Bookworm: The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

Team working requires trust and vulnerability, writes Patrick Lencioni.

What’s the big idea?

Well, it’s pretty much what it says on the tin. To help teams become functional, author Patrick Lencioni identifies key ways in which they might be working counterproductively.

He posits that teams made up of talented individual don’t always work well together or communicate effectively; members may be ego-driven and unwilling to alter their views. In some cases, people are more interested in climbing the career ladder than meeting team goals.

How can we address this?

Lencioni argues that we need to become honest with one another – and that this requires vulnerability. 

If the most senior team member role models vulnerability, it may encourage others to follow suit.  This two-way communication builds mutual trust and helps the team become more cohesive. Members might even start enjoying more conflict.

How is conflict a good thing?

Conflict can be positive when egos are put aside and people free free to express their opinions because they trust their colleagues. A more diverse range of opinions is therefore expressed, helping the team to make better, more informed decisions.

So everyone needs to agree?

Not necessarily. In great teams, however, everyone commits to a decision even when they may have expressed reservations about it. If everyone knows they are able to contribute their views, each member will feel heard, even when heir solution isn't chosen.

Lencioni says that a team’s downfall often lies in a lack of clarity about what it stands for and an inability to make any decisions at all due to unhealthy conflict.

It’s all warm and fuzzy, then?

One of the slightly less comfortable facets of working in this way is that it's our duty to tell our colleagues when they are performing below the standard expected of them (and it's our responsibility, in turn, to accept such feedback ourselves). This ‘peer-to-peer’ accountability can be difficult, but it's highly valuable in the longer term.

In fact, it's the mark of a good team, according to Lencioni. In a dysfunctional team, a lack of trust prevents people from pointing out that someone is in danger of jeopardising overall results. But a team that practises peer-to-peer accountability is stronger because everyone realises they are working to the same high standard.

And teams should have the same goals, presumably?

Yes, good teams have collective goals, not individualised ones. If teams are made up of members who are primarily interested in furthering their own careers or meeting their own needs, this can undermine cohesion and results. Consider replacing these individuals says Lencioni, or you may face an exodus of other members.

What am I most likely to say after reading this book?

“I don’t necessarily agree, but I stand by the collective decision.”

What am I least likely to say after reading this book?

“I’m doing it my way, no matter what.”