global priorities, cross-functional initiatives, urgent issues, never-ending decks. As a result, conversations stay surface-level.
Meetings devolve into report-outs. Strategic discussions get cut short. We run out of time before we get to the real work. This isn't a discipline problem—it's a design and structure problem.
Fix it: Redesign meetings around value. Limit updates to pre-reads. Dedicate time for strategic conversation—and protect it. Ask: What's the most important thing only this team can solve together this week? Then focus there. Final Thought: Build A High-Performing Team Before You Need It
Most executive teams are under unbelievable pressure, so it's easy to be reactive and focus on team performance only when there's visible dysfunction or a crisis. But high-performing executive teams don't wait for a breakdown—they build their capability ahead of time.
A high-performing executive team doesn't just manage the business—it multiplies its value. That doesn't happen by chance. It happens through intentional work, shared goals, and continuous practice. If your team isn't creating the value you know it could, it's not a failure of talent. It's a signal to invest in how you work together.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ultra Mobile raised its data caps without a price increase
Ultra Mobile raised its data caps without a price increase

The Verge

time22 minutes ago

  • The Verge

Ultra Mobile raised its data caps without a price increase

T-Mobile is bringing some of its Uncarrier energy to Ultra Mobile, the carrier's international-focused MVNO that operates on its network. It announced that its plans now have slightly higher data caps and more international perks, but with the same prices as before for new and existing subscribers — a rare thing to see these days. The plan with the most notable increase in data cap is its $39 per month tier, which jumps from 15GB to 24GB per month. It also includes 5GB of data you can use in Mexico before international data roaming charges kick in. If you're accustomed to churning through a ton of data every month, its $59 per month unlimited (talk, text, and data) plan is stuffed with more goodies. It includes a combined $20 in international calling and data roaming credits, plus 25GB to use as a mobile hotspot (it previously included 20GB). You'll also get 100 minutes to call 'nearly anywhere,' and either 500 texts or 500MB of roaming data to use while traveling abroad before you have to pay extra. Whichever plan is best for your budget, Ultra Mobile stands out from Mint Mobile and Metro (other T-Mobile-owned MVNOs), as well as other major carriers, by offering more perks for people who call and text folks in countries outside the US. In addition to unlimited talk and text to Mexico, Canada, and the UK, Ultra allows free calls to landlines and mobile phones in China, India, Australia, and many other countries. Plus, all of its plans support Wi-Fi calling, which makes it easy to take calls even if local coverage is spotty.

Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win
Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win

