Stop dysfunctioning Lencioni
Just because you display 5 dysfunctions of a team doesn’t mean you are dysfunctional.
The book Five Dysfunctions of a Team presents a conceptual framework developed by author and management consultant Patrick Lencioni. The model's simplicity and key insights make it popular among coaches and Scrum Masters. However, Lencioni’s book is a work of fiction, not based on research, and its practical recommendations lack empirical support. To call a team or, even worse, team members dysfunctional based on the symptoms described in the book would at least be questionable.
It's the system, stupid.
While Lencioni’s “Five Dysfunctions of a Team” model offers valuable insights into common challenges faced by leadership teams, it is essential to understand that, especially for non-leadership teams, issues often exist not within the team members themselves but within the structures and culture surrounding them. W. Edwards Deming, a renowned Lean management expert, emphasised that most organizational problems are systemic rather than individual. Deming’s perspective suggests that focusing solely on interpersonal dynamics, as Lencioni’s model does, might overlook critical structural or process-oriented factors that significantly impact team performance. Genuine improvement requires addressing the organizational structures, ways of working, and leadership approaches that shape team behaviour. By adopting a systemic view and implementing resilient supportive structures, organizations can create an environment where teams are naturally inclined to overcome unfavourable behaviours in terms of results, accountability, commitment, conflicts, and trust.
Bridging the gap between behaviour and system
However, Lencioni’s behavioural signals are valuable as canaries in the coal mine, providing early warnings about deeper systemic issues. Team behaviours, such as low trust or weak accountability, are best understood not just as root causes but as indicators of underlying conditions shaped by structure, incentives, and leadership. The practical task is to move iteratively between observing behavioural patterns and examining the organizational system that produces them. This approach preserves the value of behavioural frameworks while maintaining a rigorous systemic perspective.
Retrospectives to the rescue
One way to explore the lens of these 5 behaviours in a team is to create a safe environment to reflect upon them in a Retrospective. Descending the Lencioni Pyramid through inspection involves empirically identifying and addressing challenges at each layer. The approach starts at the top, examining the lack of attention to results by analyzing goal achievement. Based upon these results, the focus shifts to accountability, investigating clarity and ownership. Next, the examination moves to commitment, probing the dedication to what should be shared goals. Further down, it examines conflict, evaluating if healthy debates and diverse perspectives were possible and encouraged. Finally, it delves into trust, addressing team members' openness, vulnerability, and honesty.
Retro Format
- Set the scene with an icebreaker to make people connect and present.
- Individually, on stickies, please write down the results we did or did not achieve in a previous period. Share and reflect with the group to create a common understanding of what is on the stickies.
- Dot vote to order for importance filtering out personal ego results. People’s negativity bias often makes the bad results collect more votes, which is just fine for this exercise.
- Split the group into break-outs of 3. Have each break-out select a result to analyse, starting with the most important ones.
- In break-out, discuss and write on a stickie: “Who is accountable for the result?” When single individuals are pointed out, challenge whether they were or could really be held accountable on their own. What would that mean?
- In break-out, discuss and write on a stickie: “Who made an explicit commitment to the result?” This is almost always not the case for our bad results, and it was often more the case for our good results.
- Bring the whole group together and share the findings.
- Now ask: Was there any conflict on this topic? What difference of opinion was voiced? Were facts or data brought forward? Were we in total agreement on the facts or the data?
- Lead by example and demonstrate vulnerability. Share that you might not have spoken out and voiced your doubts or questions, and invite others to follow. Knowing your team is essential here.
- How come we did not voice our doubts or questions? Again, this is the time to lead with vulnerability and openness, creating a safe space for others to use. Take your time; let silence be your friend. Listen and spotlight any mentions related to trust.
- If the group does not touch upon trust, depending on the atmosphere, culture, and group dynamics, this is the time we could introduce the concept of Trust. Gently, without being too confrontational. Don’t hammer it down; let people experience what they have learned. I do not mention the 5 Dysfunctions or the book at all throughout the exercise. Sometimes, when the group gets stuck on that last hurdle because it's just too painful to admit a lack of trust, I produce the book and the 5 Behaviours Pyramid. It offers them a non-judgemental realisation that more teams struggle with trust and gives them the time to externalise and reflect on their journey with this model.
Navigating this challenging path of trust-building, even within Patrick Lencioni’s framework, can be daunting. At the core of this endeavour, it’s essential to create informal settings where vulnerability is exhibited, especially when leading people. Embracing openness and vulnerability by sharing personal experiences and admitting mishaps paves the way for a culture where people feel secure and have enough trust to do the same.
For leadership or coaches, findings from a Lencioni-inspired retrospective should trigger targeted systemic inquiry rather than immediate interpersonal fixes. Practitioners should examine factors such as:
- misaligned incentives and performance metrics
- unclear decision rights and governance structures
- competing priorities across teams or stakeholders
- leadership behaviours and implicit signals
- workload, capacity, and resource constraints
- structural dependencies and handoff friction
- psychological safety shaped by organizational culture
- reward systems that discourage constructive conflict
By explicitly tracing behavioural symptoms back to these organizational conditions, teams can design interventions that address root causes instead of treating surface-level dynamics.
- *Notice how we are changing the language from the result to our result. See also Moving from “Me” to “We”
- The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable
