I can't recall how I came across Lencioni's book on the 5 dysfunctions of a team. But I remember how I couldn't put it down and read it in an afternoon. Not only is it rare for a management book to be so easy to read, what Lencioni talked about made so much sense. It is, in my view, a 'game-changer'. I recommend it to anyone who is struggling with a challenging team. If you haven't read it yet, the Amazon link is here (other bookstores are available - including betterworldbooks.com which is the environmentally-friendly option).
It was with interest that I came across Anil K. Aggarwal's recent paper (2023) called "A Study of Lencioni's Model of Dysfunctional Groups". He looked at team dynamics at three stages: when they were first formed, building trust (the foundational layer of Lencioni's model); at an intermediatory point, when conflict between colleagues had begun to emerge; and at a later point, when the conflict had either been resolved, or had escalated to the point that external intervention was required.
Aggarwal's study considered 3 teams, and it was heartwarming to hear that one team successfully resolved the conflict. They were fully satisfied in their roles, working harmoniously with their colleagues, and most importantly productive by the last stage of the research. However, reading between the lines, this was because the one person who was the cause of the conflict was removed from the team.
The other two teams in Aggarwal's study did not remove the source of their conflict during the intermediatory stage, and as discussed previously in this blog, the conflict was contagious and escalated into a dysfunctional team. If nothing, this study shows that early intervention can positively impact on team functionality - although perhaps a less drastic approach than removing someone from their team might be preferred.
However, the most interesting aspect of Aggarwal's study is that he proposes a change to the Lencioni model. As I mentioned before, the foundation layer is trust - or in dysfunctional teams, the absence of trust. The diagramme below shows the other four layers.
Aggarwal suggests that it is not the lack of commitment that contributes to team dysfunction. It is the lack of functional expertise. In other words, the person who doesn't know how to do their job, or they perform their job poorly, is a source of conflict. To consider this in a positive frame: a team thrives on colleagues respecting each other's skills, experience and knowledge - knowing that each individual brings something that helps the wider team deliver to the best of its abilities.
The conflict arises because the other colleagues feel that it's unfair that one member of the team isn't able to perform their role; as a result either standards drop which impacts on the reputation of the team, or they have to bridge the gap by doing part of their colleague's role for them. It is understandable in these situations why perceptions of unfairness develop.
The concept of lack of functional expertise resonated with me as, on many occasions, I have seen conflict arise from individuals feeling frustrated due to the performance issues of a team mate. This conflict then spills into conduct issues, mostly bullying behaviours such as derogatory comments, exclusion/isolation, or setting unrealistic expectations. Addressing performance issues early on would be the best approach (and that does not mean removing someone from their role), but often managers lack the confidence and competence to do this.
So far, I don't think that Aggarwal's suggested amendment has gained much attention or traction. But it's early days. Certainly, I'll be re-iterating to my clients the importance of tackling functional expertise concerns and how a failure to do so can lead to perceptions of unfairness and conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment