■■

In this issue: Overcoming the Five

■ Gain... Dysfunctions of a Team
trust by persuading team
members to risk being vul- A Field Guide for Leaders, Managers,
nerable, through such tools
as The Personal Histories and Facilitators
Exercise and the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator by Patrick Lencioni
behavior profile.

■ Master...
the fear of conflict with the
help of four tools and exer-
cises: conflict profiling,
E ven more so than tech-
nology, strategy, or
finance, teamwork is a
the world's best busi-
ness school. It
requires levels of
conflict norming, mining
for conflict, and recognizing unique, powerful advantage courage, discipline,
conflict obstacles. that competitors can't imi- and emotional energy
■ Achieve...
tate. It is almost always that even the most dri-
commitment to team deci- lacking in companies that ven executives don't
sions and standards by fail, and often present in always possess.
using two simple tech- those that succeed.
niques: commitment clari-
fication, and cascading But as difficult as team-
communication. So why do so many busi- work is to measure and
■ Encourage... ness leaders focus most of achieve, its power cannot
accountability with the their time on other topics be denied. When people
Team Effectiveness Exercise, like finance, strategy, come together and set
a quick and amazingly effec-
tive process in which team technology, and marketing? aside their individual
members exchange face-to- needs for the good of the
face feedback. • First, teamwork is whole, they can accom-
■ Focus... hard to measure. It plish what looks impossi-
on results by using a visible impacts the organiza- ble on paper. They do this
scoreboard to provide clear tion in so many ways by eliminating the politics
information about how the
team is doing, and how that it's almost impos- and confusion that plague
much time is left to pro- sible to isolate it as a most businesses. As a
duce the desired outcomes. single variable. result, they get more done
in less time and with less
■■ • Second, teamwork is cost.
extremely hard to
Volume 14, No. 5 (2 sections). Section 2, May 2005
© 2005 Audio-Tech Business Book Summaries 14-10. achieve. It can't be To do that on a consistent
No part of this publication may be used or reproduced
in any manner whatsoever without written permission.
bought, and it can't be basis, a team must over-
attained by hiring an come five dysfunctions.
To order additional copies of this summary, reference
Catalog #5052. intellectual giant from Before we go further, let's
take a quick overview of dialogue around issues • Dysfunction #4 is a
the five dysfunctions and and decisions that are failure to embrace
how teams can conquer critical to the organiza- accountability.
them. tion's success. They do Members of teams that
not hesitate to disagree perform well hold one
• Dysfunction #1 is the with each other, all in another accountable for
absence of trust. the spirit of finding the adhering to their deci-
Members of great best answers, discover- sions and standards of
teams trust one anoth- ing the truth, and performance. They
er on a fundamental, making great decisions. don't rely on the team
emotional level, and leader as the primary
they are comfortable • Dysfunction #3 is a source of accountabili-
being vulnerable with lack of commitment. ty; instead, they go
each other about their Great teams ensure directly to their peers.
weaknesses, mistakes, that all opinions and
fears, and behaviors. ideas are considered, • Dysfunction #5 is
so they are able to inattention to results.
• Dysfunction #2 is a achieve genuine buy-in Team mem- bers must
fear of conflict. around all important set aside their
Teams in which mem- decisions, even when individual needs and
bers trust one another various members of the focus on what is best
are not afraid to team initially disagree. for the team.
engage in passionate They cannot place their
departments, careers,
or status ahead of the
results that define
team success.

Before you begin building

a team, ask yourself two
key questions. First,
“Are we really a team?”
Sometimes a team
improvement effort is
doomed from the start
because the group going
through it isn't a team at
all. So let's define the
term.

