Download, customize, and translate hundreds of business templates for free
Go to dashboard to download stunning templates
DownloadIf you can get everyone in an organization to move in the same direction, you can dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition, anytime. But nearly every organization struggles with teams mired in organizational politics.
Patrick Lencioni, who has coached hundreds of CEOs and Fortune 500 companies' crews, presents a powerful model to overcome The Five Dysfunctions of a Team and build world-class teams.
For example, learn a story of a CEO who completely reorganized a broken executive team of a high-profile Silicon Valley firm, discover powerful insights and build world-class teams.
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team is a leadership fable set in the real corporate world. The book brings out the dysfunctions that plague teams and provides practical tools to fix them by offering some messy scenarios with happy-endings.
Kathryn Petersen took over the reins of DecisionTech, a well-financed startup with an experienced executive team that, unfortunately, had tendencies of a toxic workplace. Discussions were slow and couldn't wait for meetings to end. After two weeks, Petersen announced a series of two-day executive retreats. Executives were appalled at being asked to take so much time off from real work. But after much resistance, they agreed.
Questions and answers
Peterson opened the meeting by reminding everyone that they are fortunate to have a more experienced team, higher cash reserves, better core technology and a more powerful board of directors than their competitors. She demonstrated that the company lagged behind in revenue because the team was dysfunctional and that DecisionTech's top priority was to set things right within.
Questions and answers
Peterson went on to explain the five dysfunctions that cause teams to fail.
The first dysfunction: lack of trust
Trust is the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, and that there is no need to be reserved around them. This requires vulnerability. Great teams are unafraid to admit mistakes, share weaknesses and air concerns without fear of reprisal. This allows the team to leverage each other's skills and focus on work instead of being political. While trust is difficult, teams that lack trust waste enormous amounts of time managing group interactions, dread meetings and stay reluctant to taking risks or offering help. The morale of such a team is low, and turnover is high. The lack of healthy debates in DecisionTech meetings pointed to a lack of trust.
Personal Questions and Behavioral Tests
Petersen began her first activity of the day, asking each member to answer five non-intrusive personal questions. One by one, members opened up about their childhood hobbies, their first job, hometown, etc. Nearly every answer contained something other members didn't know about their peers before. In just forty-five minutes, the team seemed to feel warmer and more at ease. The group spent the next few hours reviewing their behavioral tendencies based on diagnostic tests. Surprisingly, the warm conversations continued into the evening. Everyone participated except Michelle Bebe, who sat alone and rolled her eyes at remarks.
Petersen began the second day by asking everyone to introspect on their biggest strength and biggest weakness that impacted DecisionTech. She volunteered first, and slowly others followed, each person raising the bar a bit higher, while Bebe shared shallow answers and made harsh comments.
The second dysfunction: fear of conflict
Peterson moved on to the second dysfunction. Without trust, groups will not engage in open and constructive conflict because they are desperate to preserve artificial harmony. A team that argues openly is far better than a group where members hold back opinions and concerns to preserve false harmony. These teams resolve issues quickly and entirely and emerge from heated debates with no residual feelings. Ironically, teams that avoid conflict end up building dangerous tension. It's important to differentiate productive ideological conflict based on concepts and ideas from interpersonal politics that is usually personality-focused and mean-spirited. While ideological conflict might involve passion and frustration, the members know that the only purpose is to produce the best possible solution.
The third dysfunction: lack of commitment
Buy-in and clarity in decision-making are essential for fostering commitment. Without a culture of honest conflict, people keep quiet and build resentment. The goal of conflict is not to achieve consensus. Most reasonable people want to just be heard and feel that their opinion was considered. This makes them buy-in to the group decision even when they voted against it. Great teams make clear decisions, even when there is high ambiguity. Executive teams must be completely aligned on even the smallest details. Small gaps between executives become chasms when they reach employees.
The fourth dysfunction: avoidance of accountability
The evidence of this dysfunction is tolerating low standards of performance from team members. Only teams that achieve a complete buy-in will attempt to hold each other accountable. This is still difficult because challenging peers is problematic, and people wish to avoid discomfort. But lack of accountability only causes the relationship to deteriorate and the group standards to erode. Great teams improve personal relationships by holding each other accountable. The best way to maintain high standards of performance is peer pressure.
The final dysfunction: inattention to results
This is the tendency of members to seek individual attention at the expense of collective results. The indicator of this is status and ego issues in teams. Peterson made it clear that her role was to create the best team possible and not merely improve the careers of individual executives. This doesn't mean that team members should not have egos. Their egos must be tied to the clear result of making an organization win. The teams that figure out how to do this have a superior advantage over groups of individually gifted players. Organizations do this by creating a clear definition of collective success. This goal must not be financial and should be tied to something the organization does daily. Lack of clarity about collective goals makes the atmosphere political. A group is political when people choose words and actions based on how they want others to react instead of acting based on what they believe.
Meetings are the central arena of conflict. Petersen emphasized that the ability to engage in unfiltered debates will determine DecisionTech's future even more than its products or partnerships. She assured them that, from now on, every meeting would be loaded with conflict, and if there was nothing to debate, meetings would be canceled. In the next two hours, the DecisionTech team applied this step by deciding their single overarching goal for the year.
