Introduction
As firms understand increasingly complex, competitive environments that demand matching talents and perspectives to solve diverse problems, teams have become essential to most organizational systems. Putting talent together does not ensure exponential profits. Teams that neglect maintenance risk becoming dysfunctional constellations that cause more problems than good. Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team model tracks five areas that need constant monitoring: lack of trust, fear of confrontation, lack of commitment, avoidance of responsibility, and inattention to outcomes (Lencioni, 2022). The uncorrected dysfunctions may erode team cohesiveness, outputs, and member satisfaction. Through proactive evaluation and action, leaders may avoid dysfunctional footholds from becoming acceptable behaviors that infect the organization. This research will examine Lencioni’s five dysfunctions, assess a working team’s vulnerability to each, and provide targeted solutions to address detected issues before they escalate team health, engagement, and performance.
Assessment of Team Dysfunctions
Managers’ informal observational intuition helps them identify team strengths and weaknesses, but Lencioni’s (2022) evaluation survey provides an empirically verified diagnosis to identify which dysfunctions need immediate attention. Participants rate 15 psychometrically-honed statements linked to each dysfunction on a 1–3 scale ranging from seldom, sometimes, and usually true of their team’s behaviors and dynamics. Adding total scores for each dysfunction column provides severity indications from 3-5 troublesome to 6-9 healthy. Leaders may then address data-shown deficiencies. This analytical technique showed that lack of trust and inattention to outcomes were the most alarming for the engineering team, requiring immediate designed solutions to prevent future performance degradation.
Absence of Trust
The team scored five on trust out of 9 available points, suggesting the need for improvement. Team members were reluctant to recognize shortcomings or ask for help, according to the score synthesis. Members fear peer or management criticism for revealing shortcomings. Therefore, they hide rather than welcome self-effacing confessions as evidence of communal improvement. When team members’ activities harm the team, overt apologies and reconciliation are less than desirable. These trust issues hinder transparency, learning, coherence, and performance.
Inattention to Results
Even when the squad scored 6 points, its emphasis on shared results eroded. Technical experts focused on inconsequential jigsaw pieces, obscuring the larger vision and goals of how work streams interact. When working spaces diminish, personal achievement is prioritized above team success. Responsibility atomization without integration causes members to lose sight of interdependencies, fracturing process coordination, communication, and alignment and lowering outcomes.
Plan of Action
Building Trust Through Vulnerability Initiatives
According to Harvard’s Amy Edmondson’s teaming research, psychological safety allows contributors to take interpersonal risks and expose vulnerabilities without fear of embarrassment, marginalization, or penalty, laying the groundwork for trust (Edmondson, 2021). Performance constraints and self-preservation impulses make vulnerability difficult. As noted by shame and vulnerability researcher Brene Brown, shame says, “I am bad,” whereas grace-based societies allow individuals to disclose challenges and focus on group support (Brown, 2018). Before institutional norms soften enough to diffuse across cautious teams, leaders must bravely demonstrate comfort in disclosing constraints personally to catalyze dramatic transparency changes. Leaders might use roundtable sessions to humanize themselves by sharing professional mistakes they overcame or self-effacing tales that make them chuckle. Once top-down behaviors appear, trust exercises encouraging weakness reciprocation and aid requests may help teams unlearn defensiveness. Highlighting victories from vulnerable information exponentially increases psychological safety, thus tying successes to risk-taking and making challenges discussable, not personal, accelerates development (Edmondson, 2021). Lencioni concludes that even trusting teams must invest in vulnerability deposits to prepare for external instability (Lencioni, 2022).
Recommitting to Shared Goals
Fortified psychological safety reduces trust red signals, shifting priority to realigning individual efforts to team outcomes. As rising Bain & Company senior partner Chris Zook cautions, “Fragmentation is toxic to teams” (Zook, 2019). Specialists focusing on particular responsibilities wander from the conductor’s overarching vision, such as orchestra sections losing sheet music synchronization into dispersed cacophony. Leaders must clearly define overarching goals, translate enterprise objectives into tangible team outputs, maintain visibility over disparate efforts’ connections to that north star, and consistently reinforce shared over individual results through words and resource allocations to combat entropy (Lennard et al., 2021). Perspective-widening induction opportunities cycle workers via important vantage points upward, clarifying big-picture interdependencies and driving tiger team mobilizations to synchronize deliverables (McPheat, 2019). Enterprise social networks that dissolve information silos via trust, connections, and expertise location bring scattered efforts together by showing cross-pollination possibilities. Brief stand-ups assessing aims and group priorities take pulses to monitor inattentions (Rozovsky, 2015). Leaders must exemplify hive-mindedness by prioritizing communal progress above individual recognition until organization-wide osmosis spreads the behavior change.
