The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: True and False

I'm sure that many of you who have read this lens have wondered about its content crossing over with Patrick Lencioni's popular "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team." Frankly, as I started writing, Lencioni's book was one of the first I read.

He shares my view that there is a genuine disconnect between ideal team behavior and actual behavior in the workplace. His fable raises these issues and his story-telling provides clues and suggestions about how to address them. I was encouraged to find that many of the behaviors I have experienced (and have written about already) are the same as those Lencioni has identified.

(The book, a New York Times bestseller, was published by Jossey-Bass in 2002. As those of you have read Lencioni's work know, he writes fables, featuring characters in a business setting. In "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team," the business setting is DecisionTech. The characters are: Kathryn, the newly installed chief executive; Jeff, the former CEO who stayed on in a business development role; Mikey, the marketing head; Martin, chief technologist; JR, head of sales; Carlos, customer support leader; Jan, the CFO; and Nick, the chief operating officer.)

That said, there are assertions made in the book which conflict with actual, real-world evidence. That leads to this lens. What follows is a "true and false" assessment of many of the concepts and assertions presented in the mostly enjoyable and insightful "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team." I will present passages from the book, in quotation marks, followed by a "true/false" response and further explanation.

* * *

"It is teamwork that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare." (Introduction, p. vii) - FALSE.

The part about being powerful and rare is true, but it is not the "ultimate" competitive advantage" for several reasons. First, the landscape of competition will likely change. "Ultimate" is one of those words like "always" and "never" that should be used judiciously. Second, teamwork is often judged in hindsight, after results are known. This lens has already pointed out several examples of what how great teamwork has not been an advantage, although it certainly existed. It was not an advantage because of the third reason, competition. Your competitors probably have great teams too. But if they have better products or services, your teamwork won't look so great in hindsight.

This also goes for the line in the next paragraph. Quoting a friend of his, Lencioni writes, "If you could get all the people in an organization rowing in the same direction, you could dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition, at any time." This is simplistic folly.

"...teams, because they are made up of imperfect human beings, are inherently dysfunctional." (ibid.) - TRUE, but I'm not sure that "imperfect" is the right word. Human beings are, well, human. They have thoughts, feelings, fears, concerns. That's what makes them really human, not "imperfect." To me, an unfeeling, unconcerned, fearless individual is far from "perfect."

"Most of [Kathryn's] staff seemed almost paralyzed by their own knowledge of technology..." (p. 18) - TRUE. One of the problems in the assembling of teams is that people are mistakenly chosen as good fits because they have experience that is alike.

"...an underlying tension was undeniable. As a result, decision never seemed to get made; discussions were slow an uninteresting...and everyone seemed to be desperately waiting for each meeting to end." (p. 19) - So TRUE. People are reluctant to speak up because they don't want to be perceived as a "bad team player."

"...they had become addicted to hiring star executives, and losing Nick would have hurt their winning percentage." (p. 25) - Neither TRUE nor FALSE, but consider this: in the wake of McKinsey's landmark "War for Talent" philosophy, companies have hired stars and then expected them to sacrifice for the good of the team. That's not the way to treat stars, and that's not why you hire them. If you want role players, hire role players. If you want stars, hire stars and let them be stars.

"Great teams to not hold back with one another," [Kathryn] said. "They are unafraid to air their dirty laundry. They admit their mistakes, their weaknesses, and their concerns without fear of reprisal." (p. 44) - TRUE, but does this happen very often? Certainly not. As Lencioni said in the introduction, teams are made up of "imperfect" human beings. As I said earlier, I don't see this as being "imperfect." It's being human, being real. Have you ever seen a toddler try to do a puzzle and not quite get it right? You want to say, "Don't get frustrated." That's wasted. Toddlers are human. They will get frustrated by puzzles. It happens. This is not "imperfect" behavior; it's perfectly human.

Continuing our True and False examination of "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team"...

"...I see a trust problem here in the lack of debate that exists during staff meetings..." (p. 45)

"I think we're just not comfortable challenging each other." (p. 47) - Both TRUE.

"We are going to...talk about the ultimate dysfunction: the tendency of team members to seek out individual recognition and attention at the expense of results." (p. 71) - FALSE. You know how I feel about the word "ultimate," so we'll let that one sit for now.

Individual recognition, however, is a very strong motivator. I don't view it as a dysfunction at all. Instead, it should be acknowledged as a motivator. It becomes incumbent on the team leader to determine the team member's motivation and figure out a way to guide and shape that into a situation that benefits the enterprise.

You may ask about the 2008 Boston Celtics, a team composed of individual stars who subjugated their egos and individual motivations for the sake of the team. I don't believe that in its entirety.

It would stand to reason that given their long careers without winning an NBA championship, an common individual goal of Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce was to be considered a "champion," to be thought of in the same context as many of the other great individual players in NBA history. It would improve their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame. It would favor their individual legacies.

And, as we saw in the case of me-first Paul Pierce, his pursuit of "individual recognition" certainly benefited the team as a whole.

"And as good as his teams are, few of his kids play ball at big colleges because, frankly, they're not all that talented. They win because they player team basketball, and that usually allows them to beat bigger, faster, more talented groups of players." (Kathryn, talking about the high school basketball team her husband coaches, p. 73,) - FALSE. This is only true when the competition is relatively similar. Look at any first round in any year's NCAA college basketball tournament. Many teams that play "team basketball" lose to opponents who are bigger, faster and more talented. To say nothing of the human element of referees. Kathryn's assertion would hold water if the competition is largely similar. That doesn't always happen in business.