A team is a small number

of people — usually
between three and 12 —
who have common goals
and share the rewards and
responsibilities for achiev-
ing them. That is, the
members set aside individ-
THE FIVE DYSFUNCTIONS OF A TEAM ual goals for the group's
2 AU DIO -TE CH
collective good.
If that doesn't describe
your current situation, you
might have a group with
the potential to be a team.
Or, you may have a group
of people who report to the
same manager, but with
relatively little
interdependence and
mutual accountability.
Not every group is a team.
So, don't waste time and
create false expectations
by pretending the people
involved are something
they're not.
The second important
question is, “Are we ready
for heavy lifting?”
Everyone must be willing
to invest the time and
emotional energy required
in team-building. There are
no shortcuts, and half-
measures won't do the trick.
That's not to say team-
building will take forever,
or that the experience will
be unpleasant. If you do it
right, your team can make
significant progress in
weeks or months, and the
members may find it to be
one of the most rewarding
parts of their professional
lives.
In the next section, we'll
deal with the first major
dysfunction — lack of
trust — and how to over-
come it.
■■
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
OVERCOMING DYSFUNCTION
#1 BY GAINING TRUST
Teams can't succeed with-
out trust. But just as it's
the most important charac-
teristic, it's also the rarest.
One reason why trust is so
hard to create is that the
word means different
things to different people.
So let's define what trust
means in a team context.
It's all about vulnerability
— not in the touchy-feely
sense, but in the practical
reality of members being
unafraid to admit to one
another their failures,
frustrations, and fears.
Individuals willing to strip
away their workplace
masks and admit the
unvarnished truth about
strengths and weaknesses
make good team members.
Why?
Because they're unlikely to
engage in self-promoting
behavior that wastes
times, saps energy, and
undermines achievements.
Another reason why trust
is rare is because of the
human desire for self-
preservation. It's so pow-
erful that people hesitate
to put themselves at risk
for the good of others.
“Look out for number one”
may be a healthy motto —
if you're in prison. But it's
absolutely lethal if you're
on a business team.
To establish trust takes
more than time. Mainly, it
takes courage — the abili-
ty to make public your own
inadequacies.
The key to overcoming this
dysfunction, then, is to
teach members to get com-
fortable being exposed to
one another. They must be
unafraid to honestly say
things like, “I was wrong,”
and “I made a mistake,”
and “I need help,” and “I'm
not sure,” and even “I'm
sorry.”
If team members can't
speak these words when
the situation calls for it,
they aren't going to learn
to trust one another.
Instead, they will waste
time and energy thinking
about what they should
say, and wondering about
the true intentions of their
peers.
For a team to establish
real trust, team members
must be willing to risk
being vulnerable, without
knowing whether that vul-
nerability will be respect-
ed. So let's begin with The
Personal Histories
Exercise. This is a simple
tool you can use to help
your team get comfortable
with being vulnerable.
Here's how it goes. At a
staff meeting or off-site, go
around the room and have
every member of the team
explain three things:
where they grew up, how
3
many kids were in their
family, and what was the
most difficult challenge of
their childhood.
In nearly every case in
which this exercise is used,
team members are shocked
about what they didn't
know about their peers.
For example, colleagues
may learn that one team
member moved out of his
home at age 13 to start a
business, or that another
grew up without parents,
or that another grew up
the daughter of a military
officer who never praised
her accomplishments.
This exercise is the initial
step in helping members
get comfortable with the
idea of being vulnerable.
They begin to let down
their guard about their
strengths, weaknesses,
opinions, and ideas.
There's also another bene-
fit: It helps team members
to develop empathy for
their peers. This can help
them to understand that,
when someone disagrees
with them, the conflict
may be the result of differ-
ent backgrounds, not
because the other person is
just being “difficult.”
For example, when the
CFO of a company ques-
tions an item on an
expense report, colleagues
on an executive team
might jump to the conclu-
sion that he is motivated
4 AU
by a need for control, or by
a lack of trust. But when
those colleagues under-
stand that the CFO grew up
in a poor family, they might
be more likely to under-
stand the real motivation.
The Personal Histories
Exercise is good for help-
ing people get comfortable
being vulnerable and bet-
ter understanding one
another. But the real
breakthroughs in terms of
vulnerability and trust
come when you introduce a
behavior profiling tool that
allows team members to
assess their strengths and
weaknesses openly and
accurately.
The idea here is simple:
Give team members an
objective, reliable means
for understanding and
describing each other.
This provides two powerful
benefits:
First, it dramatically
increases the likelihood
that members will admit
their strengths and weak-
nesses to each other.
That's because members
voluntarily — and often
proudly — identify their
particular type.
Second, it provides team
members with a common
vocabulary for describing
their differences and simi-
larities. That makes it
safe to give each other
feedback — without think-
ing they're making
accusatory or overly gener-
alized statements.
The most widely known
profiling tool is the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator — or
MBTI. It shows people's
personalities as they
relate to energy, data col-
lection, decision-making,
and organization.
Prior to an off-site team-
building meeting, ask all of
the members to complete
an on-line MBTI assess-
ment. At the first day of
the off-site, spend half an
hour discussing the MBTI
and having everyone make
their first guesses about
their personality types.
Then hand out the results
of the assessments, and
ask them to compare their
results with their guesses.
Finally, hand out descrip-
tions of each of the 16
MBTI types.
Then go around the room
and ask the team members
to identify their types and
to read aloud their MBTI
descriptions. Inevitably,
the guardedness of
untrusting teammates
melts away as they
acknowledge to one anoth-
er what makes them tick.
Without fail, there is
laughter, teasing, relief,
and insight. This is when
trust begins to grow.
For example, at one com-
pany that used this exer-
cise, an executive's MBTI
DIO -TE CH
type revealed that he has
an introverting preference
and a feeling preference,
so he tends to keep his
emotions to himself. The
members of his team had
often thought he was hold-
ing back on purpose, and
hiding his political
motives. When they real-
ized that it was just his
natural behavioral tenden-
cy that caused him to act
that way, they were
relieved.
At the same meeting, the
CEO acknowledged that
the MBTI had correctly
profiled him as impatient.
He went on to explain that
he was able to shut down
conversation by giving peo-
ple a look of impatience.
He explained that he did-
n't want to bring discus-
sions to a premature end,
but he didn't know how to
contain his desire for clo-
sure. The team agreed to
push back more when this
happened.
After the first day of an 1. It provides a great
off-site, ask team members
to read a thorough descrip-
tion of their behavioral
type during the evening.
Tell them to come prepared
the next day to report on 2. It gives those subordi-
the three or four areas
that they felt were particu-
larly insightful about their
style.
Finally, ask team members
to identify one insight from 3. It helps executive lead-
their profile that high-
lights a weakness that
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
they would like to address
for the good of the team.
It is amazing to hear them
call out behavioral issues
about themselves that
their peers would have
struggled to raise.
By the time an off-site has
ended, the members of a
team will come to know
each other in a deeper,
more meaningful way than
ever.
After that, you have to
work to maintain the
momentum. One way is to
use e-mail to remind peo-
ple of the members' types.
Also, encourage members to
keep their reference
material from the session
on their desks, so that they
will use it at work.
Finally, have members go
to their direct reports and
share their profile informa-
tion. This serves three
purposes:
opportunity to demon-
strate vulnerability
with their subordi-
nates.
nates real insights into
their leaders, so they'll
feel more comfortable
providing feedback and
interpreting behavior.
ers develop a better
understanding of their
own profiles, because
people learn through
teaching.
■■
OVERCOMING DYSFUNCTION
#2 BY MASTERING CONFLICT
Establishing trust makes
it easier to overcome
Dysfunction #2, the fear
of conflict. Conflict — in
a positive sense — is
essential for strong teams.
It involves passionate,
unfiltered debate about
important issues. Where
trust exists, conflict
becomes much less fearful.
On strong teams, intense
debates are common. But
they're constructive rather
than destructive.
That's because their goal
isn't to gain personal
advantage but to pursue a
collective truth. Thus, con-
flicts shouldn't be attempts
to win arguments, but
rather efforts to say what
needs to be said.
Admittedly, even among
the best teams, conflict is
always somewhat uncom-
fortable. But team mem-
bers need to push one
another outside their emo-
tional comfort zones in
order to make the best
decisions.
Many people express fears
about conflict getting too
personal, but that rarely
5

