# [The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni (2002)](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21343.The_Five_Dysfunctions_of_a_Team)
## TL;DR
Go read/listen to it right now, it's very useful, enjoyable and, to make it even better, short. It isn't perfect, but worth the time.
By accident I've been exposed to most of the ideas on the book, but it managed to structure and explain them in such a brief and clear way that I couldn't accomplish on my own, I just wish I read it before.
I was pointed to this book by another one I like a lot, The Phoenix Project, also worth reading, even if they kind of dramatize the "vulnerability exercise" in a way that seems different from the suggestion on this one.
## Summary ##
### Trust
* Defined as "truly assuming that your peers intentions are good, even if they fail"
* People need to feel comfortable being vulnerable among peers, they can act without worrying about covering their asses all the time
* Without trust it isn't possible to have constructive conflicts
* Lack of trust breeds politics
* Takes time to build
* Tools: personal stories (sample questions: how many siblings, hometown, unique challenges of childhood, hobbies, first job, worst job), team effectiveness (each shares their single best contribution and worse limitation), personality test (I would skip it), 360 degrees program completely divorced from compensation or career advancement, outdoor team exercises (the author doesn't really recommends them)
* Role of the leader: be the first expose true vulnerabilities, creates an environment that doesn't punish vulnerabilities
> Politics is when people choose their words and actions based on how they want others to react rather than based on what they really think.
> Trust is knowing that when a team member does push you, they're doing it because they care about the team.
### Conflict (the productive kind)
* Hard to manage but necessary, taboo in most work situations
* Without debate and conflict it's hard to have buy in
* Conflict never ends and is never agreeable
* Absence of conflict is a sign that people aren't truly involved
* Avoiding conflicts leads to backstabbing/politics, which hurts trust and makes things even worse
* Suggesting to take conflicts off-line just postpone the inevitable
* Tools: acknowledge it's important, mining (force conflicts in meetings on purpose), time-off (remind people that conflict is important when debates get too hot), Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (see criticism)
* Leader role: incentivize construct conflict
### Commitment
* A function of 2 things: clarity and buy-in. Blocked by:
* Desire for consensus
* Everybody should be able to voice their opinions
* Leaders are trusted by the teams to make the call in case the team doesn't reach a consensus
* Need for certainty
* A decision is better than no decision
* People should be aware that things might go wrong but the group supports the failure
* In case of failure just change the direction (sailing saying: you can't direct the wind but you can adjust your sails)
* Hedging bets can cause analysis paralysis, better to commit to a single, well reasoned and debated approach
* Without buy in subordinates will clash when trying to execute
* Tools: cascading messaging (review key decisions made and clarify what needs to be communicated after meetings/off-sites, etc), deadlines, contingency plans (to reduce fear of failure, need to avoid becoming excessive hedging), force commitments on low risk situations (get people used to the idea).
* Role of the leader: ultimate responsible, keep people accountable
### Avoidance of accountability
* Accountability definition: the willingness to call out behaviours that jeopardizes the goals of the team
* Needs to overcome fear of conflict and hard discussions, fear of hurting relationships
* Maintaining high standards of performance through peer pressure
* Tools: publication of goals and standards (enemy of accountability is ambiguity), structured feedback cycles (don't expect people to do it on their own), team rewards (team will pressure lack-lusters to make sure goals are met)
* Role of the leader: ultimate arbiter of accountability but needs to make the team work out the accountability checks on their own
### Inattention to results
* Prioritizing something else instead of the collective goals of the group
* Focus on outcome based performance
* Pitfalls
** Team status - participate on the group is enough and participants slack
** Individual status - focus on personal career and status instead of the team goals
* Tools: public declaration of goals, results based rewards (bonus just for trying hard isn't a good idea)
* Role of the leader: selfless, first to target team goals instead of personal goals
## Suggested meeting structure ##
* Annual team meeting - 3 days off-site
* Quarterly team meeting - 2 days off-site
* Weekly team meeting - 2 hours on-site
* Weekly one on one with direct reports
## Issues
I do have some minor quibbles, they do not invalidate the book by any means:
* I don't like the suggestion to use the Meyers-Briggs type indicator test isn't super hot. See the criticism section.
* The book lacks a good explanation on how the theory trickles down to teams. For example, the directors debate and agree on goal X, cool, but this goal will in turn be shoved down the hierarchy, where there isn't buy in or debate. In theory the directors should be able to provide views and opinions that will be in line with their subordinates, but in practice this is pretty rare, most directors are usually very distant from the realities and knowledge from their subordinates. There's a brief mention on the summary, regarding how the a lack of buy in and clear goals will hurt their subordinates effort when working across departments/silos, but that's it.
* Deadlines can be an issue, related to the note above. The author does mention the creation of intermediate deadlines to allow for changes before it's too late, but I know some people will read this as "having unmoving deadlines no matter the consequences"
* There are several failure scenarios for the problems above and the author seems to leave most of the solutions as an exercise for the reader, which is fair but...
* I get his reliance on peer pressure as motivation, but it's too extrinsic, seems that his solution for people without intrinsic motivation is just fire them. Needs more research.
* All examples smell like a top down approach, might be just because the intended audience for the book is just for executives, I don't know
* The audiobook narration is competent but far from stellar, 3 stars
## Lessons learned
* A clear structure for dealing with team dynamics
* Provided a point of view that clarifies my own issues with conflict. Escaping or minimizing them just to keep people happy or avoiding hurting their feelings isn't constructive, as was pointed to me by Nick. Something to study more and work harder to come to terms with
## On the format
I happen to like "business novels", they tend to grab my attention much more than the generic "book of anecdotes" or "powerpoint in prose" versions. After some decades on the market I can empathize with the stories and characters, I've been through similar meetings and off-sites and met people that fit the stereotypes used in the book, and I can say they are eerily accurate. As long as you keep in mind that the format is limited to a "single artificial happy ending anecdote" but understand that it's a way to keep people on the message, you should be satisfied.