When we think of the C-Suite—those ranks of executives like the CEO, CFO, COO, and CMO—we picture a well-oiled machine working in harmony to guide a company to success. The reality? It’s often a battlefield filled with power plays, miscommunication, and, quite frankly, a lack of trust. Through years of working closely with C-level executives, I’ve witnessed this first-hand. There’s more infighting, politics, and ego management in the C-Suite than many imagine. And it all has an impact on company performance.
Let’s take a closer look at why the C-Suite, the most critical team in any organization, can be so dysfunctional.
The Root of C-Suite Infighting
The foundation of many C-Suite conflicts is conflicting objectives. The CEO is pushing for growth, the CFO is trying to cut costs, the CMO wants to invest in branding, and the COO is focused on operational efficiency. These priorities rarely align perfectly, creating friction that often turns into full-blown conflict. When everyone has their own agenda, collaboration can fall by the wayside.
Research by McKinsey suggests that the challenge of aligning a C-suite team around shared goals is one of the toughest aspects of leadership transitions. In fact, a majority of executives admit they struggle to align their team’s objectives when stepping into a new role (McKinsey & Company). When there’s no clear vision or cohesion, these individual agendas naturally clash, setting the stage for internal battles.
Power Plays and Corporate Politics
Corporate politics is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge, but it’s ever-present. In the C-Suite, these politics often translate into survival-of-the-fittest tactics. Executives jostle for power, and decisions are made based on individual advantage rather than organizational benefit.
For example, a CEO may place a loyal colleague into a key role like COO, not because they’re the best candidate, but because they can be counted on to support the CEO’s vision without question. A CFO may withhold information from marketing or operations to maintain budgetary control. This type of maneuvering undermines trust and erodes team cohesion. According to a DDI study, when teams focus on individual goals over shared responsibilities, dysfunction is inevitable. The result? Siloed focus and an overall decline in organizational performance (Leadership Development & Assessment).
The Lack of Trust
Trust is the backbone of any functional team, and the C-Suite is no different. When executives don’t trust each other, they become more likely to operate in silos, communicate poorly, and undermine each other’s efforts. Lack of trust can manifest in various ways—from withholding key information to second-guessing others’ decisions in board meetings.
A global survey found that 61% of senior executives identified lack of trust as the biggest barrier to effective collaboration (McKinsey & Company). This lack of trust not only hinders day-to-day operations but also affects major decisions, like strategic pivots or mergers, which require full executive buy-in.
The Politics of Performance Reviews
Performance reviews at the C-Suite level are far more political than at other levels. It’s not just about whether an executive met their targets; it’s about how they’re perceived by the board, their peers, and external stakeholders. These reviews often lead to internal discord. For instance, a CEO might protect an underperforming CMO due to personal loyalty, or a successful executive might be forced out because they’re perceived as a threat to others.
This subjective, optics-driven review process can further deepen existing divisions within the team. When executives sense that performance is evaluated through a political lens rather than objective metrics, they are more likely to engage in gamesmanship.
The CEO vs. The Rest of the Team
CEOs often find themselves at the center of C-Suite tensions. It’s their job to lead, but when things go wrong, they’re the first to be blamed. This creates a dynamic where other executives may either distance themselves from the CEO or position themselves as potential successors, further eroding team unity. The CEO’s decisions—particularly around resource allocation or leadership changes—are rarely met without resistance, leading to further internal strife.
A McKinsey report highlights how difficult it is for CEOs to align their teams with their vision, particularly during times of transition. Executives often come into the role with great expectations, but 60% fail to live up to those expectations within the first 18 months. This misalignment can leave a CEO isolated, leading to further dysfunction within the team.
The CFO: The Gatekeeper of Conflict
The CFO’s role has dramatically expanded over the years, and they often find themselves at odds with other executives. Marketing, operations, and technology departments need funding to grow, but the CFO’s focus on risk management and cost control often makes them the antagonist. This naturally puts the CFO in a position where they must say “no” to other executives, leading to resentment.
McKinsey’s research on the evolving role of CFOs suggests that their expanded responsibilities have made them more central to C-Suite conflicts. As they take on more strategic roles, balancing the need for financial health against the demands for growth often leads to friction.
The Marketing vs. Finance Divide
Few relationships in the C-Suite are as strained as the one between marketing and finance. While marketing is focused on creativity and growth, finance is about discipline and cost control. A CFO may see an ambitious branding campaign as a wasteful expenditure, while the CMO views it as an essential investment for the company’s long-term health. This fundamental disconnect in their approach to business creates tension and breeds mistrust.
A study highlights how misalignment between these functions can lead to strategic paralysis. When the finance team is too risk-averse, it hampers marketing’s ability to drive growth, which in turn affects the company’s overall performance (Leadership Development & Assessment).
Can the COO Be a Mediator?
The COO, responsible for day-to-day operations, is often caught in the middle of these conflicts. The COO has to balance competing interests from different departments, ensuring operational efficiency while keeping both finance and marketing happy. Ideally, the COO should be the one to mediate between conflicting parties, but often they are dragged into the conflicts themselves. If they’re perceived as favoring one department, they can quickly lose credibility and influence.
External Pressures
The pressures from external stakeholders—boards, investors, and shareholders—further complicate C-Suite dynamics. These external forces often have conflicting expectations, and executives are forced to navigate these while managing their internal relationships. If shareholders are demanding growth, the CEO might pressure the CFO to loosen the purse strings, which in turn frustrates the COO, who needs operational funding. This creates a vicious cycle of blame and mistrust.
The Toll on Company Performance
When the C-Suite is dysfunctional, company performance suffers. Studies have shown that companies with aligned and cohesive executive teams outperform their peers. CEO Success study found that effective leadership teams can drive revenue growth 2.5 times higher than those struggling with internal conflicts (Leadership Development & Assessment).
When executives are more focused on their own agendas than on the success of the company, important decisions are delayed, and strategy becomes fragmented. Employees notice this disunity, which can lead to lower morale and, ultimately, lower overall company performance.
Fixing the Problem
The first step in fixing C-Suite dysfunction is recognizing that it exists. Too often, executives ignore the problem, assuming it’s just part of the job. But the stakes are too high to allow these dynamics to continue unchecked.
Building trust is crucial. Teams must feel safe to share concerns and feedback without fear of retribution. Structured communication, such as regular executive meetings or offsite retreats, can help air grievances and rebuild trust. Trust-building exercises and transparent communication go a long way toward making the team more cohesive.
Finally, performance metrics should be fair and aligned with the company’s overall strategy. When executives are evaluated on both individual performance and their ability to collaborate with others, the entire C-Suite becomes more inclined to work together rather than in opposition.
Conclusion: The Fight Can Be Won
C-Suite infighting, politics, and mistrust are common, but they don’t have to be permanent. By fostering a culture of transparency, accountability, and collaboration, companies can break the cycle of dysfunction and create a leadership team that is truly effective.
The stakes are high, but the battle for a functional C-Suite is worth fighting. The next time you imagine the C-Suite as a harmonious team driving a company’s success, remember: it’s often a fight—but it’s a fight you can win.
For further reading on C-Suite dynamics, check out McKinsey’s insights on executive team performance (McKinsey & Company) and DDI’s study on C-Suite dysfunction (Leadership Development & Assessment).