Forbes

time23 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win

Topline Luxury athletic wear brand Lululemon has sued Costco in federal court and accused the big box store of selling products that purposefully rip off some its most popular items for a fraction of the price—the latest lawsuit to come out of an increasingly prevalent 'dupe culture' that has left big-name companies with little recourse against brands that produce copycat products for less. A customer enters a Lululemon store in Corte Madera, California. Getty Images Key Facts In a lawsuit filed in California, Lululemon accused Costco of selling and, in one case, manufacturing knockoffs of its Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants. The complaint alleged trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, patent infringement and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and asks that Lululemon be compensated for the lost profits and "significant harm" done to its brands and reputation. Costco, which did not respond to request for comment from Forbes on Tuesday, could be forced to pay up if Lululemon prevails, but winning a trademark infringement lawsuit over dupe products is a tall order. Dozens of successful brands have sued over the increasing production of dupes in the last several years, but proving a product was copied isn't enough to win—the original producer must also show that the copycat product could actually 'dupe' customers into believing the knockoffs are the real thing. The onus of proving the copycat product actually confused customers and impacted the original manufacturer's business falls on the originating company, New York trademark lawyer Karl Zielaznick told Forbes, and it's very hard to prove: 'Customers often know that they aren't buying a $5,000 watch for $100… They know it's a different, dupe product,' he said. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. Key Background The prevalence of 'dupe culture' has skyrocketed in the last decade, largely thanks to TikTok, as customers search for and buy products that are cheaper, almost identical versions of high-end items. As opposed to generations before who "may have shopped for knockoffs on the sly," Jennifer Baker of creator management platform Grin told The Guardian, young people are now happy to buy knockoff products and share their finds with the world. TikTok videos with #dupe hashtag have racked up more than 6 billion views, and shoppers can easily find counterfeits for everything from a $600 hair tool to a $40 face wash. Because shoppers are happily and knowingly buying the fake products, nobody is actually being duped into thinking knock-offs are the real thing, Zielaznick explained, which makes it much harder to prove brand confusion. Surprising Fact In December, the e.l.f. Cosmetics company admitted in federal court that it created a mascara product called the Lash 'N Roll specifically meant to mimic the Hook N' Roll brush of Benefit Cosmetics' Roller Lash mascara, which has produced $278 million in revenue from U.S. sales since 2015. E.l.f released its product in 2022, and the two mascaras are packaged and marked similarly. Despite the admission and similarities, a judge ruled that the e.l.f. product did not infringe on the trademark or trade dress of Benefit Cosmetics because it was very unlikely customers would ever actually confuse the two products. To win, Benefit would have had to prove e.l.f. had managed to actually dupe buyers, which the company failed to do. Crucial Quote 'It's not enough to have someone admit they looked at or were inspired by your product,' Zielaznick said. 'You have to be able to prove in some other way that this is harming you. There has to be a true attempt by the dupe manufacturer to deceive, and it's very hard to prove that that intent exists.' What To Watch For The verdict in pending trademark lawsuits. Snack giant Mondelez International has sued grocery chain Aldi over claims the store is mimicking the packaging of cookies like Oreo, Chips Ahoy! and Nutter Butter with the intention of confusing customers. Williams-Sonoma is suing a website called which allows shoppers to search for products that look eerily similar to something they liked online, and American Eagle is suing Amazon over claims it ripped off branding from the Aerie clothing line to confuse online shoppers. Deckers, the parent company of Ugg, is suing Quince for alleged trademark infringement related to a copycat version of its UGG Classic Ultra Mini boots. Further Reading Forbes Do Trademarks Still Matter In 2025? Forbes Earth, Wind & Firing Off: A Cautionary Tale Of Trademark Infringement In The Music Industry Forbes Nike Stole Company's Trademark, Then Tried To Bury It In Legal Bills, Court-Ordered Report Says

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses $95M overdraft case vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses $95M overdraft case vs. Navy Federal Credit Union

Associated Press

time34 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses $95M overdraft case vs. Navy Federal Credit Union

NEW YORK (AP) — Navy Federal Credit Union will no longer have to refund $80 million to servicemen and women for illegally charging them overdraft fees on their accounts, after the President Donald Trump-led Consumer Financial Protection Bureau moved to dismiss the case. It's the latest example of how the Trump-led CFPB is undoing much of the work it did under President Biden, even in instances where the bad actors agreed to provide redress and compensation to victims. The case dates from late 2024 and deals with an issue known as 'authorized positive overdraft fees,' which happen when a bank initially approves a debit card transaction but later charges the customer a overdraft fee when that earlier transaction settles, typically a couple of days later, and there's insufficient funds in the customer's bank account. Navy Federal was found to authorize these types of overdraft fees between 2017 and 2022, later stopping the practice and refunding some customers who were impacted. Under its previous settlement, Navy Federal would have needed to pay a $15 million fine to the CFPB and refund $80 million in illegally paid overdraft fees. At the time, Navy Federal said it 'fully cooperated with the CFPB's investigation and we will continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, just as we always have and as we believe we did here.' The CFPB gave little reason for withdrawing the consent order. Under Russell Vought, the president's budget director who is also the acting head of the bureau, the bureau has withdrawn roughly half a dozen consent orders and ended other settlements the bureau previously reached with financial services companies. The withdrawn order says that Navy Federal consented to have the order withdrawn. A spokesperson for Navy Federal did not immediately respond to comment on whether the credit union planned to keep refunding its customers, despite no longer having to do so. Navy Federal is, by far, the largest credit union in the country with roughly 14 million members and $180 billion in assets. If Navy Federal were considered a traditional bank, it would be the 24th largest bank in the country by assets.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store