The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable (My 3 Takeaways)
A study by the Rand Corporation, Harvard Medical School, and UCLA reveals that 1 out of 5 people face hostile or threatening environments at work, while more than half describe their workplaces as “unpleasant” places.
Similarly, Gallup’s data on employee engagement reveals that only 15% of employees worldwide and just 34% in the U.S. are engaged at work.
What would happen if we could double those numbers? Imagine what our organizations and communities would look like if twice as many people were engaged, fulfilled, and productive at every organization in every corner of the world.
Although those statistics may seem daunting, it is possible for one person to make a difference.
Based on the Gallup’s same research on employee engagement, 70% of a team’s engagement is determined solely by its manager.
In an article entitled “What Engaged Employees Do Differently,” Ken Royal said, “The manager is either an engagement-creating coach or an engagement-destroying boss, but both relationships affect employee behavior.”
How can managers create teams that engage their employees and empower them to perform at the highest levels?
Patrick Lencioni, author of the classic leadership fable, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team," has developed a formula for not only diagnosing the obstacles that inhibit organizational performance, but also providing the strategies that will propel teams to perform at the highest levels.
"Ironically, teams succeed because they are exceedingly human," according to Lencioni, "By acknowledging the imperfections of their humanity, members of functional teams overcome the natural tendencies that make trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and a focus on results so elusive," (p. 220).
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, according to Lencioni, are:
Absence of trust: The unwillingness of group members to be vulnerable within the group.
Fear of conflict: When teams don't have trust, they cannot engage in a true debate of ideas.
Lack of commitment: If group members do not "weigh in," they cannot "buy in."
Avoidance of accountability: When group members do not commit to a clear course of action, they will be reluctant to point out things that are counterproductive to that plan.
Inattention to results: When team members put their own individual needs before the collective goals of the team.
Conversely, if may be more palatable to think of the “Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team,” as listed via the Five Behaviors Model:
Trust one another: When team members are genuinely transparent and honest with one another, it forms a safe environment that creates and builds vulnerability-based trust.
Engage in conflict around ideas: With trust, team members are able to engage in unfiltered, constructive debate of ideas.
Commit to decisions: When team members are able to offer opinions and debate ideas, they feel heard and respected, and will be more likely to commit to decisions.
Hold one another accountable: Once everyone is committed to a clear plan of action, they will be more willing to hold one another accountable.
Focus on achieving collective results: The ultimate goal is the achievement of results, unlocked through implementing the model’s principles of Trust, Conflict, Commitment, and Accountability.
Here are my three biggest takeaways.
Takeaway #1 - The Truth about Trust
Without a conscious, continuous commitment to building and cultivating a culture of trust, it is impossible to have a team that performs at its highest level.
"In the context of building a team, trust is the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, and there there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group," Lencioni said (p. 195).
Trust, unfortunately, has become a bit of a buzzword, which has diluted its significance. For example, we can trust that somebody will follow through and produce high quality work because they have done so in the past, but this is not the kind of trust that forms the foundation for a high-performing team.
Trust, in this instance, is the confidence that every member of the group has the collective interests of the group as its highest priority. When a group trusts one another, it means that every person in the group can let go of any doubt or worry about having to "look out for number one," so to speak.
"As 'soft' as all of this might sound, it is only when team members are truly comfortable being exposed to one another that they begin to act without concern for protecting themselves." Lencioni wrote. "As a result, they can focus their energy and attention completely on the job at hand, rather than on being strategically disingenuous or political with one another," (p. 196).
When we are able to bring our whole selves to our work, we also are able to bring our best selves to that work.
Takeaway #2 - Leaders Go First
Although there are many distinctions between leadership and management, the idea that "leaders go first" illustrates the largest distinction between the two roles. In leadership, a leader is her own first follower.
If a person with a position of authority cannot demonstrate her own commitment by showing the way, she still can be a project manager, but she cannot be a leader. Whether it is in the context of a principle (value) or a project (task), if somebody cannot "walk the talk," that person is incapable of leading in that situation.
In the context of establishing a foundation of trust, the members of the team can not and will not trust each other unless the leader clearly and continually demonstrates her trust in them, both collectively and individually.
"The most important action that a leader must take to encourage the building of trust on a team is to demonstrate vulnerability first," Lencioni said. "This requires that a leader risk losing face in front of the team, so that subordinates will take the same risk themselves. What is more, team leaders must create an environment that does not punish vulnerability," (p. 201).
Takeaway #3 - Conflict is Necessary
Anybody who has spoken with me for more than five minutes knows that I'm a big fan of the CliftonStrengths assessment and I very strongly identify with my "Top 5," especially my #2 Strength, "Harmony."
As a person with high Harmony, conflict may be as uncomfortable for me as for anybody else on the planet. Even if you do not have high Harmony, it is probable that conflict is at least somewhat uncomfortable, if not downright miserable. We worry that we may hurt somebody else's feelings, or that something we say may be taken "the wrong way."
Nonetheless, productive conflict is essential for high-performing teams.
"But teams that engage in productive conflict know that the only purpose is to produce the best possible solution in the shortest period of time..." Lencioni argued. "Ironically, teams that avoid ideological conflict often do so in order to avoid hurting team members' feelings, and then end up encouraging dangerous tension. When team members do not openly debate and disagree about important ideas, they often turn to back-channel personal attacks, which are far nastier and more harmful than any heated argument over issues," (p. 202-203).
As Brene Brown is famous for saying, "Clear is kind." Clear, it turns out, also is efficient and good for the bottom line.
"It is also ironic that so many people avoid conflict in the name of efficiency, because healthy conflict is actually a time saver,” Lencioni observed. “Contrary to the notion that teams waste time and energy arguing, those that avoid conflict actually doom themselves to revisiting issues again and again without resolution," (p. 203).
