Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
Clearly I'm on a leadership fable binge. In this one an executive team is introduced to the five dysfunctions of a team and put to the test. Some survive and some don't. I think the biggest and best piece of information in general and in this book is tolerating someone's bad behavior just because they may do good work is detrimental to the company, the work done, and the morale. Do not tolerate bad behavior - deal with it. Do not tolerate the bad behavior of one at the expense of many. Do not avoid what needs to be confronted and discussed - whether that is a business decision or a personnel decision. Not only is this information important and necessary for executive teams to practice but it can be practiced in any kind of team at any kind of pay level. The other great piece of advice in the book is this, becoming a team and staying a team is hard work - you have to commit to the hard work of you want it to succeed.
Patrick Lencioni's books have always been quick and easy reads. The fable/story method of introducing principles is helpful to put them in context and provide memorable examples. The five dysfunctions are simple, dealing with them is not, it takes time. If you've read other of Lencioni's books, you'll be familiar with the simple concept, effortful execution pattern. The summary at the end works as good reference if you intended to implement the lessons of the book (I'm guessing on this, as I'm writing this immediately after reading the book, I've used other books of his similarly though). If you've read any of his books, then you know what to expect, and I recommend it. My favorite is still The Three Signs of a Miserable Job, but this worth the read of working on a team is what you need at the moment.
I went into this book expecting a list and strategies to address that list- but that was just the last 20 pages. The other 200 pages are a (fictional?) narrative about how these dysfunctions look in a team and how they are painfully addressed. I wish the framework had been woven throughout the book a bit more, but the narrative did a great job of explaining the 5 dysfunctions without needing the breakdown at the end.
Definitely full of great advice and exercises!
Definitely full of great advice and exercises!
This book was such a quick read. I enjoyed the story being told with fictional characters rather than just throwing theories and information at me. It was also super relatable; I could easily visualize people I work with currently as the different characters. While I’m not an executive, it gave me insight into how to be an effective and successful team player.
informative
fast-paced
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team contains a model, wrapped up in fictional narrative to show how teams can be ineffective, and by essentially flipping the model teams can perform much better. The narrative is about 80% of the book with the remaining 20% a series of bullet points about each dysfunction with suggestions on how to address them.
It's quite hard to strongly argue against the proposals in the book, however they are rather simplistic, and I am not sure there is anything groundbreaking here. The book also suggests there is a relationship between the elements in the book in a hierarchical manner which I am not sure is correct – I think the elements would influence each other, rather than how they are portrayed here in a 'hierarchy of needs' fashion. I guess this is my biggest criticism of the book – it claims it is effective for all kinds of team working but it is so rooted in hierarchical systems (with a particular emphasis on quite toxic US corporate cultures) that is hard to see how applicable some of this is wider as described.
At the bottom of the pyramid is 'Absence of Trust' characterised by people's need for invulnerability. The book suggests something quite straightforward – get to know and like your colleagues as human beings (although in the narrative the CEO character seems to avoid all this). Trust of course is more than knowing your colleague's spouses name and ultimately it does not come from 'knowing people'. That said I have long been convinced that building effective, personal, and healthy relationships with colleagues is essential. When people know me as 'Barry' rather than my job title I know I am more effective and build trust. Trust probably occurs because of other things in the pyramid so whilst I see this as a fundamental, I also do not think it needs to be in place first. I also recognise that teams with an absence of trust can be incredibly toxic, and it comes from fear, of not believing that everyone has both your best interests and the team's best interest at heart. I guess trust in capability matters here, that you trust people are doing the right thing. I've been in teams where I haven't trusted someone, and it is incredibly energy sapping.
