.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Lencioni, P. (2002) The Five Dysfunctions of a Team 

"...a fractured team is just like a broken arm or leg; fixing it is always painful, and sometimes you have to rebreak it make it heal correctly. And the rebreak hurts a lot more than the initial break, because you have to do it on purpose" 37

 " find someone who can demonstrate trust, engage in conflict, commit to group decisions, hold peers accountable, and focus on the results of the team, not their own ego 169

 -------

 Dysfunction #1: Absence of Trust The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents the building of trust within the team.
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles the occurrence of productive ideological conflict.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment The lack of clarity or buy-in prevents team members from making decisions they will stick to.
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents team members from holding one another accountable.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results The pursuit of individual goals and personal status erodes the focus on collective success.

 #1 Absence of trust The root cause of absence of trust lies with team members being unable to show their weaknesses; to be vulnerable and open with one another. The absence of trust is a huge waste of time and energy as team members invest their time and energy in defensive behaviors, and are reluctant to ask for help from – or assist – each other. Teams can overcome this dysfunction by sharing experiences, following through in multiple ways, demonstrating credibility, and developing strong insight into the unique characteristics of team members.

 #2 Fear of Conflict Teams that are lacking trust are incapable of having unfiltered, passionate debate about things that matter, causing team members to avoid conflict, replacing it with an artificial harmony. In a work setting where team members do not openly express their opinions, inferior decisions are often the result. When working in teams you need to understand that conflict is productive.

 #3 Lack of Commitment Without conflict, it is not easy for team members to commit and buy-in to decisions, resulting in an environment where ambiguity prevails. People will buy into something when their opinions are included in the decision-making process – for example through debate. Productive teams make joint and transparent decisions and are confident that they have the support of each team member. This is not as much about seeking consensus but making sure everyone is heard.

#4 Avoidance of accountability When teams don’t commit, you can’t have accountability: “people aren’t going to hold each other accountable if they haven’t clearly bought into the plan”. In a well-functioning team, it’s the responsibility of each team member to hold one another accountable and accept it when others hold them accountable. Very often, the key to success is the measurement of progress: making clear what the team’s standards are, what needs to be done, by whom and by when. 

#5 Inattention to Results A team can only become results oriented when all team members place the team’s results first. When individuals aren’t held accountable, team members naturally tend to look out for their own interests, rather than the interests of the team. Teams can overcome this dysfunction by making the team results clear and rewarding the behaviors that contribute to the team’s results. The primary role of the leader in overcoming these dysfunctions is to lead by example and set the tone for the whole team. This includes being the first one to be vulnerable, encouraging debate and conflict, making responsibilities and deadlines clear, setting the team’s standards, and last but not least being clear on the team’s results.

  Members of teams with an absence of trust… 
Conceal their weaknesses and mistakes from one another
Hesitate to ask for help or provide constructive feedback
Hesitate to offer help outside their own areas of responsibility
Jump to conclusions about the intentions and aptitudes of others without attempting to clarify them
Fail to recognize and tap into one another’s skills and experiences
Hold grudges
Dread meetings and find reasons to avoid spending time together

Members of trusting teams… 
Admit weaknesses and mistakes
Ask for help
Accept questions and input about their areas of responsibility
Give one another the benefit of the doubt before arriving at a negative conclusion
Take risks in offering feedback and assistance
Appreciate and tap into one another’s skills and experiences Focus time and energy on important issues, not politics
 Offer and accept apologies without hesitation
 Look forward to meetings and other opportunities to work as a group

 Teams that fear conflict… 
Have boring meetings
Create environments where back-channel politics and personal attacks thrive
Ignore controversial topics that are critical to team success
Fail to tap into all the opinions and perspectives of team members
Waste time and energy with posturing and interpersonal risk management

Teams that engage in conflict…
 Have lively, interesting meetings
Extract and exploit the ideas of all team members
Solve real problems quickly
Minimize politics
Put critical topics on the table for discussion

 A team that fails to commit… 
 Creates ambiguity among the team about direction and priorities
Watches windows of opportunity close due to excessive analysis and unnecessary delay
Breeds lack of confidence and fear of failure
Revisits discussions and decisions again and again
Encourages second-guessing among team members

A team that commits… 
 Creates clarity around direction and priorities
Aligns the entire team around common objectives
Develops an ability to learn from mistakes
Takes advantage of opportunities before competitors do
Moves forward without hesitation
Changes direction without hesitation or guilt