CONFLICT CONTINUUM
happens. The bigger prob-
lem for most teams is that
their debates tend to be
overly tepid rather than
heated.
To overcome that, look at
conflict as a continuum.
At one end, there's artifi-
cial harmony with no con-
flict at all, and at the other
there are mean-spirited,
personal attacks.
The safe end — the harmo-
ny side — is where most
teams tend to congregate.
But the most productive
place to be is around the
middle. That's where a
team can have every bit of
constructive conflict possi-
ble — without getting
overly personal.
What if a team steps over
the line, and goes beyond
the middle of the continu-
um? That's not only okay;
it can actually be a good
thing, as long as the team
commits to working
through it. When a team
recovers from destructive
conflict, it builds confi-
dence that it can survive
such an event, which in
turn builds trust.
6 AU
There are four tools and
exercises available to help
your team get more com-
fortable with productive
conflict. They include:
1. Conflict profiling
2. Conflict norming
3. Mining for conflict
4. Recognizing conflict
obstacles
Conflict profiling involves
the participants' learning
to engage in productive
conflict around issues. To
make this possible, it's
necessary for the group to
understand its collective
and individual preferences
related to conflict.
To that end, have the team
members do three things:
• First, review their
behavioral profiles
from the MBTI, with
emphasis on implica-
tions relating to conflict.
• Second, have members
share those implications,
along with other con-
flict-related influences
in their lives, including
families, life experi-
ences, and culture.
• Third, discuss the sim-
ilarities and differences
between their outlook
and their teammates'
viewpoints on the
matter of conflict.
Conflict norming is the
second tool for mastering
conflict. It should empha-
size establishing the
team's norms for engaging
in conflict.
Norming provides clarity
about how the group mem-
bers will participate in vig-
orous debate. Some teams
like to get emotionally
charged, use colorful lan-
guage, and interrupt each
other during debates.
They believe this approach
is productive, so people
don't get offended by it.
Other teams try to keep
discussions free of emo- tion.
The best approach depends
on the team. To discover
what will work best, ask
members to write down
what they regard as
acceptable and unaccept-
able behavior in such
debates.
Then, have them discuss
their preferences, with the
goal being to arrive at a
common understanding of
how the team members
will engage each other.
DIO -TE CH
Unfortunately, even when
people recognize produc-
tive conflict's value, they
tend to avoid it. In such
cases, the leader probably
will have to assume the
role of agitator.

