Something's wrong with your team, and you're unsure how to fix it

When your team goes silent in meetings, it doesn't mean they agree. Lencioni calls it "artificial harmony": people hold back their real opinions because they don't trust that it's safe to disagree. The longer the silence goes unchallenged, the more it becomes the culture. People learn that this team doesn't do honesty.

Here, the leader must "mine for conflict": actively identify when real issues are being buried and create opportunities to unearth them.

In your next team meeting, pick 1 topic you know the team has different views on. Say: "I know we don't all see this the same way. I want to hear where you disagree before we move forward." Then stop talking. Count to 10 in your head. The silence will feel long. But that pause signals you actually want the answer.

When someone does speak up, don't defend your position. Say "that's useful, tell me more." When the team sees that honesty is safe, they will progressively open up.

Try mining for 1 buried disagreement this week. You can thank us later.

See the full framework in Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team →

Your meetings end with nods. Everyone seems aligned. Then nothing happens. It's not an execution problem, but the missing parts before that. Scott's GSD Wheel maps 7 steps that turn ideas into results: Listen, Clarify, Debate, Decide, Persuade, Execute, Learn.

Most teams skip Debate. They go from Clarify (here's the plan) straight to Decide (sounds good, let's do it). But without genuine debate, nobody feels heard. And when people don't feel heard, they won't commit to the outcome, even if they said yes in the room.

Scott's fix: if everyone agrees to something, make it mandatory for someone to offer a different view. Force dissent to make sure the agreement is real, not just politeness.

Before your next team decision, ask: "Has everyone said what they actually disagree with?" If the room goes quiet, you're still in Debate. Say: "I don't want agreement yet. I want to hear what might go wrong with this." The meeting will run longer, but at least execution won't stall afterward.

Try forcing dissent before 1 decision this week. You can thank us later.

See the full framework in Radical Candor →

You have someone who isn't delivering. You've given feedback, adjusted expectations, maybe had the conversation more than once. It hasn't worked. The frustrating part is you can't tell whether the problem is the person or the situation.

Covey gives you a way to separate the two. He breaks credibility into 4 cores: Integrity, Intent, Capabilities, and Results. The first 2 are character: do they mean well, do they act with honesty? The last 2 are competence: do they have the skills, are they producing outcomes? This distinction matters because it changes what conversation you need to have.

If character is high but competence is low, you're looking at a role-fit problem. The person has the right values and work ethic but may be in a role that doesn't match their strengths. That's a development conversation: "I trust your character completely. I need us to talk about whether this specific role is setting you up to succeed."

If competence is high but character is low, they produce results but create damage around them. And if both are low, you probably already know what needs to happen.

For the person you're stuck on, score each of the 4 cores: high or low. Write it down. The pattern shows whether you're dealing with a person problem or a fit problem, and that changes what you do next.

Try the 4 Cores diagnostic on 1 person this week. You can thank us later.

See the full framework in The Speed of Trust →

Every person on your team hits their individual numbers. But the team goal doesn't move. People optimize for their own metrics, their own projects, their own area. Lencioni calls this "inattention to results." It sounds like a motivation problem, but it's usually a visibility problem.

People optimize for what they can see. If each person tracks their own output but nobody can point to a single number that shows whether the team is winning together, individual wins will always come first. The solution is to make the shared goal visible and keep it in the team's constant focus.

Create a Scoreboard: 1 visible, largely quantitative metric that summarizes whether the team is winning as a team. Not a dashboard with 15 KPIs, but 1 number that everyone can point to. Put it where the team sees it every week. And bring it to your team meetings as the first thing you discuss.

Try defining your team's Scoreboard this week. You can thank us later.

See the full framework in Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team →

When your team has multiple problems at once: gossip, fake agreement in meetings, missed deadlines, people working in silos. It's hard to know where to start. Lencioni's model says these symptoms are connected. Team dysfunction cascades in a fixed order: Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability, Results. Each layer depends on the one below it.

The diagnostic question is simple: which is the lowest broken layer? That's your starting point. If trust is broken at the base, fixing accountability further up won't stick. And if people don't trust each other to be honest, then they can't hold each other accountable to standards.

Score your team on each of the 5 layers: strong, cracking, or broken. Start at the bottom. Write down 1 specific thing you've observed as evidence for each score. The pattern will show you which layer to work on first.

And if still you're not sure where to begin, start at Trust.

Try the Pyramid Diagnostic this week. You can thank us later.

See the full framework in Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team →