There are lots of ways to build a team, but 5 distinct ways to destroy a team.  I recently read the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team written by Patrick Lencioni that describes these 5 ways to destroy a team.  It is an interesting read, and you should read it too.  It tells the story of an executive team in a small startup that is struggling to succeed despite having better talent, better technology, and more capital than their competitors.  The new CEO undergoes a process to rebuild the team dynamics in order to help the company succeed.  The book then explains each of the 5 dysfunctions of a team and how to overcome each.

Every team is dysfunctional, and all require work to maintain.  The 5 dysfunctions apply to project teams and commissioning teams:

 

Team Dysfunction #1 – Lack of Trust

From the Book

Every productive team is built on trust.  Without trust, none of these other dysfunctions can be addressed.

The type of trust required is not predictive trust where you know that you can count on someone to complete a task, but vulnerability-based trust where team members know that they will not be taken advantage of for sharing their thoughts and feelings while working on a team.  Vulnerability-based trust is the confidence that intentions of teammates are always good.

Vulnerability based trust starts with the leader, which means that a clear leader must be identified for the team to rely on.  The leader establishes the team culture to foster vulnerability-based trust by allowing team members to share their thoughts and ideas.  The leader also teaches team members how to be vulnerable, and to be confident that they can be vulnerable without negative consequences.

The leader must be able to admit when they are wrong.  Because can you trust someone who never admits when they are wrong?

Team members must have vulnerability-based trust with their peers, and the leader must allow this to happen.  Team members must be able to feel confident that they can share and challenge peers in order to achieve the team’s best outcomes.  Sometimes this can be at the expense of their individual outcomes, but the leader must recognize this and reward this behaviour.

Achieving vulnerability-based trust is difficult in today’s society since most successful people learn to be competitive to advance their career, and it is challenging to turn these instincts off for the good of the team.  However the project manager or commissioning manager needs to recognize these behaviours and reward those that make decisions for the good of the team.

Read more on Dysfunction #1 – Lack of Trust.

 

How Lack of Trust Applies to your Project/Commissioning Team

The commissioning team is often a very close group that trusts each other.  From my experience, commissioning team members have always worked well together, supporting each other and putting in the extra effort for the team and the project to succeed.  If other project groups do not have the same level of vulnerability-based trust, this needs to be mitigated well in advance of the commissioning phase of the project.  Early and often communication with Project Managers, Engineering Managers, and Construction Managers needs to occur to build vulnerability-based trust.  The leader needs to foster a vulnerability-based trust culture within the project team.  If communicated early enough and often enough between all team members, it is possible to establish a trust-based environment with all project groups.

I have seen situations where people on project teams make unintentional mistakes, and witch-hunts ensue to find the guilty person and punish them.  This does not foster a vulnerability-based trust environment.  Safety is a good example.  Safety is an important aspect of commissioning and must be taken seriously.  But without a trust-based environment, people quickly learn ways to hide safety concerns rather than learn from them to prevent future mishaps.

On large projects with lots of people involved, it is easy for groups to stick together and resent other groups on the project.  The Engineering Team may feel ownership of the project since they designed it, and not want to hand over control of the project to the Construction Team.  Or the Engineering Team may feel that the Construction Team does not understand the detailed design and is therefore incapable of building it correctly.  The Construction Team may just want to get it built fast, but is not as interested as the Commissioning Team in making it function as intended.  The construction phase is the most expensive phase of the project and the Construction Team will have authority to make impactful cost decisions, but may not fully understand the impacts of these decisions on the commissioning phase of the project.  The Construction Team will have mobilized to site prior to the Commissioning Team and may not welcome the new Commissioning Team to site when they mobilize at a later date.  Meanwhile the project controls group is continually asking about cost and schedule of the other groups.  All groups across the project need to work as one team with the project’s best interests in mind.  It is in the project’s best interest for each group to support the other groups to make the project successful. This article has additional information on how to set up your projects up for success, please check this out 9 CSU (Commissioning and Startup) Critical Success Factors 

The leader needs to clearly identify which group has the necessary decision making authority dependent on the phase of the project.  Without this, all groups think they are in charge when really nobody is.  Trust can quickly fall apart as the project transitions through each phase and new groups become involved in the project.  A strong leader is required to guide all the groups as the project transitions through each phase in order to build and maintain vulnerability-based trust rather than have in erode into silos.

Without vulnerability-based trust, the next dysfunctions of a team are impossible to overcome.  If you can only address one item on this list, start with building trust within your team.

 

Team Dysfunction #2 – Fear of Conflict

From the Book

Society has taught us that conflict is bad and to avoid it at all costs.  We are encouraged to live in a world to never disagree and to stay in the safe middle ground.  Conflict is considered taboo.

The higher up the management chain you go, the more you see people avoiding conflict.  By avoiding conflict, issues are not dealt with and the dysfunction continues.  It takes a strong leader to bring the issues to the surface, engage in constructive conflict, and make positive changes.

Avoiding conflict is not how productive teams need to operate.  Productive teams must argue in pursuit of the truth and to obtain input from everyone in order to achieve the best possible outcome.  This can only be accomplished in an environment of vulnerability-based trust in order to have healthy conflict.  Productive teams cannot remain complacent, they must take bold steps to grow as a team and step out of their comfort zones.