Another way of looking at

it is that he must use the
third tool by mining for
conflict. That means seek-
ing out opportunities for
unearthing buried conflicts
— but only when it's
important to uncover a
significant issue.

On occasions when the

team gets into real conflict,
it's appropriate for the
leader to interrupt — and
remind them that what
they're doing is okay. Say
something like: “This is
good. Keep it up.”
The fourth tool for mas-
tering conflict is to
understand the obstacles
to conflict resolution.
Four different kinds of
obstacles can prevent
issues from being resolved:
1. Informational
2. Environmental
3. Relationship
4. Individual
• Informational obstacles
are the easiest to dis-
cuss because they are
actually related to the
issue being debated.
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
CONFLICT RESOLUTION MODEL
To engage in the kind have to do with prob-
of conflict that achieves lems between the peo-
resolution, teams must ple involved in the
exchange information, discussion or conflict.
facts, opinions, and They may trace back to
perspective. past conflicts, stylistic
differences, or the
• Environmental obsta- organizational pecking
cles refer to the loca- order.
tion or atmosphere in
which the discussion is • Individual obstacles
occurring. That might exist because of inter-
include limitations in nal differences between
physical space — such people. The obstacle
as an uncomfortable may be something like
room; a shortage of IQ, knowledge, or self-
time to explore options; esteem, or it could
and office politics or involve values or
cultural realities. motives.
• Relationship obstacles To use this approach,
7
remind everyone of the
potential existence of these
four types of obstacles, and
refer to them whenever a
conversation gets bogged
down. For example, you
might say, “We're not mak-
ing any progress because
of an environmental obsta-
cle: This conference room
is too small. Let's move
across the hall to the larger
room.”
■■
OVERCOMING DYSFUNCTION
#3 BY ACHIEVING
COMMITMENT
Using conflict effectively
helps enable a team to
overcome the third dys-
function: the lack of
commitment.
Teams that commit to deci-
sions and standards do so
because they embrace two
related concepts: buy-in
and clarity.
Buy-in is the achievement
of honest emotional sup-
port. Clarity is the
removal of assumptions and
ambiguity from a situation.
Be very clear on one point:
Commitment is not con-
sensus. Waiting endlessly
for consensus is a recipe
for mediocrity, delay, and
frustration.
Intelligent, driven individ-
uals can buy into a decision
when they don't naturally
agree with it. That is,
8 AU
they don't turn lack of con-
sensus into a roadblock.
They rely on the conflict —
the impassioned debate —
that's gone before.
Because their ideas have
been heard, understood,
considered, and explained
within the context of the
ultimate decision, they don't
have to “get their way” to buy
into the decision.
As for clarity, even when
teams commit to a deci-
sion, there can be a prob-
lem. For example, at one
company, the CEO and his
team discussed how to deal
with a downturn in rev-
enues. After two hours of
debate, the team left the
conference room with a
decision: to freeze hiring
until the bottom line
improved.
The head of HR was
charged with communicat-
ing the decision, and she
sent out a note to all man-
agers announcing the hir-
ing freeze. A few minutes
later, three of the six exec-
utives who had attended
the meeting stormed into
her office.
They said things like: “I
didn't think that applied to
my organization!” “We
can't freeze hiring in
Sales!” and, “That doesn't
include Product
Development, does it?”
They'd all agreed with the
decision, but they all had
different ideas on what the
agreement entailed.
Commitment can't occur if
people are unclear about
what they've committed to.
The problem with failing
to align around commit-
ments can easily be avoid-
ed by using two simple
techniques:
1. Commitment clarifica-
tion
2. Cascading communi-
cation
Here's how they work.
To use commitment clarifi-
cation, ask this question five
minutes before the end of
the meeting: “What exactly
have we decided here
today?”
At the white board, write
down the decisions that
the team thinks it has
made. In many cases,
team members see what
the leader is writing on the
board and react: “Wait a
second. That's not what I
thought we agreed on.”
Then the group dives back
into the conversation until
everyone is clear.
By being extremely explicit
about what has been
agreed upon, a team will
be able to identify discrep-
ancies before the decision
is announced to the rest of
the organization.
DIO -TE CH
The second activity, cas-
cading communication,
happens after the meeting.
Tell the team members to
go back and communicate
the decision to their staff
members within 24 hours
of the meeting.
Why is this exercise effec-
tive? Even the most pas-
sive executives will call out
their concerns about a
decision if they know
they'll be expected to go
out and communicate it
publicly.
Consider what can happen
when teams do not use
this approach. At an exec-
utive staff meeting at a
pharmaceutical company,
the CEO announced the
elimination of business-
class and first-class travel
for all employees.
But only half the team
members told their staffs.
The other half decided to
ignore the new rule. Chaos
ensued, with some
employees on the same
flights going merrily to the
front of the plane —
