4 ms·

Debugging Teams with the Lencioni Model

31 points by feross 4y ago

rahimnathwani 4y ago
If you like Patrick Lencioni's books, you may also like Gino Wickman's, especially 'Get a grip', which is written in a similar 'fable' style. If you're in San Francisco, and ever pass near 17th and Valencia, pop into Community Thrift. There are usually 1-3 Lencioni books available for $2-$3 each. The business books are at the South East corner of the store, diagonally opposite the entrance.
- pjmorris 4y ago
  Outside of family and public school, I began my education in libraries, second-hand bookstores, and thrift shops. Thank you for calling our collective attention to these resources.
gyulai 4y ago
Something about Lencioni really bugs me. There is no other business writer about whom I feel that strongly. He's extremely ad-hominem and paints that picture of that "dysfunctional team member" (read "asshole"), and his whole idea of an organization basically boils down to saying that you don't want an asshole in it: Don't risk hiring an asshole, even at the risk of a huge false-negative rate in your hiring decisions. Cleanse your organization by instituting a witchhunt for assholes and putting them through the wringer to make sure they're reformed or fired. Contrary to what Lencioni preaches, I believe that management is about selecting teams comprised of individuals who know how to do stuff, telling them what to do, and giving them incentives to make sure they actually do it. Lencioni seems to think a manager is like a spouse who cares primarily about who their spouse is, or like a mother who wants their child to be a certain kind of person behaving a certain kind of way. This ad-hominem level is precisely what you learn to steer clear of, if you've ever taken a course on conflict management. Focus on the issue, not the person. ...it's also borderline illegal in certain jurisdictions. For example in German employment law and constitutional law there is the idea of the "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht" which says that basically, while you can discriminate between employees on the basis of competence and what they accomplish for you, you can't discriminate on the basis of who they are or what kind of person they are. I once worked in a workplace where managers high up the ladder were very fond of Lencioni's writing, and pushed the philosophy on middle management too. The place just felt unprofessional and cult-like. I felt I was constantly under pressure to prove that I wasn't an asshole, and whenever I'd disagree with a manager, it was hard to even just have a meaningful conversation about the topic of the disagreement. Instead, the conversation would immediately turn to this unspoken accusation that I might just be an asshole for disagreeing in the first place, and now I needed to prove that I wasn't one, or else my career would be deeply in jeopardy. I strongly advise reading Lencioni, and then thinking long and hard about how not to fall into the trap of thinking about organizations the way he does.
- wirrbel 4y ago
  Then again, we have all seen that Asshole that destroys a whole team.
  - gyulai 4y ago
    It's management's job to set up a team in such a way that an individual on a team, just by virtue of being an asshole, can't destroy it. This commonly fails if the manager himself is the asshole, in which case the job falls to the manager's manager. Part of the problem is that the "asshole" concept comes across as objective when it's actually quite subjective. So "don't hire an asshole" in practice just means "don't hire anyone who, based on your subjective whim, you don't like" and "fire the assholes" in practice just means "fire whoever, based on your subjective whim, you don't like."
    - Pentamerous 4y ago
      How can a team be invincible to "assholes" if a team is the sum of the result of the people who compose it, "asshole" included? I think anyone can ruin teams that would previously jell well together. A team that can't be destroyed is one that is mature and independent enough to detect the issue and make sure the problem is taken care of, even if it involves moving the individual out. Usually, that's a responsibility that we attribute to Managers, but theoretically self-organizing teams could do that (never saw it in practice tho). That being said, I agree with you that it's not healthy to think of people that way. "Focus on the issue and not on the person"; we want to work on the issues on the long run instead of labelling people as "assholes". That requires: - A Manager that can detect the issue and/or that does not ignore the issue. Needs to be comfortable with difficult conversations and doesn't stall - A team that provides meaningful feedback constantly and in time, not only at performance reviews. - A chance for the person in question to develop and work on the feedback (and openness and willingness from the person in question) And if none of the above work, moving the person out does not necessarily mean firing them. It could be a move to another team with more similar values, other projects, etc... People sometimes are just in the wrong place and are incompatible with the way the team works. Though sometimes they really are incompatible with the company and firing is required but that is not the only answer.
stevebmark 4y ago
The book in this article, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team," is a book that influenced me, as well as his other (maybe more) famous book, "The Ideal Team Player." Both are very easy reads, and have good content. The latter book introduces traits to look for in candidates/coworkers: "humble, hungry, and (people) smart." This is an overly simple framework, but I find it often useful for identifying issues with myself, teammates, and interview candidates. This is especially handy for technical roles. It's generally easier to identify and quantify technical strength than it is to know if the person is/will be effective in the role. These books help fill in the gaps of the soft skills framework.
w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
So this guy make bucks by drawing 2 layered triangles of common place, general, not so much insightfull, management concepts. Surely the bullshit run high in modern corporate.
- runlaszlorun 4y ago
  > Surely the bullshit run high in modern corporate. Ain’t that the truth. At least he didn’t have the 2x2 matrix- the pinnacle of management fluff. You can basically put any two attributes on each axis and an audience will often connect the dots and mistake that for something of actual value…
- alkonaut 4y ago
  I wonder if there are authors like this with a reasonable number of research references at the end of their books (such as the last 50 pages of a 300 page book)? If you draw a pyramid with 5 vague concepts like this, I'd want research showing why 4 or 6 isn't the right number of levels, or why levels 2 and 3 are necessarily in that order with the upper level actually having some dependence on the lower which doesn't hold for the opposite direction.