Additional Dysfunction Risk Mitigation
Lack of trust and inattention to outcomes need rapid rectification, while proactively avoiding other dysfunction footholds protects teams from substandard culture. In conflict, diversification of thinking checks blindspots and stresses choices via dialectic argument. Leaders must balance opposing ideas to improve results without causing turnover, toxicity, or paralysis. Using radical participants as devil’s advocates institutionalizes dissent, whereas conclusion-establishing methods promote alignment (McPheat, 2019). Conflict must be psychologically secure to avoid personal assaults. Rapidly successful teams might slip into arrogance and complacency to sustain standards via accountability initiatives, enabling coasting or politics. According to Lencioni, “Teams that lack trust fall to peer pressure” (Lencioni et al., 2011, p. 56); therefore, commitment to protocols that ensure poor performance has repercussions regardless of position is crucial. Acclaimed teams risk losing the drive that propelled them to the top as complacency sets in. Raising objectives, recruiting younger, less status-quo-oriented individuals, and presenting existential risks from external competitors create a drive for continual innovation successes. Dysfunction usually results from many factors acquiring momentum, like atoms breaking. Thus, whack-a-mole approaches risk future compromise. However, carefully tackling Mecrano’s five danger zones with a strategy creates strong leadership foundations that let teams soar.
The Power of Trust in Teams
Since maximizing all downstream health and performance measures depends on trust development, trust deserves more study as the cornerstone of team effectiveness. Due to increased communication flows, psychological safety, innovation risks, and support mobilization, vulnerability-based trust rooted in confidence that one’s imperfections, limitations, and need for assistance will be received without judgment, penalty, or exploitation binds members into unified forces of exponential productivity (Brown, 2018). Even elite organizations like Google struggle to decipher team chemistry secrets due to consistently poor organizational trust, notwithstanding leaders’ proclamations. Notorious research indicated that Google’s 180+ highest-trusting teams beat less-trusting groups on performance indicators, triggering Sidenote inquiries (Duhigg, 2016). Cultures that valued lame ideas above fast-paced accomplishment independently explained variation, suggesting that trust allows quantity and variety of thinking to provide practical answers. Groups who were uncomfortably brainstorming inferior ideas were never unlocked. Trust allows human capital to be mined in relationships restrained by caution, ego, and self-preservation. A 10% trust increase may optimize collaborative production by 30%. Leaders underestimate trust’s powerful cultural multipliers. Self-seed first.
Through Courageous Vulnerability and Consistency
Patiently transforming distrusting teams takes guts. Bold trust-building entails getting “your ass kicked” by doubters (Brown, 2018, p.155). Despite reputation harm risk, top surgeons place “How am I doing?” flip charts in rooms to collect patient input. Such vulnerability shows leaders value communal progress over ego. “Help me understand?” or “What am I missing?” welcomes discourse, risking alienation. Momentary openness undermines trust reserves when pressured. Leaders often abuse safety cultures they cannot maintain. Limiting criticism to substantial periods invites retaliation while weak. As New Zealand’s All Blacks’ Crucible model shows, upholding sacred trust-fortifying cultural covenants between generations galvanizes teams to weather storms and dominate for over a century while less anchored teams crumble (Kerr, 2013). Trust delays immediate outcomes but unlocks more value than command systems restricting participation. Collective knowledge usually trumps individual brilliance. Trust-promoting measures are worth patience for compounding cultural and performance windfalls.
Conflict & Commitment – Preventing Gridlock
Beyond trust building, significant organization priorities need rallying scattered contributors around shared goals to avoid opposing agendas dragging down coordinated development. The research found that fuzzy authority and unclear roles might lead to misaligned tasks and a lack of synchronization in the virtual communication of cross-cultural software teams (Hanlan & Panova, 2021). Because Lockean consensus-building interventions ensured that all voices shaped outcomes, they averted deadlock by gaining joint commitment after the discussion (Lencioni, 2022). Emotional engagement in execution success increases when individuals affected by decisions may influence them. Balance participation by rotating facilitators and time-limiting arguments. Teams might also overcome differences by focusing on higher-purpose reasons beyond financial outcomes. Preparing resolution methods to settle differences is critical. Psychological safety depersonalizes intense sparring. Leader modeling via strong contrarian viewpoints before rallying around choices encourages followers to own meritocratic discourse-based conclusions jointly. Then, post-decision assessments strengthen the responsibility to uphold agreements and reopen them if insufficient. Balanced conflict ensures clarity for excellent execution, while absence threatens morale-sapping uncertainty.