and others trudging to the
back. The situation caused
anger, frustration, and it
hurt the credibility of
everyone on the executive
team.
When team members fail
to communicate decisions
to their staff members,
they must be held
accountable. That brings
us to Dysfunction #4:
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
avoidance of account-
ability.
■■
OVERCOMING DYSFUNCTION
#4 BY EMBRACING
ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability is a word
that has become so
overused within many
companies that it has lost
much of its power. We can
define accountability as
the willingness of team
members to remind one
another when they are not
living up to the team's
performance standards.
The key to this kind of
accountability is that it
shouldn't always involve
the participation of the
team leader. It should be
direct, from peer to peer.
This is based on the notion
that peer pressure and the
distaste for letting down a
colleague will motivate a
team player more than any
fear of punishment or
rebuke by superiors.
But there's an irony here.
For peer-to-peer account-
ability to become part of a
team's culture, it must be
modeled by the leader.
On occasion, that leader
must enter what's called the
danger zone. That means
he or she needs to step
right into difficult issues —
and remind team members
of their responsibilities in
terms of behavior and
results.
Most leaders have an easi-
er time holding people
accountable for results
than for behavior. That's a
problem, because behavior
is what produces results.
Team members have to be
willing to call each other
on behavioral issues. But
if their leader balks at
that, they won't do it
themselves.
One top executive couldn't
bring himself to confront a
staff member who was crit-
icizing the CEO's own
leadership program. He
said, “That's just how he
is.” The implication was
that the behavior wasn't
subject to improvement.
Another CEO failed to crit-
icize an executive who was
typing on his laptop
throughout a team meeting.
The CEO admitted he found
the behavior dis- tracting,
but when asked why he
didn't tell the offender to
stop, he said:
“I don't know. I'm not his
parent. Who am I to tell
him how to act?”
Like many other top exec-
utives, these two CEOs
just weren't comfortable
criticizing behavior, even
of the destructive variety.
But if people can get away
with actions that under-
mine their leader, how can
anyone expect mere team
9
members to confront them?
The leader has to set an
example. That's because
it's initially difficult for
peers to demand account-
ability. The situation
reflects the normal human
reluctance to give others
critical feedback.
One reason teams don't
like giving such feedback
is that they don't want to
risk upsetting a positive
emotional environment.
But when people aren't
held accountable, they
begin lowering their
regard for each other and
for the team.
To avoid that, help people
realize that when they
don't provide constructive
feedback they're letting
their teammates down —
and impeding their
progress.
A sense of accountability
should infuse every aspect
of organizational life. But
it's essential to demon-
strate it most clearly at
meetings.
One way to encourage
peer-to-peer accountability
is through using the Team
Effectiveness Exercise — or
TEE. This is a quick and
amazingly effective process
in which a team gives face-
to-face feedback to one
another.
To use the TEE, teams
should first be aware what
10
each member is working
on to hold them account-
able. Do this in a light-
ning round — involving
30-second explanations of
work-in-progress — at the
beginning of team meetings.
That's the time for mem-
bers to offer their com-
ments on how a given
team member is spending
his or her time and energy.
Ask everyone on the team
to write down their
answers to two simple
questions about every
member on the team,
excluding themselves:
1. “What is the single
most important behav-
ioral characteristic or
quality demonstrated
by this person that
contributes to the
strength of our team?”
2. “What is the single
most important behav-
ioral characteristic or
quality demonstrated
by this person that can
sometimes derail the
team?”
Then go around the room
and have everyone read
what they wrote about the
team leader's positive
quality. Next, go around
the room and ask each
member to provide their
constructive feedback to
the leader by citing the
area he most needs to
improve.
Once the leader has served
as the role model for this
exercise, go through the
process for each member of
the team.
This exercise gives each
member of the team some
positive feedback for their
areas of strength, and it
helps them to see clearly
and simply what they need
to improve.
■■
OVERCOMING DYSFUNCTION
#5 BY FOCUSING ON
RESULTS
Clearly, a strong team's
members trust one another,
engage in healthy debate
about issues, commit to the
decisions they make, and
hold each other account-
able. But even if it has all
those positives, a team can
still fail if it loses sight of
the ultimate measure of
success: results.
And that's the final dys-
function that a truly suc-
cessful team must overcome:
a failure to focus on
results.
Why does that happen?
Primarily because self-
interest and self-preserva-
tion are powerful motiva-
tors that can undercut
teams.
How can you avoid that
fate? You can do so by
keeping results highlight-
ed in people's minds, and a
good way to do that is with
AU DIO -TE CH
a visible scoreboard — a
