5 ms·

I'd be willing to bet that Sakaguchi has read "The 5 dysfunctions of a team" [1]. One of my favorite books about how people jell together in groups. Like him I

I'd be willing to bet that Sakaguchi has read "The 5 dysfunctions of a team" [1]. One of my favorite books about how people jell together in groups. Like him I was also in a military setting before I became a programmer. I haven't yet experienced the same level of engagement and team cohesion outside of the military but I believe that the answers are to be found in the kinds of insights that studies like this uncover. [1] http://www.tablegroup.com/books/dysfunctions http://www.tablegroup.com/books/dysfunctions edit formatting

eitally 11y ago
He may or may not have, but I can tell you that some of Google's core internal team training focuses on the same concepts in the same triangular hierarchy, so even if he hasn't, someone has! :)
calinet6 11y ago
The 5 dysfunctions of a team also closely echoes Maslow's hierarchy of needs. However, I have to chime in: I don't agree with the accountability aspect. Responsibility is necessary, along with knowledge and support from the whole system: this broad "ability to be effective" makes accountability obsolete, and is superior. That combination of Knowledge, Psychology, Systems thinking, and a fourth: an understanding of variation and statistical reality -- leads to a much more complete and functional model of the organization. This is W. Edwards Deming's System of Profound Knowledge. However, you can see why "The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team" caught on, and his name didn't.
- poof131 11y ago
  I may be misunderstanding as I'm not familiar with your sources, but I’m not sure how you can have an effective team without accountability? If you are responsible for delivering something and you don’t and there’s never any ramification (accountability) things degenerate. I’ve seen this more than I’d like where a manager’s team is failing and he or she constantly blames subordinates and other teams for the lack of results, always ready to pull something out of the excuse matrix. When senior leaders fail to hold these managers accountable, the process continues, new mistakes, missed targets, and new scape goats found. Responsibility without accountability seems like the life of a Roman Emperor and I’ve never seen it work well with teams or leaders.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Completely agree. The "accountability" part of 5 Dysfunctions is about the team being accountable to each other and having the ability to call each other out. It's not about checking off boxes in a spreadsheet. Think of it this way: It's about the responsibility of members of this site to downvote non-productive comments. It's not about meeting a quota of productive comments; it's about disarming non-productive action. We hold each other accountable for having productive discussion.
  - nod 11y ago
    Maybe this will help: You mention "ramification"s, but I think the GP post is trying to say that if people fulfill their responsibility, then you don't need consequences - that you don't need to focus on enforcement then.
    - calinet6 11y ago
      I think that's 90% of what I'm saying. More subtly, I'm saying that focusing more on accountability than on the conditions that enable fulfilling responsibilities creates negative feedback loops from the inherently negative reinforcement of accountability. As the others have noted, accountability only exists as a means to control through fear. It only comes up in the event of failure, and is a means of personal individual punishment. For that reason, it is not conductive to improvement, nor does it effectively motivate people to actually do work better over the long term. Invariably the limiting factor that caused them to fail in the first place is not a simple lack of care or willpower: the only factors that accountability is truly suited to control. Instead, failure is most often due to a complex web of factors both internal and external to the individual—and the only way to improve is to focus on that system. Accountability instead focuses all efforts inward and tends toward ignorance of the system, which is ignorance of the truth, which is a path to more failure. In short, accountability is an unproductive concept born out of distrustful false beliefs about people. Discard it from your repertoire.
beanstalknoob 11y ago
@boothead: As somebody who's never been in the military (drafting for military service was suspended just before my number came up) I'm curious. Does the level of engagement and team cohesion you speak of only occur in, or afterwards derive from, combat situations, or would it theoretically be possible to recreate these levels outside a military context as well?
- marktangotango 11y ago
  I think the key element is 'shared hardship'. Personally, I didn't see combat, but military life in general sucks; doing a lot of stupid stuff at the whim of others. I think you see this in other areas of life as well, sports teams, project teams meeting tight deadlines, etc...
- boothead 11y ago
  It's really to do with the incubation of a very strong shared culture and shared experience. For example the Royal Marines has a history going back 350 years, a shared language (google jack speak), and the longest and arguably hardest basic training in the world. I believe it is possible, albeit in a slightly different form: elite sports teams and groups of people tied together with a strong shared purpose can get there I think. edit and yes, as marktangotango says - shared hardship and knowing you can count on the next guy because he's been through what you have and hasn't broken either is also key.

