# Spot the 5 dysfunctions of a team The model organizes team problems into five layers, from trust to shared results. - Look beyond the symptoms - Check trust first - Find the next leverage point Also helps with:[A new manager](https://www.reflacto.com/moments/new-manager#situation-understand-team), [A reorganization](https://www.reflacto.com/moments/reorganization#situation-merged-team) ## Five layers of teamwork The model organizes team problems into five connected layers. Start with trust and test each idea against concrete observations. It is a conversation model, not a validated diagnosis. 1. ### Absence of trust Mistakes, uncertainty, and requests for help stay hidden. 2. ### Fear of conflict The team avoids open disagreement and preserves artificial harmony. 3. ### Lack of commitment Decisions remain unclear or lack shared support. 4. ### Avoidance of accountability Missed commitments and standards go unchallenged. 5. ### Inattention to results Personal or departmental goals displace the shared result. ## When this method helps Use the model when a capable team feels distant, overly polite, or persistently unproductive. ### Key benefits - Organizes symptoms into five connected layers - Gives the team shared language for difficult patterns - Shows where the team can start ## Limits and when to pause This model supports reflection; it is not a validated diagnosis. Do not label people or treat one response as proof of a team-wide pattern. ## Five Dysfunctions examples The five layers are the same in every team. What changes is where the pattern shows up: in a release, in a team formed from two teams, or in a leadership group. Each example lists one observation per layer and then how you could raise it with the team. ### A product team plans a release See why a release slips although every task is reported as done. Illustrative scenario **Absence of trust**: Nobody says that the new interface is still unclear. **Fear of conflict**: No one challenges the tight timeline in planning. Concerns appear later in direct messages. **Lack of commitment**: Friday remains the official release date. Two contributors already plan for the following week. **Avoidance of accountability**: The integration test is missed. Nobody addresses the unmet commitment. **Inattention to results**: Everyone reports their tasks as complete even though the release must be postponed. How you could raise it > Before we plan the next release, I’d like to look at the last one with you. On paper everything was done, and we still moved the date by a week. The integration test never ran, and none of us raised it. I only heard the concerns about the timeline later, in direct messages. I didn’t make room for them in planning, and I want to change that. What made it hard to say this in the room? ### A team formed from two teams See why two former teams still work side by side instead of together. Illustrative scenario **Absence of trust**: Three months after the merger, the nine engineers still ask for help only within their former team. Questions about the other half’s code go to the lead. **Fear of conflict**: In the joint architecture review, nobody objects. The real discussion about the new API continues afterwards in two separate chat channels. **Lack of commitment**: In week four, the team agreed on one shared code review process. Today only the five engineers from the former payments team follow it. **Avoidance of accountability**: Two handovers in the shared on-call rotation were missed. Each side mentioned it only to its own former colleagues. **Inattention to results**: The sprint review still shows two sets of numbers, one per former team. The shared goal, fewer failed payments at checkout, barely comes up. How you could raise it > It’s been three months since we merged, and I think we still work as two teams. In the last architecture review nobody objected, but the discussion went on afterwards in two separate channels. Our sprint review still shows two sets of numbers. I’d like us to have one debate and one goal: fewer failed payments at checkout. What would make it easier to disagree in the joint review? ### A leadership team that stays polite Look at the team of peers you lead with, not only the team you manage. Illustrative scenario **Absence of trust**: In the weekly leads meeting, all four team leads report their status as green. Two of them tell the head of engineering privately that they are behind on hiring. **Fear of conflict**: Quarterly planning ends after 40 of the planned 90 minutes. Nobody questions another lead’s priorities. **Lack of commitment**: The group agrees to keep headcount flat until July. Two weeks later, two leads open new positions for their own teams. **Avoidance of accountability**: The new positions show up in the HR system. Nobody raises them in the leads meeting, and she doesn’t either. **Inattention to results**: Each lead defends their own team’s headcount. Nobody talks about the department goal of cutting release time from four weeks to two. How you could raise it > I want to talk about how we work as a leadership team, and I’ll start with myself: I haven’t pushed back in these meetings either. Our quarterly planning ended after 40 minutes without a single objection. Two weeks after we agreed to keep headcount flat until July, two new positions were opened, and none of us raised it here. I’d rather have that argument in this room. Which of our decisions do you not actually stand behind? Each example is one possible reading, not a diagnosis. The same observations can have other causes, such as unclear roles or too much work. Check your reading with the team before you act on it. ### Label or observation? The model’s layers are useful for thinking, but they make poor opening lines. A label tells the team what is wrong with them. An observation shows what happened and leaves room for their view. - Label – “We have a trust problem.” Observation – “In the last three retros, none of us, me included, named a mistake of our own.” - Label – “This team avoids conflict.” Observation – “Nobody objected to the timeline in planning. Two concerns reached me afterwards by direct message.” - Label – “Nobody here takes responsibility.” Observation – “The integration test was planned for Wednesday and didn’t run. We haven’t talked about it yet.” A label invites defense, and the team ends up arguing about whether it is true. An observation can be checked, and others can add what you did not see. ### Template: raise a pattern with your team Copy the template and replace each bracket with your own case. I’d like to look at how we work together, not at who is to blame. In \[meeting or decision\], I noticed \[observation\]. I also noticed \[second observation\]. My part in it: \[what you did or didn’t do\]. I wonder whether \[layer, in plain words\] plays a role, but I may be wrong. How do you see it? #### Check before you say it - Absence of trust: Do you name your own part first? - Fear of conflict: Do you invite people to disagree with your reading? - Lack of commitment: Can you point to a specific decision the team did not follow? - Avoidance of accountability: Do you describe missed commitments without naming someone to blame? - Inattention to results: Do you name the shared result that suffered, not only individual tasks? ## Questions Reflacto asks Lencioni’s model has five layers. Reflacto asks you to rate three of them in the model’s terms: trust, conflict and commitment. It adds a question for concrete examples after the trust and conflict ratings and ends with a question about your plan. Accountability and results have no questions of their own. ### Team health check Find where a capable team gets stuck and where to start. 