Next in the pyramid, working up, is 'Fear of Conflict', characterised by artificial harmony. I've been in teams where there is an 'everything is awesome' attitude and perhaps toxic positivity. I think this comes from both people genuinely wanting things to be great because they care about others but also when things aren't great, rather than address the issue act as if just being overly positive can blow the troubles away. Fear of conflict stems perhaps from not wanting to get hurt or wounded in someway and this relates to trust – funnily enough in the book it isn't addressed but power dynamics in a team is where fear of conflict may show itself the most. If people with power are not challenged, it may be because they are not challenged, and they can hurt people's careers. It is ironic that this book focuses on team behaviours, but in the story narrative, the CEO is quite dominant and does exercise her power over people – it isn't a surprise people fear conflict if sticking your head up can get you fired in the real world. (So, I am noticing that these are not team dysfunctions, but hierarchical leader dysfunctions.) The book actively promotes conflict openly to address issues and perspectives. I have used this in the past in teams and it is uncomfortable but can be very effective. Where this may come into difficulty is that promoting healthy conflict cannot be separated from people who have power (positional and hierarchical), soft power (they are popular, or particularly articulate) and structural power (being white, male, dominant). I do accept that having an open and transparent culture is good for surfacing different perspectives (and it is much more effective than backbiting or leaving it) but it is important to recognise its wider considerations.
The middle of the pyramid is 'Lack of commitment' characterised by ambiguity. This is about buy-in over things you may not want to do but have agreed. The book strongly argues for not reaching a consensus if there is debate (a scenario where nobody gets what they want) and teams can be paralysed by inertia. I have experienced endless rounds of review due to being risk averse and making sure everyone is across everything when action can be taken that is wrong and can be corrected quickly. Sometimes, just doing something is better than endless debating. Where I am less comfortable is 'just go along with something if we have debated it and someone with power makes a decision'. Ultimately, we all have agency as human beings and in effective team working and groups someone should always have the agency to say, 'no, I am not doing that, but I will help you with this, or at another time'. I recognise this is hard in hierarchical employment but better decisions and better team working comes from something we want to do and can commit to. I think it's bad advice to recommend, 'just suck it up for the team' unless it is something that you can run with. Furthermore, there are levels to 'just do it'. If one has a mild concern, that is very different to something that challenges their ethics. I am an advocate for responding when there is disagreement, but I also guess, that if there is clear differing views that is telling us something we haven't addressed fully.
Second to the top is 'Low Accountability', characterised by low standards. What this really means isn't the boss dictating standards, but colleagues holding each other up and to account. Like the 'Fear of Conflict' section, this was something I facilitated well when I was an operational manager. I encouraged the team to call out when things weren't correct, or errors occurred to build a culture of doing things well. It leads to more responsive teams, more accountable teams, and happier ones too. I do agree that 'peer pressure' is an incredible motivator to do things well. What was missing here was needing the conditions and support networks in place to look out for each other. To encourage risk and innovation, to welcome mistakes or problems as learning opportunities. Simply calling someone out for missing a deadline isn't cool – particularly if there is an absence of trust, so if when teams support each other's accountability it can either enhance or damage trust (this model is not a pyramid!)
At the top of the pyramid is 'Inattention to Results' characterised to working to personal goals rather than collective goals. I am incredibly wary of 'outcomes above all' performance cultures, and there is a dodgy piece in the book where it suggests that a leader should be concerned with results and nothing else. That kind of flies in the face of the very first thing about trust and ensuring teams are adequately supported. It also supports, aligned with 'just get with it' cultures of doing the wrong things righter. I agree with focussing on overarching goals rather than individual performance targets – what is interesting is that the book suggests one's primary team (in this case the executives) is the priority and not their direct reports. This both divorces the leader from the team (a cause of dysfunction if ever I saw it) and is also a huge thing to be wary of considering people are often held accountable for the performance of 'their' units rather than overall. The book really doesn't go into it but this is actually a huge critique of 'pay by results or outcomes' embedded in many cultures. I am not sure if the author made the link.
Like a lot of things, the basic messages in the book are good and I have seen the dysfunctions and addressed them in my own way. That said, like a lot of 'management / leadership / thinking about how we get things done' literature and thinking this book is probably dangerous in the wrong hands!
