The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable

by Patrick Lencioni

“I want all of you challenging each other about what you are doing, how you are spending your time, whether you are making enough progress.” Mikey challenged, “But that sounds like a lack of trust.” Kathryn shook her head. “No, trust is not the same as assuming everyone is on the same page as you, and that they don’t need to be pushed. Trust is knowing that when a team member does push you, they’re doing it because they care about the team.”

Push with respect, and under the assumption that the other person is probably doing the right thing. But push anyway. And never hold back.”

“You know you guys are screwed, don't you?” Mikey was going to punish Kathryn one way or another. “I mean, you have no sales or marketing people left. And I wouldn't be surprised if you lost some of my staff members as a result of this.” But Kathryn had been through this kind of situation plenty of times before, and she'd spent enough time with Mikey's staff to know they saw many of the same flaws in their boss that everyone else did. Still, she felt it would be best to demonstrate some degree of concern. “Well, I would certainly understand if that happened, but I hope it's not the case.”

Kathryn raised her eyebrows. “Well, there's more to the story. No one else in the department could stand Fred. And to be honest, he annoyed the heck out of me too. He didn't help anyone with their work, and he made sure everyone knew how much better he was at his job, which was undeniable, even to the people who hated the guy. Anyway, my staff came to me a number of times complaining about Fred. I listened carefully and even spoke to Fred half-heartedly about adjusting his behavior. But I mostly ignored them because I could tell that they resented his skills. More importantly, I was not about to come down on my top performer.” The staff seemed to empathize with her. Kathryn went on. “Eventually, the output of the department began to slide, and so I gave more work to Fred, who complained a little but managed to get it all done. In my mind, he was carrying the department. Pretty soon, morale in the department began to deteriorate more rapidly than ever, and our performance slid further. Again, a number of analysts came to me to complain about Fred, and it was becoming clear that he was indeed contributing to the problems of the group more than I had thought. After a tough night of thinking and losing sleep, I made my first big decision.” Jeff guessed, “You fired him.” Kathryn smiled in a shameful kind of way. “No. I promoted him.” Jaws around the table dropped.

Kathryn nodded her head. “That's right. Fred was my first promotion as a manager. Two weeks later, three of my seven analysts quit, and the department fell into chaos. We dropped way behind in our work, and my manager called me in to talk about what was going on. I explained the Fred situation, and why I had lost the other analysts. The next day, he made a big decision.” Jeff guessed again. “He fired him.” Kathryn smiled in a painfully humorous way. “Close. He fired me.”

“Are you saying that Fred's behavior alone hurt the production of the group by 50 percent?” “No. Not Fred's behavior.” People seemed confused. “My tolerance of his behavior. Listen, they fired the right person.”

“But I can assure you that we're going to find the right person. That means everyone here will be interviewing candidates and pushing to find someone who can demonstrate trust, engage in conflict, commit to group decisions, hold their peers accountable, and focus on the results of the team, not their own ego.”

“Hold on. Hold on. I don't see anything wrong here. This is the kind of conflict we've been talking about for the past month. It's perfect.” Jan tried to explain herself. “I guess I just don't see it that way. It still feels like we're fighting.” “You are fighting. But about issues. That's your job. Otherwise, you leave it to your people to try to solve problems that they can't solve. They want you to hash this stuff out so they can get clear direction from us.” Jan seemed tired. “I hope this is worth it.” Kathryn smiled again. “Trust me. It will be worth it in more ways than you know.”

More important than what Kathryn did, however, was the reaction she received. As resistant as they might have seemed in the moment, no one questioned whether they should be doing the things that Kathryn made them do. There seemed to be a genuine sense of collective purpose.

Jan added. “And we're doing better with conflict, although I can't say I'm used to it yet.” Kathryn assured her, “I don't think anyone ever gets completely used to conflict. If it's not a little uncomfortable, then it's not real. The key is to keep doing it anyway.”

“Listen, I agree with most of what you've said about the team. You're moving in the right direction. But I want to assure you that there will be many days during the next few months when you will wonder if you've made any progress at all. It's going to take more than a few weeks of behavioral change before we see a tangible impact on the bottom line.” The team seemed to be agreeing with her too easily. She decided she needed to rattle them one more time. “I'm telling you this because we are not out of the woods yet. I've seen plenty of groups slide backward that were a lot further along than we are. This is about having the discipline and persistence to keep doing what we're doing.”

And for the next two days, the team experienced that weather. At times, working together in a spirit of cooperation, at other times seemingly at each other's throats, the group wrestled with business issues and worked each one through to resolution. Ironically, they rarely discussed the notion of teamwork directly, which Kathryn interpreted as a sign that they were making progress. Two observations that Kathryn made during breaks and meals told her she was right. First, the team seemed to stay together, choosing not to go off on their own as they had at previous off-sites. Second, they were noisier than they had ever been, and one of the most prevalent sounds that could be heard among them was laughter. By the end of the session, though they were clearly exhausted, everyone seemed eager to schedule follow-up meetings with one another when they returned to the office.

First, genuine teamwork in most organizations remains as elusive as it has ever been. Second, organizations fail to achieve teamwork because they unknowingly fall prey to five natural but dangerous pitfalls, which I call the five dysfunctions of a team.