31 points by feross 4y ago

If you like Patrick Lencioni's books, you may also like Gino Wickman's, especially 'Get a grip', which is written in a similar 'fable' style. If you're in San Francisco, and ever pass near 17th and Valencia, pop into Community Thrift. There are usually 1-3 Lencioni books available for $2-$3 each. The business books are at the South East corner of the store, diagonally opposite the entrance.

pjmorris 4y ago
Outside of family and public school, I began my education in libraries, second-hand bookstores, and thrift shops. Thank you for calling our collective attention to these resources.

gyulai 4y ago

Something about Lencioni really bugs me. There is no other business writer about whom I feel that strongly. He's extremely ad-hominem and paints that picture of that "dysfunctional team member" (read "asshole"), and his whole idea of an organization basically boils down to saying that you don't want an asshole in it: Don't risk hiring an asshole, even at the risk of a huge false-negative rate in your hiring decisions. Cleanse your organization by instituting a witchhunt for assholes and putting them through the wringer to make sure they're reformed or fired. Contrary to what Lencioni preaches, I believe that management is about selecting teams comprised of individuals who know how to do stuff, telling them what to do, and giving them incentives to make sure they actually do it. Lencioni seems to think a manager is like a spouse who cares primarily about who their spouse is, or like a mother who wants their child to be a certain kind of person behaving a certain kind of way. This ad-hominem level is precisely what you learn to steer clear of, if you've ever taken a course on conflict management. Focus on the issue, not the person. ...it's also borderline illegal in certain jurisdictions. For example in German employment law and constitutional law there is the idea of the "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht" which says that basically, while you can discriminate between employees on the basis of competence and what they accomplish for you, you can't discriminate on the basis of who they are or what kind of person they are. I once worked in a workplace where managers high up the ladder were very fond of Lencioni's writing, and pushed the philosophy on middle management too. The place just felt unprofessional and cult-like. I felt I was constantly under pressure to prove that I wasn't an asshole, and whenever I'd disagree with a manager, it was hard to even just have a meaningful conversation about the topic of the disagreement. Instead, the conversation would immediately turn to this unspoken accusation that I might just be an asshole for disagreeing in the first place, and now I needed to prove that I wasn't one, or else my career would be deeply in jeopardy. I strongly advise reading Lencioni, and then thinking long and hard about how not to fall into the trap of thinking about organizations the way he does.

wirrbel 4y ago
Then again, we have all seen that Asshole that destroys a whole team.
- gyulai 4y ago
  It's management's job to set up a team in such a way that an individual on a team, just by virtue of being an asshole, can't destroy it. This commonly fails if the manager himself is the asshole, in which case the job falls to the manager's manager. Part of the problem is that the "asshole" concept comes across as objective when it's actually quite subjective. So "don't hire an asshole" in practice just means "don't hire anyone who, based on your subjective whim, you don't like" and "fire the assholes" in practice just means "fire whoever, based on your subjective whim, you don't like."
  - Pentamerous 4y ago
    How can a team be invincible to "assholes" if a team is the sum of the result of the people who compose it, "asshole" included? I think anyone can ruin teams that would previously jell well together. A team that can't be destroyed is one that is mature and independent enough to detect the issue and make sure the problem is taken care of, even if it involves moving the individual out. Usually, that's a responsibility that we attribute to Managers, but theoretically self-organizing teams could do that (never saw it in practice tho). That being said, I agree with you that it's not healthy to think of people that way. "Focus on the issue and not on the person"; we want to work on the issues on the long run instead of labelling people as "assholes". That requires: - A Manager that can detect the issue and/or that does not ignore the issue. Needs to be comfortable with difficult conversations and doesn't stall - A team that provides meaningful feedback constantly and in time, not only at performance reviews. - A chance for the person in question to develop and work on the feedback (and openness and willingness from the person in question) And if none of the above work, moving the person out does not necessarily mean firing them. It could be a move to another team with more similar values, other projects, etc... People sometimes are just in the wrong place and are incompatible with the way the team works. Though sometimes they really are incompatible with the company and firing is required but that is not the only answer.

stevebmark 4y ago

The book in this article, "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team," is a book that influenced me, as well as his other (maybe more) famous book, "The Ideal Team Player." Both are very easy reads, and have good content. The latter book introduces traits to look for in candidates/coworkers: "humble, hungry, and (people) smart." This is an overly simple framework, but I find it often useful for identifying issues with myself, teammates, and interview candidates. This is especially handy for technical roles. It's generally easier to identify and quantify technical strength than it is to know if the person is/will be effective in the role. These books help fill in the gaps of the soft skills framework.

w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago

So this guy make bucks by drawing 2 layered triangles of common place, general, not so much insightfull, management concepts. Surely the bullshit run high in modern corporate.

runlaszlorun 4y ago
> Surely the bullshit run high in modern corporate. Ain’t that the truth. At least he didn’t have the 2x2 matrix- the pinnacle of management fluff. You can basically put any two attributes on each axis and an audience will often connect the dots and mistake that for something of actual value…
alkonaut 4y ago
I wonder if there are authors like this with a reasonable number of research references at the end of their books (such as the last 50 pages of a 300 page book)? If you draw a pyramid with 5 vague concepts like this, I'd want research showing why 4 or 6 isn't the right number of levels, or why levels 2 and 3 are necessarily in that order with the upper level actually having some dependence on the lower which doesn't hold for the opposite direction.