We haven't talked about the narrative that is 80% of the book. I will say that it is quite a concise, easy read and the authors messages are clearly conveyed and understood. I've read some awful 'management fiction' recently and this isn't too bad. That said, this book is clearly aimed at American corporate cultures and after reading I thought, 'this is a book about a sociopath, written for sociopaths'. The leader despite her claims otherwise exercises absolute power in the book (and there are some ugly narratives about standing up to unions, and effectively pushing people out of their roles). It's also funny, how at the end of the 'novel' she essentially restructures for her own convenience. At no point did I guess that she either respected or cared for her reports who were ineffective. She also doesn't really follow through with the learning in the book about getting people to trust her. I was going to start the review with a big tagline of 'MOTHER KNOWS BEST' because this whole book is the CEO (and the author) laying out 'this is how it is and I am right'. I think the people who 'like' the CEO are probably the people I am thinking about when I think about how the messages in here are dangerous in the wrong hands!
The author flips the pyramid in the final section suggesting that:
• If teams trust each other then…
• Conflict will be open and healthy…
• Which will lead to people getting on with it…
• And people will hold each other to account….
• Which will lead to great results.
There is a lot of linear thinking going on there! The author also gives some tools to addressing these things of which most will be of limited use. What was interesting was his advocacy of Myers-Briggs and things like Belbin team roles. I've done both more than once and come out different every time. This tells me not only do I change over time, but how I feel about myself and how I work is probably time, context, and mood specific. These are only a 'guide for today' and not who we are. It's also funny that the author goes, 'trust me these are scientific and not like that new age astrology stuff' considering he thanks god for all he is at the end of the book. Especially since there are definite limitations to these workplace psychology tools.
It's also funny in the end of the book as a postscript he references the 9/11 attack in New York and in a way of praising the fire, police, and military for their response he overlays his method on top of this. I guess when your model is so vague and lacking in depth you can overlay it over everything, but here is a problem. The author certainly did not know the effectiveness of the response and what was going on, on the ground in those hours after the attack happened. If these teams were so effective, then all of them would respond perfectly all the time and I suspect US citizens would raise eyebrows about that. What I suspect is more relevant here are complexity frameworks and how effective responses are in chaotic environments and how systems respond where there needs to be speedy decision making on the ground and effective coordination. So, in a disaster operation, the relative autonomy of local teams, combined with effective and fast coordinating structures are critical. Is suspect our CEO Katherine would be wholly inappropriate here with her 'mother knows best' approach. The success of the emergency services is probably more related to their sense of purpose, training, and ability to sense and respond and adapt, more than their ability to deal with conflict.
Some good ideas in here but limitations in how effective they are executed unless fundamental thinking is changed.
It's quite hard to strongly argue against the proposals in the book, however they are rather simplistic, and I am not sure there is anything groundbreaking here. The book also suggests there is a relationship between the elements in the book in a hierarchical manner which I am not sure is correct – I think the elements would influence each other, rather than how they are portrayed here in a 'hierarchy of needs' fashion. I guess this is my biggest criticism of the book – it claims it is effective for all kinds of team working but it is so rooted in hierarchical systems (with a particular emphasis on quite toxic US corporate cultures) that is hard to see how applicable some of this is wider as described.
At the bottom of the pyramid is 'Absence of Trust' characterised by people's need for invulnerability. The book suggests something quite straightforward – get to know and like your colleagues as human beings (although in the narrative the CEO character seems to avoid all this). Trust of course is more than knowing your colleague's spouses name and ultimately it does not come from 'knowing people'. That said I have long been convinced that building effective, personal, and healthy relationships with colleagues is essential. When people know me as 'Barry' rather than my job title I know I am more effective and build trust. Trust probably occurs because of other things in the pyramid so whilst I see this as a fundamental, I also do not think it needs to be in place first. I also recognise that teams with an absence of trust can be incredibly toxic, and it comes from fear, of not believing that everyone has both your best interests and the team's best interest at heart. I guess trust in capability matters here, that you trust people are doing the right thing. I've been in teams where I haven't trusted someone, and it is incredibly energy sapping.