1. How would you rate the level of trust within your team? (Model layer) 2. What specific examples support your trust rating? (Added by Reflacto) 3. How well does your team handle productive conflict? (Model layer) 4. Describe how conflicts are typically handled in your team (Added by Reflacto) 5. How strong is commitment to team goals and decisions? (Model layer) 6. Based on your assessment, what specific actions will improve team health? (Added by Reflacto) After the last question, Reflacto shows a team health plan with concrete next steps, including accountability and shared results. ## Questions about using the Five Dysfunctions model ### About the model #### What are the five dysfunctions of a team? Absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. Each layer builds on the one below. In a real team, they rarely show up one at a time. [Example: a product team plans a release](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#example-release) #### Why do you have to start at the bottom? Higher-level problems often grow from deeper ones. Demanding accountability without trust can create self-protection rather than candor. You could say > “Before we talk about the missed test, I’d like to understand what made it hard to raise the problem earlier.” Starting at the bottom does not mean waiting until trust is perfect. Check whether a lower layer explains the problem you see higher up. ### Spot the pattern #### How do I tell artificial harmony from a genuinely healthy team? Watch what happens after meetings. Healthy teams disagree openly; conflict-averse teams agree in the room and continue the debate in private. You could say > “We agreed in five minutes. Who sees a risk we haven’t talked about?” Other signs: meetings end early without objections, and concerns reach you one-on-one. [Example: a leadership team that stays polite](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#example-leadership-team) #### How do I describe a pattern without blaming anyone? Describe what happened in a specific meeting or decision, and name your own part in it. You could say > “In the last three retros, none of us, me included, named a mistake of our own.” Leave out the model’s labels at first. “You don’t trust each other” starts a debate about the label, not about what happened. [Labels and observations side by side](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#label-or-observation) ### Bring it to the team #### What can I do if I’m not the manager? Go first: admit a mistake, name what you do not know, or disagree respectfully. You do not need to be the manager to build trust. You could say > “I got the estimate for the migration wrong. Can someone look at it with me?” You can also point out a pattern in a retro. How the team makes decisions usually needs the person who leads it, so bring your observations to them. #### Should I show the team the model? Start with what you observed. Once the team agrees there is a pattern, the model can give it shared words. You could say > “There’s a model that describes this pattern. Do you want to use it to look at our last quarter?” Some people know the book and react strongly to it, in either direction. Let the team decide whether to use it. [Template: raise a pattern with your team](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#template) ### Limits #### Is this an assessment tool? No. The model helps teams discuss observed patterns. It is not a validated measurement tool and does not provide comparable team scores. Patrick Lencioni published it in 2002 as a business fable. For the trust layer, research on psychological safety in teams is a better-tested reference. [Origin and sources](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#provenance) #### When is the model the wrong tool? When the problem sits between two people or outside the team, for example in unclear goals, too much work, or a reorganization. You could say > “Before we look at how we work together: do we agree on what this team is supposed to deliver?” For a conflict between two people, a mediation conversation fits better. If someone reports harassment or discrimination, involve HR instead of running a team exercise. [Limitations](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#limitations) ## Origin and Reflacto's adaptation Patrick Lencioni published the model in 2002 as a business fable (Jossey-Bass). It is a practitioner framework, not a peer-reviewed or empirically validated instrument. Also known as: Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions model ### What Reflacto changed **From the original model**: Three of Lencioni’s five layers: trust, conflict and commitment, each rated from 1 to 5 in the model’s terms, such as vulnerability-based trust and artificial harmony. **Added by Reflacto**: Reflacto asks for concrete examples behind the trust and conflict ratings and ends with one plan for the team. Accountability and results have no questions of their own; the next steps at the end cover them. [See every question Reflacto asks](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions#questions) ### Primary sources and further reading - [The Table Group: Five Dysfunctions of a Team – The official guide from Patrick Lencioni’s organization.](https://www.tablegroup.com/topics-and-resources/teamwork-5-dysfunctions/) - [Edmondson: psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams – A peer-reviewed study on psychological safety and team learning, included because this model is not validated.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/2666999) - [Wiley-VCH: the German edition of the book (de) – The publisher page for the authorized German edition.](https://www.wiley-vch.de/de/fachgebiete/finanzen-wirtschaft-recht/die-5-dysfunktionen-eines-teams-978-3-527-50799-3) Editorially reviewed by [Daniel Schmeiß](https://www.reflacto.com/about) Last substantive review: September 29, 2026 ## Related reflection methods Compare another method that approaches a similar situation from a different angle. - [Delegation: Transfer ownership – Decisions pile up with you. Someone else needs to take ownership. The framework helps you decide what to hand over, how much authority to give and what support the person needs. The aim is real ownership instead of tasks that keep coming back to you.](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/delegation-empowerment) - [Mediation: Resolve conflict – Two people are stuck in conflict but still need to work together. The framework helps you separate positions from underlying needs and understand each side before looking for solutions. The goal is an agreement both can live with, not a verdict on who is right.](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/mediation) [Compare all methods](https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks) --- Original page: https://www.reflacto.com/frameworks/five-dysfunctions