The Five Dysfunctions Of A Team: A Leadership Fable

“After its first few euphoric months of existence, the company began experiencing a series of ongoing disappointments.”

Here, Lencioni implies that the “euphoria” that came from the company’s strong start has masked the problems that have led to disappointing results.

“There was just no mistaking the fact that, on paper, Kathryn was an old school, blue-collarish executive. That presented a stark contrast to the DecisionTech executives and middle managers, most of whom had little experience working outside of the Valley.”

The contrast between Kathryn Petersen’s blue-collar background and the more tech-oriented backgrounds of her colleagues lays the groundwork for the tensions between the new CEO and the executive leadership team.

“While there was no doubt that DecisionTech would be a challenge, something seemed different about this one.”

As Kathryn realizes the unique challenges presented by DecisionTech, she expresses some uncertainty about the nature of what she must face.

“Kathryn’s lack of in-depth software experience did not concern her. In fact, she felt certain that it provided her with an advantage.”

Here, as Kathryn decides that her lack of software expertise will allow her to focus on the team’s broader goals and dynamics, she expresses considerable confidence in her leadership capabilities.

“We are not functioning as a team. In fact, we are quite dysfunctional.”

Here, Kathryn names the painful fact that the DecisionTech team is not working well together. In so doing, she takes a risk: Will this acknowledgment spur self-reflection on the part of the team, or will it cause resistance?

“Trust is the foundation of real teamwork. And so the first dysfunction is a failure on the part of team members to understand and open up to one another.”

Although teams tend to work on projects with objective, rationale goals, the suggestion here is that they also need to have an emotional connection to one another to build the trust that will enable them to collaborate effectively.

“Why do you suppose there is so little passionate discussion or debate among this group?”

In posing this question about the team to the team itself, Kathryn invites self-reflection, a first step toward correcting the problem the question addresses.

“Basically, I want you all to do two things: be present and participate. That means everyone needs to be fully engaged in whatever we’re talking about.”

While Kathryn demands merely two things from her team during the off-site meeting, it is clear that her view of the importance of their being engaged is uncompromising.

“No matter how many times Kathryn had built or refurbished teams, she never got used to watching the inevitable ebbs and flows.”

Although highly experienced and confident in her work, Kathryn does not take its challenges for granted.

“Back in the office, even Kathryn was surprised by the rapid deterioration of any progress that had been made during the off-site.”

Kathryn’s astonishment at the condition of the team after the meeting calls attention to just how entrenched their dysfunctions are—and to how unusually problematic this is even for someone with her extensive experience.

“You have to decide what is more important: helping the team win or advancing your career.”

That Kathryn presents this choice so categorically suggests that her listener thinks in these either-or terms as well. The alternative—deciding that helping the team will advance one’s career—is not a consideration.

“I don’t know how else to say this, but building a team is hard.”

In her upfront admission of the difficulty of the work ahead, Kathryn in effect preempts a sense of frustration or exasperation that may affect the DecisionTech leadership team, thereby inviting them to do the hard work with her.

“As resistant as they might have seemed in the moment, no one questioned whether they should be doing the things that Kathryn made them do.”

Kathryn now has the confidence of the leadership team—so much so that even if they take exception to some task or exercise that she assigns them to do, they have faith in the overall process and purpose of what she is doing.

“These dysfunctions can be mistakenly interpreted as five distinct issues that can be addressed in isolation of the others.”

Here, Lencioni emphasizes that if one makes the mistake of believing that any of the five dysfunctions can be addressed by itself, none can be resolved, because they are all interconnected.

“Team members who are not genuinely open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation for trust.”

Lencioni conveys his insight that vulnerability is not necessarily a weakness—that it can instead be a powerful force for creating trust and cohesion.

“Teams that lack trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered and passionate debate of ideas.”

Although Lencioni correlates lack of constructive debate with lack of trust, much more is at stake in that teams that lack the trust in one another to address differences of opinion cannot even begin to arrive at a consensus, never mind work toward achieving a shared goal.

“Without having aired their opinions in the course of passionate and open debate, team members rarely, if ever, buy in and commit to decisions, though they may feign agreement during meetings.”

When team members withhold their opinions and do not engage in robust discussions, the resulting superficial agreement hinders effective decision-making.

“Without committing to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven people often hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviors that seem counterproductive to the good of the team.”

Accentuating the significance of committing to a well-defined plan of action in enabling individuals to address counterproductive actions and behaviors within the team, Lencioni prioritizes clarity over ambiguity.

“Inattention to results occurs when team members put their individual needs (such as ego, career development, or recognition) or even the needs of their divisions above the collective goals of the team.”

Since the purpose of teams is to achieve certain results, a team will not succeed if team members prioritize their own interests over and above those results.

“In the context of building a team, trust is the confidence among team members that their peers’ intentions are good, and that there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group.”

Here, Lencioni suggests that trust enables team members to let go of protective or cautious behavior, fostering a collaborative environment where individuals feel comfortable and confident working together.

“Achieving vulnerability-based trust is difficult because in the course of career advancement and education, most successful people learn to be competitive with their peers, and protective of their reputations.”

In calling attention to the importance of vulnerability in creating trust, Lencioni also points to the fact that vulnerability is antithetical to the competitive culture of success, which necessarily involves self-interested and self-protective behavior.

“All great relationships, the ones that last over time, require productive conflict in order to grow.”

Suggesting that conflict is inevitable, Lencioni turns it into a virtue: So long as the parties are respectful of one another and committed to finding a resolution together, their relationship will deepen over time.

“Accountability is a buzzword that has lost much of its meaning as it has become as overused as terms like empowerment and quality. In the context of teamwork, however, it refers specifically to the willingness of team members to call their peers on performance or behaviors that might hurt the team.”

While Lencioni provides this specific definition of “accountability” to counter its meaningless overuse, the notion that accountability is something that team members demand of others needs to be supplemented by the fact that team members must take responsibility for their own work and hold themselves accountable to each other.