Next in the pyramid, working up, is 'Fear of Conflict', characterised by artificial harmony. I've been in teams where there is an 'everything is awesome' attitude and perhaps toxic positivity. I think this comes from both people genuinely wanting things to be great because they care about others but also when things aren't great, rather than address the issue act as if just being overly positive can blow the troubles away. Fear of conflict stems perhaps from not wanting to get hurt or wounded in someway and this relates to trust – funnily enough in the book it isn't addressed but power dynamics in a team is where fear of conflict may show itself the most. If people with power are not challenged, it may be because they are not challenged, and they can hurt people's careers. It is ironic that this book focuses on team behaviours, but in the story narrative, the CEO is quite dominant and does exercise her power over people – it isn't a surprise people fear conflict if sticking your head up can get you fired in the real world. (So, I am noticing that these are not team dysfunctions, but hierarchical leader dysfunctions.) The book actively promotes conflict openly to address issues and perspectives. I have used this in the past in teams and it is uncomfortable but can be very effective. Where this may come into difficulty is that promoting healthy conflict cannot be separated from people who have power (positional and hierarchical), soft power (they are popular, or particularly articulate) and structural power (being white, male, dominant). I do accept that having an open and transparent culture is good for surfacing different perspectives (and it is much more effective than backbiting or leaving it) but it is important to recognise its wider considerations.
The middle of the pyramid is 'Lack of commitment' characterised by ambiguity. This is about buy-in over things you may not want to do but have agreed. The book strongly argues for not reaching a consensus if there is debate (a scenario where nobody gets what they want) and teams can be paralysed by inertia. I have experienced endless rounds of review due to being risk averse and making sure everyone is across everything when action can be taken that is wrong and can be corrected quickly. Sometimes, just doing something is better than endless debating. Where I am less comfortable is 'just go along with something if we have debated it and someone with power makes a decision'. Ultimately, we all have agency as human beings and in effective team working and groups someone should always have the agency to say, 'no, I am not doing that, but I will help you with this, or at another time'. I recognise this is hard in hierarchical employment but better decisions and better team working comes from something we want to do and can commit to. I think it's bad advice to recommend, 'just suck it up for the team' unless it is something that you can run with. Furthermore, there are levels to 'just do it'. If one has a mild concern, that is very different to something that challenges their ethics. I am an advocate for responding when there is disagreement, but I also guess, that if there is clear differing views that is telling us something we haven't addressed fully.
Second to the top is 'Low Accountability', characterised by low standards. What this really means isn't the boss dictating standards, but colleagues holding each other up and to account. Like the 'Fear of Conflict' section, this was something I facilitated well when I was an operational manager. I encouraged the team to call out when things weren't correct, or errors occurred to build a culture of doing things well. It leads to more responsive teams, more accountable teams, and happier ones too. I do agree that 'peer pressure' is an incredible motivator to do things well. What was missing here was needing the conditions and support networks in place to look out for each other. To encourage risk and innovation, to welcome mistakes or problems as learning opportunities. Simply calling someone out for missing a deadline isn't cool – particularly if there is an absence of trust, so if when teams support each other's accountability it can either enhance or damage trust (this model is not a pyramid!)
At the top of the pyramid is 'Inattention to Results' characterised to working to personal goals rather than collective goals. I am incredibly wary of 'outcomes above all' performance cultures, and there is a dodgy piece in the book where it suggests that a leader should be concerned with results and nothing else. That kind of flies in the face of the very first thing about trust and ensuring teams are adequately supported. It also supports, aligned with 'just get with it' cultures of doing the wrong things righter. I agree with focussing on overarching goals rather than individual performance targets – what is interesting is that the book suggests one's primary team (in this case the executives) is the priority and not their direct reports. This both divorces the leader from the team (a cause of dysfunction if ever I saw it) and is also a huge thing to be wary of considering people are often held accountable for the performance of 'their' units rather than overall. The book really doesn't go into it but this is actually a huge critique of 'pay by results or outcomes' embedded in many cultures. I am not sure if the author made the link.
Like a lot of things, the basic messages in the book are good and I have seen the dysfunctions and addressed them in my own way. That said, like a lot of 'management / leadership / thinking about how we get things done' literature and thinking this book is probably dangerous in the wrong hands!