real-time record of results.
The scoreboard provides
clear information about how
the team is doing. It also
shows how much time the
members have left to pro-
duce the desired outcomes.
The scoreboard is a
reminder that the mem-
bers will win — or lose —
as a team. In fact, the
team will get to decide
exactly what constitutes
winning — that is, how
they will measure success.
But precisely what should
they measure? Client sat-
isfaction? Top-line rev-
enue? Bottom-line profits?
Growth over last year?
Growth over competitors?
There are only two
answers that are consis-
tently wrong: none of the
above, and all of them.
Pick one or two of the above.
But most importantly, pick
something so that team
members have a goal they
can focus on collectively.
Don't measure success in
terms of subjective factors
like corporate politics, or
emotions, or external opin-
ions. Instead, teams
should establish their own
objective measurements for
success.
Teams must commit early
— and publicly — to exactly
what they will achieve. So
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
they need to review contin- Distraction #1 is ego.
ually how they're progress- That's the little voice in
ing against those goals. your head that asks,
“What about me?”
Remember, however, that
the team should be mea- That voice can drown out
suring some important the appeals of the team,
things — not all things. and that means the collec-
Don't confuse and over- tive results of the group
whelm people. Instead, get left behind.
give them a fairly simple
way to gauge success. On weak teams, individuals
are happy if they're suc-
The best way to proceed is ceeding. On strong teams,
to stay focused on clear no one's happy unless
priorities and minimize everyone is succeeding.
distractions. If people
start concentrating on Distractions #2 and #3 are
their individual compensa- closely related: career
tion or their egos, they will advancement and money.
stop caring about the team
scoreboard. Yes, individuals have real
needs, including families,
Consider the company mortgages, and tuition
where the CEO decided payments. Great teams
that an emphasis on R&D understand those needs,
was essential to prevent a but they don't let them dis-
revenue shortfall. But sur- tract the team from achiev-
prisingly, the chief scientist ing its common goals.
in charge of R&D wasn't
enthusiastic about the new The way to deal with
responsibility. career and financial issues
is to be open about them.
He finally admitted, “I The team shouldn't make
don't get paid enough to people feel guilty or selfish
innovate. I want to get for raising such matters.
paid royalties for what I
invent.” He valued his The main points are these:
individual needs ahead of There should be enough
the team's goals — so it trust for members to bring
did not surprise anyone up sensitive concerns, and
when he quickly left the anything that stands in
team. the way of team perfor-
mance is worth addressing.
Self-oriented distractions
drain the life out of teams, Distraction #4 is the
so it's important to under- departmental one. It
stand all of them. refers to the tendency to
place a higher priority on
11
the team you lead than on
the one on which you're a
member.
That phenomenon is called
The Team #1 Dilemma.
Which team comes first —
your department or your
executive group?
You spend a lot of time with
your departmental team —
and it's likely that you
hired most of them. You
might think you have an
obligation to favor
them.
But your departmental
people may actually feel
differently. They want you
to be a strong member of
the team above them.
They know that if you don't
cooperate with the other
executive team mem- bers,
the department ulti- mately
will pay the price.
It will make them more
vulnerable to organizational
politics.
Admittedly, you may like
being a leader of your own
team more than you do
belonging to one with your
peers. But that's a disaster
in the making.
A departmental bias would
cause you to become a lob-
byist for your own con-
stituents. Essentially,
you'd be competing with
your peer teammates —
rather than collaborating
with them.
12
A team is a unique institu-
tion. Its members aren't
seeking trade-offs and
compromises. Rather,
they're embracing a collec-
tive, unified pursuit of the
entire organization's best
interests.
A critical way to avoid dis-
tractions is to emphasize
the scoreboard. This should
be a single, easy-to-read
visual tool for assessing
the team's success at any
point in time. Its role is to
keep the team concentrated
on results.
The best way to create a
scoreboard is to draw upon
two sources:
1. The team's ongoing
metrics — things like
revenues, expenses,
and employee turnover.
2. The supporting objec-
tives needed to realize
the group's thematic
goal.
The thematic goal is the
overarching priority of the
team. It serves as a rally-
ing cry for the team and
often helps align other
parts of the organization.
For example, if the the-
matic goal is to increase
market awareness, the
supporting objectives
might be to: increase
advertising; clarify the
brand and value proposi-
tion; increase trade-show
activities; and improve
public relations.
In the next part of this dis-
cussion, we'll look at the
questions you and other
managers may have about
team-building, as well as
at potential problems.
■■
ANSWERING QUESTIONS,
DEALING WITH OBJECTIONS,
AND ANTICIPATING
PROBLEMS
Organizations that want to