 A team that avoids accountability… 
 Creates resentment among team members who have different standards of performance
Encourages mediocrity
Misses deadlines and key deliverables
Places an undue burden on the team leader as the sole source of discipline

A team that holds one another accountable… 
Ensures that poor perfromers feel pressure to improve
Identifies potential problems quickly by questioning one another’s approaches without hesitation
 Establishes respect among team members who are held to the same high standards
Avoids excessive bureaucracy around performance management and corrective action

 A team that is not focused on results…
 Stagnates/fails to grow
Rarely defeats competitors
Loses achievement-oriented employees
Encourages team members to focus on their own careers and individual goals
Is easily distracted

A team that focuses on collective results… 
 Retains achievement-oriented employees
Minimizes individualistic behaviour
Enjoys success and suffers failure acutely
Benefits from individuals who subjugate their own goals/interests for the good of the team
Avoids distractions



#

Sunday, August 06, 2017

The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope 

Ignatius and Francis are alike, too, in that they fuse two qualities that are seldom found combined in a person.  On the one hand, Ignatius (As this Francis) had raw political ability, which some might call charm: capacity for reading people, earning their trust, inspiring them, organising them to work for high ideals, together with enormous skills as a natural leader, teacher, and negotiator. On the other hand Ignatius (like Francis) was a mystic, who lived and led by discerning spirits, choosing whatever served the greater good, God's greater glory, which Jesuits described with the Latin word magis. Spiritual guides or so and good governance, and those in power almost never saints. Ignatius and Francis are among the few that break the mold. Pp55

He was restoring what had been lost: not spurning the church and its doctrines but seeking to recover their meaning and purpose, which were to reveal Christ. That meant to being against somethings, and offending some people, but only in order for the church to be more like it is, not to turn into something else.88

The pope - Clung to the idea of reform rather than rupture, reform not revolution,  89

He asked the priests if they were mediators or intermediaries. The mediator he said, was a bridge, he put others together at his own expense. An intermediary, on the other hand, was the one who profited at the expense of others. In both cases, a priest stands between, in the middle; yet there is a world of difference. The mediator is a pastor who is evangelising fervour is born of an encounter with Christ, he grows in his belonging to gods holy faithful people, where as an intermediary is a state cleric, functionary in whom the further has long died and who lives mainly for himself. 245

The understanding of the Catholic Church in its first centuries was that it was many yet one; plural yet united; local and universal. The church as a whole was more than the sum of its parts-it was a universal body, including Rome-yet the local diocese was not merely a department or province of a world church, but surely the church in that place 255

This was not just good theology-or, to be more exact, ecclesiology-but had implications for the way the church was governed.  Often throughout the Middle Ages Pope sort exert control over local diastases, to gain freedom from Medling Princes, or to push through reforms; yet they face pushback if they tried to use that control in ordinary times. 255 

Rigormisti - West Church teaching above all to be clear and on ambiguous
Riformisti - wished it to be credible in the puristic society. Behind these two tendencies look too different ecclesiologys 

Rigoristi wanted to tighten the Vatican control over questions of doctrine and discipline, with the riformisti  wanted great freedom of action in applying to church norms to local situations. The rigomisti liked to close down debate, making clear that norms were clear and unchanging; the reformisti prefer to keep some things open, believing that, in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, rather than unchanging doctrines of faith and morals, the local church should help the universal Church discern the need for changes in pastoral practices. 

Bergoglio told caritas staff and volunteers not to get hung up on protocols and legal niceties, but to set up projects that could deliver quickly and directly to those in need.268 

There was much talk of reform of governance-the need for a puppy was accessible, informed, and free to act-and for a fluid contact between Rome and the local church.... all could agree that Vatican dysfunction was a serious impediment to evangelisation, and that  Roman centralism and lack of accountability is one major causes of the dysfunction. 353 

His governance is collegial because it aims to broaden consultation, to include different points of view, and above all to open up the centre to the periphery. He encourages, in a way no Pope has done before, lively and honest disagreement, saying that the only place questions do not disagree is in the cemetery. But this does not mean that he shares decision-making. In many ways Francis is the most centralised Pope Saint Pius the ninth ... he understands power, and he has often used to bypass existing channels or advisors, as well as tradition and protocol,.  384

He said the greatest revelation of all it was "to go to the roots", and that real change was about strengthening identity, not replacing it. One who goes to the roots is a radical399

If the church is alive, it must always surprise, Francis told thousands in St Peter's Square on Penticost Sunday 2014, before swimming mysteriously. "A church that doesn't have the capacity to surprise is a week, second, and dying church. It should be taken to the recovery room at once."

#

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?