eitally 11y ago

He may or may not have, but I can tell you that some of Google's core internal team training focuses on the same concepts in the same triangular hierarchy, so even if he hasn't, someone has! :)

calinet6 11y ago

The 5 dysfunctions of a team also closely echoes Maslow's hierarchy of needs. However, I have to chime in: I don't agree with the accountability aspect. Responsibility is necessary, along with knowledge and support from the whole system: this broad "ability to be effective" makes accountability obsolete, and is superior. That combination of Knowledge, Psychology, Systems thinking, and a fourth: an understanding of variation and statistical reality -- leads to a much more complete and functional model of the organization. This is W. Edwards Deming's System of Profound Knowledge. However, you can see why "The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team" caught on, and his name didn't.

poof131 11y ago
I may be misunderstanding as I'm not familiar with your sources, but I’m not sure how you can have an effective team without accountability? If you are responsible for delivering something and you don’t and there’s never any ramification (accountability) things degenerate. I’ve seen this more than I’d like where a manager’s team is failing and he or she constantly blames subordinates and other teams for the lack of results, always ready to pull something out of the excuse matrix. When senior leaders fail to hold these managers accountable, the process continues, new mistakes, missed targets, and new scape goats found. Responsibility without accountability seems like the life of a Roman Emperor and I’ve never seen it work well with teams or leaders.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Completely agree. The "accountability" part of 5 Dysfunctions is about the team being accountable to each other and having the ability to call each other out. It's not about checking off boxes in a spreadsheet. Think of it this way: It's about the responsibility of members of this site to downvote non-productive comments. It's not about meeting a quota of productive comments; it's about disarming non-productive action. We hold each other accountable for having productive discussion.
- nod 11y ago
  Maybe this will help: You mention "ramification"s, but I think the GP post is trying to say that if people fulfill their responsibility, then you don't need consequences - that you don't need to focus on enforcement then.
  - calinet6 11y ago
    I think that's 90% of what I'm saying. More subtly, I'm saying that focusing more on accountability than on the conditions that enable fulfilling responsibilities creates negative feedback loops from the inherently negative reinforcement of accountability. As the others have noted, accountability only exists as a means to control through fear. It only comes up in the event of failure, and is a means of personal individual punishment. For that reason, it is not conductive to improvement, nor does it effectively motivate people to actually do work better over the long term. Invariably the limiting factor that caused them to fail in the first place is not a simple lack of care or willpower: the only factors that accountability is truly suited to control. Instead, failure is most often due to a complex web of factors both internal and external to the individual—and the only way to improve is to focus on that system. Accountability instead focuses all efforts inward and tends toward ignorance of the system, which is ignorance of the truth, which is a path to more failure. In short, accountability is an unproductive concept born out of distrustful false beliefs about people. Discard it from your repertoire.

beanstalknoob 11y ago

@boothead: As somebody who's never been in the military (drafting for military service was suspended just before my number came up) I'm curious. Does the level of engagement and team cohesion you speak of only occur in, or afterwards derive from, combat situations, or would it theoretically be possible to recreate these levels outside a military context as well?

marktangotango 11y ago
I think the key element is 'shared hardship'. Personally, I didn't see combat, but military life in general sucks; doing a lot of stupid stuff at the whim of others. I think you see this in other areas of life as well, sports teams, project teams meeting tight deadlines, etc...
boothead 11y ago
It's really to do with the incubation of a very strong shared culture and shared experience. For example the Royal Marines has a history going back 350 years, a shared language (google jack speak), and the longest and arguably hardest basic training in the world. I believe it is possible, albeit in a slightly different form: elite sports teams and groups of people tied together with a strong shared purpose can get there I think. edit and yes, as marktangotango says - shared hardship and knowing you can count on the next guy because he's been through what you have and hasn't broken either is also key.