"But great athletes' egos are usually tied to a clear result: winning. They just want to win." (Kathryn, p. 76) - FALSE, but keep reading.

"The teams that figure it out have a bigger advantage than ever before because most of their competitors are just a bunch of individuals looking out for themselves." (Kathryn, p. 76) - FALSE. First let me get to the quote above.

If you look in the record books for the NBA, NHL, NFL or Major League Baseball, the only players who have a record of "wins" are pitchers, hockey goalies and quarterbacks. There isn't a won-loss record for an NBA player (or any other position player in any of those sports). Some are motivated by winning. Many are not.

Many are motivated by being paid as much as possible. (You ever hear of a player holding out at the start of the season because he thought his team didn't have a chance to win?) Some are motivated by playing in a city with nice weather, low (or no) taxes and/or an active "social" scene. Olympic athletes are a different story. They're primarily concerned with performing as well as they possibly can in order to win. But as for major team-sport professional athletes, more than you care to know play for the money. In their view, they're paid to play...not to win.

As for the second piece, Jack Welch said, "The team with the best players wins." Sorry to go to the NBA example again, but the 2008 San Antonio Spurs played better as a team than the Los Angeles Lakers. They just weren't as good.

"And how disciplined were you during meetings about reviewing goals in detail and drilling down on why they were or weren't being met?" (Kathryn to the group, p. 82) - TRUE. Candor is a rare element in teams.

"The politics around here are astounding, and they're a result of everyone being far too ambiguous about what we're all trying to accomplish..." (Kathryn, p. 85) And "Politics is when people choose their words and actions based on how they want others to react rather than based on what they really think." (Kathryn, p. 88) - Very TRUE, but this is an unfortunate reality. The politics of the workplace seep into everyone's brain, often are reinforced by leadership, and lead to behavior that is rewarded. To do otherwise would be not working and playing well with others.

"It's as simple as this. When people don't unload their opinions and feel like they've been listened to, they won't really get on board." (Kathryn, p. 94) - HALF-TRUE. Can't argue with the basic premise of this quote. However, the desire to be listened to, to be heard, to be considered a contributor is an individual motivation. It's probably the easiest example of shaping that motivation into a team context to bring value to the enterprise. That element is not hard.

The part that's hard is getting comfortable enough to be able to unload those opinions. Much of the evidence we see in practice, whether it is because of politics or something else, is that many who "unload" are not considered "team players." We've been over this ground quite a bit in this lens, so I'll leave it at that.

"...consensus becomes an attempt to please everyone." (Kathryn, p. 95) - TRUE. See the module on regression toward the mean.

"...who am I to tell Martin how to do his job, or Mikey, or Jan? It feels like I'm sticking my nose into their business when I do." (Nick, p. 99) "The peer-to-peer thing is certainly one of those issues that makes team accountability hard." (Kathryn, p. 99) - HALF-TRUE. This is true for teams that are in fact peer-to-peer. However, many teams to not fit this description. There are many that are cross-functional with varied levels of experience, comfort with the subject matter, etc. Those levels lead to differing degrees of expectation. That's a hurdle that sometimes is too difficult to clear.

"Carlos is a vice president of the company, and he needs to prioritize better according to what we agreed to do, and he needs to challenge people in the organization who are not responding to his requests." (Kathryn, p 148) - TRUE, but does this actually happen? How many times have you heard, "I don't want to be a pest. I don't want to bother them. Everyone's really busy." And how reluctant are (even) vice presidents to continually nudge. Why? "Man that guy is wearing me out. Somebody answer that call, I don't want to talk to him right now."

This is another of the books great examples of clearly pointing out the problem, but not quite reflecting how it really plays out in the workplace.

Actually, the book is filled with those examples. Lencioni hits the problem right on the head and does a fabulous job of clearly defining the Five Dysfunctions (Absence of Trust, Fear of Conflict, Lack of Commitment, Avoidance of Accountability and Inattention to Results), bringing them to life in the fable.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Leoni's central character says of teamwork: "...great athletes' egos are usually tied to a clear result: winning. They just want to win."

The newly crowned NBA Champion Boston Celtics now give us another example proving the fallacy of the above. On July 16, it was reported that James Posey, a critical part of the Celts' championship run, has left the team as a free agent to join the New Orleans Hornets.

Why? Because he got a four-year, $25 million contract, that's why.

Posey was pivotal role player and instrumental to the Celtics' success; he fits my defintion of a genuine team player perfectly. But coming off a championship, it is clear that his motivation was not winning again, but getting a long-term contract that would pay him more money than the Celtics would offer.

And this is the second time Posey has done this! After playing a similar role in helping the Miami Heat win the 2006 NBA title, he fled for Boston. Well, you may think, he may have thought that the Celtics would have a better chance to win. In 2006, his Heat won the NBA title. The next year, the team made the playoffs but lost in the first round. And he signed with the Celtics AFTER they had acquired stars Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen.

But if Lencioni's contention is correct, why leave Boston now? The team won the championship, had the best record in the NBA last year and have the key stars all returning next year. Could he have wanted a bigger role (another fallacy of teamwork)? Did he feel he was not being fairly rewarded for his efforts?

Does he believe he has a better chance to win an NBA championship with the New Orleans Hornets? Perhaps, but my instinct tells me that if the Celtics offered him a four-year contract instead of a shorter deal, he might like Boston's chances of repeating a little better.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.