Questions and answers
Some members said the focus must be on growing market share. Martin Gilmore, the Chief Technologist, batted for product improvement. Peterson urged others to challenge these arguments. After a debate, the group seemed to converge on gaining marquee customers as their overarching goal. Petersen then asked them to quantify the goal. The group's answers ranged from 10 to 30. Petersen closed the conversation by setting the target as 18 new customers. Over the next hour, they drilled down to analyze what marketing, finance, engineering etc. departments needed to do to achieve this goal. For the first time, the DecisionTech team had a vigorous debate in a meeting and agreed on an actionable plan.
Within days of the offsite, the office atmosphere rapidly returned to the old normal. Nick Farrell, the Chief Operating Officer, had called a meeting to discuss a potential acquisition. Most members were skeptical. When Petersen reminded them that Bebe should have been there, Farrell sarcastically said she would add absolutely no value. Petersen held her patience. She continued and expressed her concern that a new acquisition would exacerbate team politics. Farrell responded harshly, telling Petersen that she had "no clue" about business. Petersen knew she had to call out this destructive behavior. She asked the group to leave her and Farrell alone.
Questions and answers
Petersen calmly told Farrell that he had to take issues with teammates to the person concerned or herself. Farrell responded by arguing that he had nothing to do in DecisionTech. Kathryn interrupted to ask if the acquisition was about Farrell and not DecisionTech. Farrell confessed to feeling completely underutilized, moving his family halfway across the country and watching helplessly as his peers were messing up the company. Petersen asked him point-blank to focus on what is important to him: helping the team win or growing his career. Farrell left the room.
Questions and answers
At the afternoon staff meeting, Farrell apologized for insulting Bebe and confessed that his motivation behind the deal was more about his feeling of being underutilized at DecisionTech. He humbly asked for help to find a way to contribute more. While the team was digesting Farrell's words, Petersen made an announcement. Their head of sales had quit the previous night. Bebe reminded everyone that Farrell had previously led a sales team. Jeff Shanley, the head of Business Development, seconded this statement, and after a moment of hesitation, Farrell agreed.
At the second offsite meeting, an uncomfortable question was raised. Was the DecisionTech team putting their resources in the right place to achieve their overarching goal? Gilmore strongly argued that investment in technology is crucial for a product company. Jan Mersino, the Chief Financial officer, appreciated his product focus and gently invited Gilmore to explore the best distribution of resources for achieving the collective goal. At Petersen's encouragement, the team spent the next two hours vigorously discussing the question. Everyone changed their stances multiple times. Finally, Shanley suggested cutting off one future product line and delaying another by six months. The engineers could be retrained and deployed to assist sales reps with product demonstrations. Within minutes, there was a consensus, and a timeline for implementation was drawn up. The group was now prioritizing the collective goal enough to downsize their own departments.
During the post-lunch meeting, Farrell requested everyone to block dates for a two-day training session for salespeople. Bebe was incredulous and sarcastically asked everyone to attend her product marketing meeting. Later, she smugly shared finished copies of product brochures. While they were high-quality, Farrell was disappointed because his salespeople who were doing customer research were not consulted. Bebe made it clear that she didn't think this was necessary. Petersen knew Bebe was having a destructive influence and had to go. She dismissed the meeting and asked Bebe to stay back. Petersen took a deep breath and told Bebe that she was not a good fit for the team – she didn't respect her colleagues, didn't open up to them and had a demotivating impact on everyone. After a showdown, Bebe left. DecisionTech had lost both its heads of sales and marketing within a month.
Everyone was shocked. Some praised Bebe's quality of work. Others wondered if they were next. Petersen responded by narrating a story about her early career where she managed a small department of financial analysts. Fred worked harder than other analysts. But no one could stand him. Peterson didn't criticize her top performer. The team output began to slide, and morale depleted rapidly. But Petersen promoted Fred for his individual contribution.
Questions and answers
Within weeks, three of her seven analysts quit, and the department fell into chaos. Petersen's manager fired her. When Fred quit a few weeks later, performance improved dramatically even though the team had fewer analysts. It was not Fred's behavior but Petersen's tolerance of his behavior that cost her the team. Petersen concluded by saying that she let Bebe go because she didn't want to lose the rest of DecisionTech's current employees. Everyone seemed to understand.
Over the next two weeks, Petersen worked hard with the team on their behavior. This time, everyone seemed to share a sense of collective purpose. At the final offsite meeting, people felt they had moved forward as a team. At the meetings, the teams worked together in a spirit of cooperation and healthy conflict. During breaks, they spent time with each other. Over the next year, the company sales grew dramatically, and DecisionTech met its revenue goals for three out of four quarters. The staff had finally become a team.
Here are the toolkit and behavioral model that Petersen deployed to effectively handle each of the five dysfunctions.
Dysfunction 1: absence of trust
Dysfunction 2: fear of conflict
The first step is acknowledging that conflict is productive. As long as some members believe that conflict is unnecessary, there is little chance it will occur.
Dysfunction 3: lack of commitment
Dysfunction 4: avoiding accountability
Dysfunction 5: inattention to results
Go to dashboard to download stunning templates
Download