Avoiding Complacency Through Accountability & Urgency
Stellar outcomes too seldom risk perpetrators being jaded to the sacrifice and innovation leapfrogging competition needs. Relentless improvement mortality attitudes often distinguish durable peak players like Apple from short-lived shooting stars. As HBR reports, accountability failures frequently occur under the guise of pleasantries as people delay criticism to avoid interpersonal discomforts, allowing problems to fester (Rozovsky, 2015). Setting peer-administered evaluations against pre-established expectations restores objectivity to sensitive, vital improvement talks. Defining shortcomings using aggregate scoring reduces criticism and focuses on growth. Positive reinforcement follows exceeding expectations. For underperformers to grudgingly improve, leaders must implement repercussions, balancing aspirational challenge and encouragement. As complacency sets in, successful organizations fail to step up. Consciously raising standards by presenting external dangers that need level-up urgency rekindles a competitive fire to push even stars beyond their comfort zones, resulting in performances otherwise impossible. Accountability ensures good enough never replaces greatness, while controlled adversity resuscitates urgency where habitual win threatens entitlement. Speedboats must constantly have hungry sharks around to prevent stalling.
Inattention to Results Interventions
Lencioni’s most enlightening dysfunction is that specialized team members, narrowly focused on their specific contributions, lose sight of the collective outcome they drive (Lencioni, 2022). Engineers completing a component’s design may need to be made aware of its downstream effects, which may have unanticipated project repercussions. Like professional rowers who appraise technique but need help matching speed with crewmates, workflow coordination failures lead to inferior results despite component excellence. Bringing attention back to the North Star elevates monotonous duties. To neurally wire the organization’s interdependent nervous system to see beyond parochial assignments into ecosystemic impacts that increase value creation and cross-pollination, leaders must constantly reinforce enterprise objectives, demonstrate how specific activities serve that cause, and widely celebrate goal fulfillment over standalone effort praise. Balance requires selecting the most important goals for broad awareness to avoid overexposure. Leaders must highlight critical nodes needing cross-functional lighting for effective engagement as a juggler keeps crucial balls aloft while letting secondary objects bounce. Activities without intersections may function alone. Streamlining messages around a few rallying cries creates cohesion while allowing experimentation by insane brilliance. Aggregation requires a curation focus. Freeing loose arms for must-win fights is how teams prosper.
Conclusion & Limitations
In conclusion, Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions model (trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, outcomes) offers a behaviorally validated diagnostic assessment solution for teams to detect risk variables that hinder collective potential without action. Inattention to outcomes and lack of confidence were the biggest threats to engaged involvement, coordination, empowered creativity, and output optimization for the engineering team. Targeted solutions focused on trust-building via vulnerability safety, goal definition, reward reforms for shared over individual outcomes, and responsibility to proactively intercept complacency. Additionally, courageous leader modeling, resolute consistency, and truth-revealing scenarios stress testing team cohesion in adverse conditions liberate informational flows and psychological security for risk-taking, resulting in an exponential force multiplier effect. Institutionalized devil’s advocacy preventing excessive harmony or turbulence, collectively binding post-debate commitments, actionable peer accountability processes sustaining quality standards, and leadership messaging making progress interdependencies comprehensible to integrate dispersed contributions were also recommended. Lencioni’s model provides evidence-based theory to improve teams, but it should be customized for different sectors, cultures, business lifecycles, etc. Any leader who unlocks their team’s potential will benefit exponentially from synergized cooperation with intentional interventions and boldness in implementing improvement ideas.
References:
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to Lead: Brave work, tough conversations, whole hearts. Random House.
Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
Edmondson, A. (2021). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Hanlan, M., & Panova, T. (2021). Five dysfunctions of virtual and dispersed teams: Model and interventions. Human Resource Development Review, 20(2), 223-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211020196
Kerr, J. (2013). Legacy. Constable.
Lencioni, P. (2022). The five dysfunctions of a team: An illustrated leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lencioni, P. M., & Okabayashi, K. (2011). The five dysfunctions of a team: An illustrated leadership fable, manga edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lennard, A. C., Matta, F. K., Lin, S.-H. (Joanna), Koopman, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2021). The dynamism of daily justice: A person-environment fit perspective on the situated value of justice. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1496
McPheat, S. (2019, March 6). Lencioni’s five dysfunctions of a team. Leadership and Management Training Courses UK | MTD Training. https://www.mtdtraining.com/blog/lencionis-five-dysfunctions-of-a-team.htm
Rozovsky, J. (2015, November 17). The five keys to a successful Google team. Withgoogle.com. https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/
Zook, C. (2019). The power of alignment: How great companies stay centered and accomplish extraordinary things. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
write