build effective teams often
have similar questions —
and can anticipate certain
objections and problems.
One question is: “How
long does it take to build a
strong team?”
Some exceptional teams
can make significant
progress in a few days.
But on average, a team
can make notable improve-
ments in two or three
months.
Another common question
is: “How many people
should be on a team?” In
general, the answer is that
two people are not enough
— and 13 or more are too
many.
Most concerns include hav-
ing too many people on a
team. That's because
organizations often fear
excluding anyone, and see
teams as more of a reward
than a strategic decision
about how best to run an
organization.
AU DIO -TE CH
There are several problems
with having oversized
teams. They make it diffi-
cult to coordinate meetings
and other activities; it's
hard to develop meaning-
ful relationships; and near-
ly impossible to establish
positive group dynamics.
On that issue of dynamics:
A good team has to engage
in two kinds of communi-
cation to generate good
decisions: advocacy and
inquiry. Advocacy means
stating ideas and opinions.
Inquiry means asking
questions for clarity and
understanding.
A large group tends to
engage almost exclusively
in advocacy. People tend
to conduct the equivalent
of filibusters because they
realize they probably won't
get the floor back.
With so much advocacy
going on, people get little
time to ask questions and
receive clarifications.
Another question is: “How
likely is it that I'll have to
remove a team member in
order to make progress?”
On this important issue,
keep two points in mind.
• First, getting rid of a
member isn't a stan-
dard element of the
team-building process.
• Second, being willing
to lose a team member
makes it less likely
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
that you'll have to do
so.
Team leaders should do
what's in the group's col-
lective interest. If the
members know that,
they'll be unlikely to pur-
sue personal agendas that
conflict with the team's
goals.
Yet another question is:
“How much can we accom-
plish during an off-site
team-building session last-
ing two days?”
The short answer is: a lot.
Some teams can establish
important bonds — and
even resolve highly con-
tentious matters. But that
will require hard work.
An off-site meeting should-
n't be an exercise in golf-
ing and massage-taking.
It should be intense,
focused, and dedicated to
operational issues.
A final question is:
“Should I use an outside
consultant or facilitator?”
The answer is yes, but only
if you find a very good one,
an individual that's practi-
cal, skillful, and trustwor-
thy. If not, and you hap-
pen to be a good facilitator,
then you can safely go it
alone.
In addition to questions to
answer about off-site meet-
ings, you may need to
address outright objections
from participants.
One complaint goes this
way: “We can't take two
whole days out of the
office!”
That's either a miscalcula-
tion of the cost-benefit
ratio associated with team-
work, or an attempt to
derail the team-building
initiative.
In fact, an effective team
will reduce frustration,
increase efficiency, and
save time.
But be aware that this
objection will come up. Do
your best to eliminate it by
beating the advocates to the
punch.
You can do so by selling
team-building as a practi-
cal solution to a problem.
In other words, make the
time-saving, issue-reconcil-
ing argument for team-
work, and in that way you
can take the objection off
the table before anyone
raises it.
Another criticism takes
this form: “But we have
real work to do!”
That's a variation on the
first complaint about not
having enough time for
team-building.
Respond by emphasizing
that building a team is, in
fact, real work, because it's
all about getting more
13
done in less time. The pro-
ductivity gains from team-
work should outweigh a
relatively short time away
from the office.
Objections such as the
foregoing often reflect
adrenaline addiction.
Executives and managers
can get hooked on the rush
of urgent demands and
out-of-control schedules.
Then, they get anxious
when they're asked to slow
down and to think, talk,
and develop themselves.
Of course, that's what
addiction is — doing
things over and over that
are bad for you.
Another objection that's
likely to come up is, “These
touchy-feely sessions are
nonsense.” True, touchy-
feely sessions are worth-
less, but that's not what
team-building is.
It's about improving pro-
ductivity and getting bet-
ter results. It's about
making better decisions
faster. It's about improv-
ing people at all rungs of
the performance ladder.
As a leader, you have an
obligation to ground the
making of a team in the
practical — and tactical —
realities of your business.
So, make that point directly
to the group.
A final objection asserts:
“This is just another flavor
14
of the month. Next quar-
ter, we'll be on to some-
thing new.” For the sake
of credibility, the leader
has to prove this allegation
isn't true.
So, make it clear to the
team that this effort won't
go away. Explain that
there's no place to run to
and nowhere to hide
In addition to answering
questions and countering
objections, there are several
pitfalls to avoid in team-
building.
A major one occurs when
the leader isn't truly com-
mitted to building a team.
When that happens, the
chances of success are
zero.
On the other hand, many
reluctant leaders aren't
really uninterested in
teamwork. They're just