We haven't talked about the narrative that is 80% of the book. I will say that it is quite a concise, easy read and the authors messages are clearly conveyed and understood. I've read some awful 'management fiction' recently and this isn't too bad. That said, this book is clearly aimed at American corporate cultures and after reading I thought, 'this is a book about a sociopath, written for sociopaths'. The leader despite her claims otherwise exercises absolute power in the book (and there are some ugly narratives about standing up to unions, and effectively pushing people out of their roles). It's also funny, how at the end of the 'novel' she essentially restructures for her own convenience. At no point did I guess that she either respected or cared for her reports who were ineffective. She also doesn't really follow through with the learning in the book about getting people to trust her. I was going to start the review with a big tagline of 'MOTHER KNOWS BEST' because this whole book is the CEO (and the author) laying out 'this is how it is and I am right'. I think the people who 'like' the CEO are probably the people I am thinking about when I think about how the messages in here are dangerous in the wrong hands!
The author flips the pyramid in the final section suggesting that:
• If teams trust each other then…
• Conflict will be open and healthy…
• Which will lead to people getting on with it…
• And people will hold each other to account….
• Which will lead to great results.
There is a lot of linear thinking going on there! The author also gives some tools to addressing these things of which most will be of limited use. What was interesting was his advocacy of Myers-Briggs and things like Belbin team roles. I've done both more than once and come out different every time. This tells me not only do I change over time, but how I feel about myself and how I work is probably time, context, and mood specific. These are only a 'guide for today' and not who we are. It's also funny that the author goes, 'trust me these are scientific and not like that new age astrology stuff' considering he thanks god for all he is at the end of the book. Especially since there are definite limitations to these workplace psychology tools.
It's also funny in the end of the book as a postscript he references the 9/11 attack in New York and in a way of praising the fire, police, and military for their response he overlays his method on top of this. I guess when your model is so vague and lacking in depth you can overlay it over everything, but here is a problem. The author certainly did not know the effectiveness of the response and what was going on, on the ground in those hours after the attack happened. If these teams were so effective, then all of them would respond perfectly all the time and I suspect US citizens would raise eyebrows about that. What I suspect is more relevant here are complexity frameworks and how effective responses are in chaotic environments and how systems respond where there needs to be speedy decision making on the ground and effective coordination. So, in a disaster operation, the relative autonomy of local teams, combined with effective and fast coordinating structures are critical. Is suspect our CEO Katherine would be wholly inappropriate here with her 'mother knows best' approach. The success of the emergency services is probably more related to their sense of purpose, training, and ability to sense and respond and adapt, more than their ability to deal with conflict.
Some good ideas in here but limitations in how effective they are executed unless fundamental thinking is changed.
http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/pdfs/Five%20Dysfunctions%20of%20a%20Team.pdf
"Trust is the foundation of real teamwork."
Managing conflict is an art and needs to be done in masterful hands. Lencioni assumes leaders are gifted with this skill. I agree some conflict is necessary - as appropriate - but not for conflict sake.
I didn't see any scholarly/case-study references anywhere in the text.
I do like the story approach and his fable-telling style using a model - then the summary.
V
"Trust is the foundation of real teamwork."
Managing conflict is an art and needs to be done in masterful hands. Lencioni assumes leaders are gifted with this skill. I agree some conflict is necessary - as appropriate - but not for conflict sake.
I didn't see any scholarly/case-study references anywhere in the text.
I do like the story approach and his fable-telling style using a model - then the summary.
V
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Wonderful information, can't wait to implement some of the principles with my team.
I'm really not a fan of the business parable format, but the quality of the information in this book was worth the cheesy slog of contrived story lines to teach a point rather than have a plot.
I'm really not a fan of the business parable format, but the quality of the information in this book was worth the cheesy slog of contrived story lines to teach a point rather than have a plot.
This was a fantastic book - I aligned with Katheryn (in the book) quite a bit. I'll be using this book as a model for team culture, as well share it with my team. A solid read.
Not as good as The Advantage, I think. It was a quick read and certainly built a good case for making sure a team functions. I would have like a few more stories or case studies. I'm afraid that it's such an easy read that not everyone will stop to consider their own teams and how they can help them function better. It would be a great way to introduce issues about teams to a group, however, and to get people talking and evaluating themselves and their teams.