These dysfunctions can be mistakenly interpreted as five distinct issues that can be addressed in isolation of the others. But in reality they form an interrelated model, making susceptibility to even one of them potentially lethal for the success of a team.

The first dysfunction is an absence of trust among team members. Essentially, this stems from their unwillingness to be vulnerable within the group. Team members who are not genuinely open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation for trust.

This failure to build trust is damaging because it sets the tone for the second dysfunction: fear of conflict. Teams that lack trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered and passionate debate of ideas. Instead, they resort to veiled discussions and guarded comments.

A lack of healthy conflict is a problem because it ensures the third dysfunction of a team: lack of commitment. Without having aired their opinions in the course of passionate and open debate, team members rarely, if ever, buy in and commi...

Because of this lack of real commitment and buy-in, team members develop an avoidance of accountability, the fourth dysfunction. Without committing to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven people often hesitate to call their peers on actio...

Failure to hold one another accountable creates an environment where the fifth dysfunction can thrive. Inattention to results occurs when team members put their individual needs (such as ego, career development, or recognition) or even the needs of their divisions above the collective goals of the team. And so, like a chain with just on...

imagine how members of truly cohesive teams behave: They trust one another. They engage in unfiltered conflict around ideas. They commit to decisions and plans of action. They hold one another accountable for delivering against those plans. They focus on the achievement of collective results.

Instructions: Use the scale below to indicate how each statement applies to your team. It is important to evaluate the statements honestly and without over-thinking your answers. 3 = Usually 2 = Sometimes 1 = Rarely ____ 1. Team members are passionate and unguarded in their discussion of issues. ____ 2. Team members call out one another's deficiencies or unproductive behaviors. ____ 3. Team members know what their peers are working on and how they contribute to the collective good of the team. ____ 4. Team members quickly and genuinely apologize to one another when they say or do something inappropriate or possibly damaging to the team. ____ 5. Team members willingly make sacrifices (such as budget, turf, head count) in their departments or areas of expertise for the good of the team. ____ 6. Team members openly admit their weaknesses and mistakes. ____ 7. Team meetings are compelling, and not boring. ____ 8. Team members leave meetings confident that their peers are completely committed to the decisions that were agreed on, even if there was initial disagreement. ____ 9. Morale is significantly affected by the failure to achieve team goals. ____ 10. During team meetings, the most important—and difficult—issues are put on the table to be resolved. ____ 11. Team members are deeply concerned about the prospect of letting down their peers. ____ 12. Team members know about one another's personal lives and are comfortable discussing them. ____ 13. Team members end discussions w...

For those interested in a more rigorous analysis of team performance. The Table Group offers a comprehensive Online Team Assessment. The Online Team Assessment provides customized data outlining a team's strengths and weaknesses, recommendations for overcoming the dysfunctions, and specific instructions for debriefing the results. Visit www.tablegroup.com/dysfunctions for more information.

Combine your scores for the preceding statements as indicated below. Dysfunction 1: Absence of Trust Dysfunction 2: Fear of Conflict Dysfunction 3: Lack of Commitment Dysfunction 4: Avoidance of Accountability Dysfunction 5: Inattention to Results Statement 4: _____ Statement 1: _____ Statement 3: _____ Statement 2: _____ Statement 5: _____ Statement 6: _____ Statement 7: _____ Statement 8: _____ Statement 11: ____ Statement 9: _____ Statement 12: ____ Statement 10: ____ Statement 13: ____ Statement 14: ____ Statement 15: ____ Total: _____ Total: _____ Total: _____ Total: _____ Total: _____ A score of 8 or 9 is a probable indication that the dysfunction is not a problem for your team. A score of 6 or 7 indicates that the dysfunction could be a problem. A score of 3 to 5 is probably an indication that the dysfunction needs to be addressed. Regardless of your scores, it is important to keep in mind that every team needs constant work, because without it, even the best ones deviate toward dysfunction.

Dysfunction 1: Absence of trust Trust lies at the heart of a functioning, cohesive team. Without it, teamwork is all but impossible.

In the context of building a team, trust is the confidence among team members that their peers' intentions are good, and that there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group. In essence, teammates must get comfortable being vulnerable with one another.

For instance, one might “trust” that a given teammate will produce high-quality work because he has always done so in the past. As desirable as this may be, it is not enough to represent the kind of trust that is characteristic of a great team. It requires team members to make themselves vulnerable to one another, and be confident that their respective vulnerabilities will not be used against them. The vulnerabilities I'm referring to include weaknesses, skill deficiencies, interpersonal shortcomings, mistakes, and requests for help.

Achieving vulnerability-based trust is difficult because in the course of career advancement and education, most successful people learn to be competitive with their peers, and protective of their reputations.

Teams that lack trust waste inordinate amounts of time and energy managing their behaviors and interactions within the group. They tend to dread team meetings, and are reluctant to take risks in asking for or offering assistance to others.