skeptical about making it
work, or perhaps they're
afraid that somehow the
exercise might reflect poorly
on them.
But remember: Team-
building is an effort to get
people talking seriously
about ways to improve the
business.
Another pitfall can occur
when team members are
holding back. This can
happen when someone is
attempting to derail the
effort passively.
A third obstacle occurs
when someone is dominating
the team-building session.
Dealing with this situation
is tricky. It requires
understanding the domina-
tor's motivation. In that
case, using the Myers-
Briggs profiling insights
can be useful.
The leader could say some-
thing like, “Okay, John, we
know you're an extrovert.
But we need you to help
draw out the others on the
team . . .”
But if the dominating per-
son has an agenda driven
by insecurity or a fear of
vulnerability, a more direct
approach may be neces-
sary. On rare occasions, a
leader may have to con-
front an individual directly
to find out what the real
issue is.
Another pitfall can happen
when team members are
geographically dispersed
and don't spend much time
together. True, having all
members in one location is
an advantage, because
being together helps mem-
bers develop trust, learn to
engage in conflict, and do
the other things necessary
for teamwork.
However, dispersed mem-
bers can rely on phones,
video-conferencing, and
other technologies to inter-
act. But everyone should
be physically present at
AU DIO -TE CH
the off-site meeting —
and for major strategy
discussions.
A final pitfall occurs when
a top performer isn't inter-
ested in the team-building
process. It's best to
remove a talented — but
disruptive — individual for
the long-term good of the
team. As is true in sports,
classical entertainment,
and business, a star is of
little value if he or she
undermines the rest of the
team.
■■
TEAMS AS A KEY COMPONENT
OF ORGANIZATIONAL
SUCCESS
The five dysfunctions
we've discussed in this
summary can cripple
groups that are trying to
grow into effective teams.
On the other hand, teams
that trust one another,
engage in conflict, commit
to decisions, hold one
another accountable, and
get results can achieve
extraordinary levels of
performance.
Let's conclude by reviewing
the main points about
overcoming the five dys-
functions:
The key points in build-
ing trust are to recognize
that trust-building is the
foundation of teamwork;
realize that it's all about
BU SINESS BO OK SU MMARIES
vulnerability; understand get results; team members
how to accelerate the must put the results of the
process of trust-building; team above their individ-
and comprehend the ual or departmental needs;
importance of maintaining and to stay focused, teams
it. must publicly clarify their
results and keep them
The key points in master- transparent.
ing conflict in teams are
that good conflict requires
a foundation of trust; con- ■■
flict will at times be
uncomfortable; conflict
norms must be discussed
and made clear; and per-
sonal fear of conflict
shouldn't deter teams from
having productive debate.
The key points to remem-
ber in achieving commit-
ment are that it requires
clarity and buy-in. Clarity
demands that teams stay
away from assumptions
and ambiguity and come
up with a clear under-
standing of what they've
decided. Buy-in doesn't
require consensus — only
a team commitment to the
decision made.
The key points in embrac-
ing accountability are
that it should occur direct-
ly among peers; it thrives
in a culture when a leader
is willing to confront diffi-
cult issues; and it's best for
a team to hold one another
accountable during meet-
ings with a regular review
of the team's results.
The key points about
focusing on results are
that the true measure of a
great team is its ability to
15
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Patrick Lencioni is the founder and president of The Table Group, Inc., a spe-
cialized management-consulting firm focused on organizational health. Since
establishing the firm in 1997, he has become one of the nation’s leading
experts on executive team development.

Mr. Lencioni is the author of four business books, including The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team (2002), which continues to be highlighted on the New
York Times, BusinessWeek, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today best-seller
lists. Death by Meeting (2004) is following suit with appearances on both the
USA Today and BusinessWeek lists. His earlier successes include The Four
Obsessions of an Extraordinary Executive (2000) and The Five Temptations of
a CEO (1998).

His work has also been featured in numerous publications such as Fast
Company, Inc. magazine, USA Today, Entrepreneur, The Drucker
Foundation’s Leader to Leader, and the Harvard Business Review.

The author can be reached at patricklencioni@tablegroup.com

HOW TO ADD THIS BOOK TO YOUR LIBRARY

To order this book, please send check or money order for $24.95, plus
$3.50 shipping and handling to:

Audio-Tech Business Book Summaries

825 75th Street
Willowbrook, IL 60527

Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, summarized by arrangement with with Jossey-Bass, a
Wiley Imprint, from Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Field Guide for Leaders,
Managers, and Facilitators by Patrick Lencioni. Copyright © 2005 by Patrick Lencioni.

825 75th Street, Willowbrook, Illinois 60527

1-800-776-1910 • 1-630-734-0600 (fax) • www.audiotech.com