Ask a CEO who’s on their leadership team, and you’ll usually get a quick answer. A list of names, perhaps a reference to “the exec” or “the senior team.”

But probe a little deeper — who actually shapes decisions? who’s accountable for outcomes? who covers the responsibilities your staff care about? — and the picture often becomes less clear.

Many organisations have a leadership group without ever defining what it’s for. People attend the same meetings, sit in the same room, but there’s no clarity about who’s accountable for what — or whether the group covers what the organisation actually needs. A collection of senior people, certainly. But a leadership team? That’s a different thing entirely.

Org Charts Aren’t Just PowerPoint for the Board

Organisational structure is often treated as a compliance exercise — something to present to investors or file away on the intranet. But structure serves two deeper purposes that are worth taking seriously.

First: reporting lines and representation.

When staff look at a leadership team, they’re asking questions — often unconsciously:

• Who’s responsible for my area?
• Who do I escalate to when something matters?
• Who’s thinking about the future of what I do?

If the leadership team doesn’t visibly cover those responsibilities, there’s a gap. Not just on a chart — in how people experience the organisation day to day. They feel unseen, unclear on who to turn to, uncertain whether anyone at the top understands their world.

A leadership team that doesn’t provide that coverage fails one of its core purposes — however impressive the titles in the room.

Second: having the right people around you to lead.

This is the dimension that often gets overlooked. Structure matters beyond reporting lines. The real question is whether you — as CEO, MD, or divisional head — have assembled the team you actually need to lead the business.

Because business leadership is a team sport.

No single leader, however capable, can hold every perspective, challenge every assumption, or see around every corner. You need people who bring different strengths, different viewpoints, different instincts. People who’ll tell you when you’re wrong. People who’ll cover your blind spots and push back when it matters.

So the question goes beyond “does my structure make sense on paper?” You also need to ask: do I have the right people around me to lead this business — together?

That deserves serious thought.

Leaders Don’t Have to Be Managers

One of the most common structural mistakes is conflating leadership with management.

Consider the brilliant technical specialist — someone genuinely world-class in their domain. They understand the product, the market, the technology better than anyone. But they can’t manage people. They don’t want to. And when they try, they resent the administration, neglect their expertise, and frustrate their team.

Too often, organisations push these people into management roles anyway. The logic seems sound: they’re senior, they’re valuable, so they should have direct reports. But this is a trap.

You lose their expertise to work they’re not suited for. You burden their team with a reluctant manager. And you create a false equivalence between leadership and hierarchy.

Better to recognise that leadership comes in different forms:

• Leadership through expertise — setting technical direction, making decisions others can’t
• Leadership through influence — shaping culture, challenging thinking, raising standards
• Leadership through delivery — driving outcomes in complex, cross-functional work

None of these require managing people. Your job as CEO or MD is to create space for different kinds of leadership — not to force everyone through the same funnel.

Three Things That Often Get Conflated

There’s an important distinction between:

1. The board — a governance body, often including non-executives, focused on oversight and long-term stewardship
2. The leadership team — the group accountable for running the business day-to-day, shaping decisions, and delivering outcomes
3. The meeting attendees — whoever happens to be in the regular slot

These aren’t the same. And when they blur together, clarity suffers.

Your leadership team should be defined by accountability, coverage, and collective capability — not by title or tenure. The group needs to own the organisation’s performance, represent its people, and — crucially — be able to lead together.

Smaller, clearer, more accountable teams almost always outperform bloated ones. The best leadership teams I’ve seen are tight: five to seven people, each with distinct accountability, each bringing something the others don’t have.

Concepts Are Clean. Reality Isn’t.

Everything above sounds neat on paper. But the moment you try to apply it, things get messy.

You inherit a structure that doesn’t make sense but was designed before you arrived. Someone’s in the wrong role, but moving them now would cause more disruption than it’s worth. A critical gap exists, but you don’t have the right person to fill it — and hiring takes time. The ideal composition is clear in your head, but the path from here to there is anything but.

This is normal. Organisational design is a direction of travel, not a one-time event.

What matters is being honest about the trade-offs you’re making while you work towards something better.

That means:

• Naming the gaps. If your leadership team doesn’t cover a critical area — or doesn’t have the capability you need — acknowledge it. To yourself, to the board, to the team. Pretending the gap doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.
• Being clear on what you’re living with — and why. Some compromises are deliberate: the wrong person in a role, but the cost of change is too high right now. That’s a valid choice, as long as it’s conscious and time-bound.
• Separating the destination from the journey. You can be working towards a stronger team without having arrived. What matters is that you know where you’re heading — and that you’re honest about what’s slowing you down.
• Waiting when you need to. Not every decision needs to be made today. Sometimes the right move is to hold, observe, and act when you have better information — or when the organisation is ready.

The danger isn’t having an imperfect structure. The danger is pretending you don’t — or avoiding the conversation because the answer is uncomfortable.

Questions Worth Asking

If you’re a CEO, MD, or divisional head trying to define who’s really on your leadership team, consider:

• Who shapes decisions — not just attends meetings? If someone rarely speaks, never disagrees, or just reports updates, are they really part of the team?
• Does the team cover what staff care about? Can every employee look at the leadership team and see someone responsible for their world?
• Do I have the right people around me to lead this business? Not just run functions — but genuinely lead, together? Do they challenge me? Do they cover my blind spots?
• Am I confusing seniority with leadership? Are there people in the room because of tenure rather than contribution?
• Have I created managers who shouldn’t be managing? Are there people whose real value is being diluted by responsibilities they’re not suited for?
• What trade-offs am I making right now — and am I being honest about them? With myself? With the board? With the team?

The Real Test

The test isn’t whether your leadership team is perfectly composed today. The test is whether you’re clear on what you’re working towards — and honest about what’s in the way.

Can your leadership team genuinely lead the business — together? Do they cover what needs covering, bring what needs bringing, and challenge what needs challenging?

Or is the team a legacy of history rather than a response to what the business actually needs?

Clarity doesn’t require perfection. But it does require honesty — and the recognition that leadership, at its best, is a team sport.

So: who’s really on your leadership team?