Members of Teams with an Absence of Trust . . . Conceal their weaknesses and mistakes from one another Hesitate to ask for help or provide constructive feedback Hesitate to offer help outside their own areas of responsibility Jump to conclusions about the intentions and aptitudes of others without attempting to clarify them Fail to recognize and tap into one another's skills and experiences Waste time and energy managing their behaviors for effect Hold grudges Dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together

Members of Trusting Teams . . . Admit weaknesses and mistakes Ask for help Accept questions and input about their areas of responsibility Give one another the benefit of the doubt before arriving at a negative conclusion Take risks in offering feedback and assistance Appreciate and tap into one another's skills and experiences Focus time and energy on important issues, not politics Offer and accept apologies without hesitation Look forward to meetings and other opportunities to work as a group

Unfortunately, vulnerability-based trust cannot be achieved overnight. It requires shared experiences over time, multiple instances of follow-through and credibility, and an in-depth understanding of the unique attributes of team members.

team members answer a short list of questions about themselves. Questions need not be overly sensitive in nature and might include the following: number of siblings, hometown, unique challenges of childhood, favorite hobbies, first job, and worst job. Simply by describing these relatively innocuous attributes or experiences, team members begin to relate to one another on a more personal basis, and see one another as human beings with life stories and interesting backgrounds. This encourages greater empathy and understanding, and discourages unfair and inaccurate behavioral attributions.

Team Effectiveness Exercise This exercise is more rigorous and relevant than the previous one, but may involve more risk. It requires team members to identify the single most important contribution that each of their peers makes to the team, as well as the one area that they must either improve upon or eliminate for the good of the team. All members then report their responses, focusing on one person at a time, usually beginning with the team leader.

The profiling tool that I use is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). However, a number of other personality profiles are also popular, and one of the best and most common is Everything DiSC. The purpose of most of these tools is to provide practical and scientifically valid behavioral descriptions of various team members according to the diverse ways that they think, speak, and act.

360-Degree Feedback These tools have become popular over the past twenty years and can produce powerful results for a team. They are riskier than any of the tools or exercises described so far because they call for peers to make specific judgments and provide one another with constructive criticism. The key to making a 360-degree program work, in my opinion, is divorcing it entirely from compensation and formal performance evaluation. Rather, it should be used as a developmental tool, one that allows employees to identify strengths and weaknesses without any repercussions.

By being even slightly connected to formal performance evaluation or compensation, 360-degree programs can take on dangerous political undertones.

Individual developmental areas must be revisited to ensure that progress does not lose momentum. Even on a strong team—and perhaps especially so—atrophy can lead to the erosion of trust.

The most important action that a leader must take to encourage the building of trust on a team is to demonstrate vulnerability first. 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.

By building trust, a team makes conflict possible because team members do not hesitate to engage in passionate and sometimes emotional debate, knowing that they will not be punished for saying something that might otherwise be interpreted as destructive or critical.

Unfortunately, conflict is considered taboo in many situations, especially at work. And the higher you go up the management chain, the more you find people spending inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to avoid the kind of passionate debates that are essential to any great team.

It is important to distinguish productive ideological conflict from destructive fighting and interpersonal politics. Ideological conflict is limited to concepts and ideas, and avoids personality-focused, mean-spirited attacks. However, it can have many of the same external qualities of interpersonal conflict—passion, emotion, and frustration—so much so that an outside observer might easily mistake it for unproductive discord.

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.

How does a team go about developing the ability and willingness to engage in healthy conflict? The first step is acknowledging that conflict is productive,

Teams that Fear Conflict . . . Have boring meetings Create environments where back-channel politics and personal attacks thrive Ignore controversial topics that are critical to team success Fail to tap into all the opinions and perspectives of team members Waste time and energy with posturing and interpersonal risk management Teams that Engage in Conflict . . . Have lively, interesting meetings Extract and exploit the ideas of all team members Solve real problems quickly Minimize politics Put critical topics on the table for discussion

Real-Time Permission In the process of mining for conflict, team members need to coach one another not to retreat from healthy debate. One simple but effective way to do this is to recognize when the people engaged in conflict are becoming uncomfortable with the level of discord, and then interrupt to remind them that what they are doing is necessary.

The Role of the Leader One of the most difficult challenges that a leader faces in promoting healthy conflict is the desire to protect members from harm. This leads to premature interruption of disagreements, and prevents team members from developing coping skills for dealing with conflict themselves.

it is key that leaders demonstrate restraint when their people engage in conflict, and allow resolution to occur naturally, as messy as it can sometimes be. This can be a challenge because many leaders feel that they are somehow failing in their jobs by losing control of their teams during conflict.

By engaging in productive conflict and tapping into team members' perspectives and opinions, a team can confidently commit and buy in to a decision knowing that they have benefited from everyone's ideas.

commitment is a function of two things: clarity and buy-in. Great teams make clear and timely decisions and move forward with complete buy-in from every member of the team, even those who voted against the decision. They leave meetings confident that no one on the team is quietly harboring doubts about whether to support the actions agreed on.

Consensus. Great teams understand the danger of seeking consensus, and find ways to achieve buy-in even when complete agreement is impossible. They understand that reasonable human beings do not need to get their way in order to support a decision, but only need to know that their opinions have been heard and considered.