Instead of unproductive weekly meetings, recurring discussions should be filled with healthy conflict to debate issues and impact change. Healthy conflict is a time saver and productive.  It is not beneficial to the team to discuss the same issue each week with no resolution.  Teams need to engage in productive ideological conflict to produce the best outcome in the shortest time.

Healthy conflict does not involve attacking individuals or minimizing people’s role on the team.  Healthy conflict instead involves ideological debates with input from everyone in order to achieve the best possible outcome.

A team that does not have conflict remains in the middle ground and cannot move forward.  Project timelines suffer and costs continue to increase without timely inputs and decisions from the team.  Often any decision is better than no decision, even if it is determined later that the wrong decision was made.  This is not to say that decisions should be made fast and furious with no regard for the outcome.  But instead the minimum required information should be gathered in order to make a timely decision, with the possibility that not all information is available at the time.

Everybody on the team has to agree that good conflict is important.  The leader needs to allow this to happen.  Often people do not argue well and emotions get in the way.  But the leader needs to enable real-time permission for arguments to take place.  The project manager or commissioning manager can do this by interrupting the discussion and confirming that the argument that is taking place is exactly what the team needs to do more of.  The leader can indicate that this may feel uncomfortable, but to please continue with the discussion.  If the leader is able to do this several times, the project team quickly learns that healthy conflict and debate is a good thing.

Read more on Dysfunction #2 – Fear of Conflict.

 

How Fear of Conflict Applies to your Project/Commissioning Team

As the commissioning phase of a project approaches, many healthy conflicts must occur to determine the best plans for commissioning and startup of new systems.  The commissioning team’s conflicts must be about honestly respecting a person enough to say – I think your idea is wrong and here is why, but convince me otherwise because I am willing to listen.  With this mindset shift towards conflict, the best ideas can be discussed to achieve the best outcomes.

When key commissioning team members are involved in the project during earlier phases, they can help assist the design teams and construction teams to set the commissioning phase up for the best chance of success.  The commissioning team needs to approach these discussions in a non-threatening way, and the engineering teams and construction teams need to be open to listening to new ideas, I wrote an article about How to Make Meetings Less Terrible, this may be helpful as well when having a discussion with the team. 

The groups must work collaboratively together for the best outcome of the project rather than only focusing on the success of the current phase they are managing.  The leader needs to allow the engineering, construction, and commissioning teams to have healthy conflict.  But too often I see that the engineering group or the construction group is left alone to allow them to manage each phase as they best see fit without integrating commissioning ideas into these phases.  Because the healthy conflict was not fostered early in the project, issues are compounded and become major concerns for the commissioning team to address at the end of the project when cost and schedule impacts are more severe.

 

Team Dysfunction #3 – Inability of a Team to Commit

From the Book

Every team must have conflict to commit.  If there is no conflict, it may seem like team members have committed to a decision, but often this is only passive commitment. 

If people don’t weigh into a decision, they won’t feel like they have been heard and will not commit to an idea or objective of the team.  Great teams make timely decisions with buy-in from everyone.

This is not to be confused with consensus.  Great teams understand the danger of consensus.  It is rare that consensus can be achieved on a team and this should not be the goal.  Instead all team members must be allowed to participate in the healthy conflict to make their ideas heard.  Once everyone is heard, the leader can break the tie.  The leader will listen to everyone but must make the final decision.  The leader can state that she is going in a different direction and that she may be wrong, but is making a decision based on everyone’s input.  And as long as everyone has truly stated their opinion during the healthy conflict, they will be able to commit to the leader’s decision.  With vulnerability-based trust, there will not be any future “I told you so” statements if the leader was wrong, only the team’s reflections on how to do things better the next time.

Conflict underlies the willingness to commit even in the absence of certainty.  Unresolved discord will remain then the team fails to achieve buy-in from all.  This means that everything must be said in the meeting; there can be no hallway discussions after the meeting.  Taking an issue offline in the meeting means avoiding the issue.  People can disagree and commit if they feel they have been heard.  A good plan well executed performs better rather than the best plan that is poorly executed.  The leader needs to have full commitment from the team if the objective is to be achieved.

Read more about Dysfunction #3 – Inability of a Team to Commit.

  

How Inability to Commit Applies to your Project/Commissioning Team

Objectives are often very well defined on projects.  Projects typically (but not always) have a defined scope, schedule, and budget setting the bounds for the project team to work within.  Detailed specifications are available defining the outcome of the project.

The challenge is that there are an infinite number of ways to achieve the project scope, schedule, and budget objectives.  Everyone will have a different idea of how to go about meeting the project objectives.  This is where healthy debate is required in order to have the team agree on the path forward.  A million decisions will need to be made and many will require real-time response in order to not delay the project.  These discussions and decisions will need to take place in real-time, and quick buy-in required of the team.  When the leader is involved in the day-to-day project activities, they can guide the discussions and be the ultimate decision maker.  But sometimes the leader takes a higher level approach and delegates authority to site-level leaders such as the construction manager or commissioning manager.  In this case, the leader needs to identify the ultimate decision maker very clearly depending on the phase of the project.

For example, the construction manager would be the final decision maker during the construction phase of the project.  He/she will facilitate healthy conflict from all groups (engineering, construction, commissioning, controls, etc) and allow everyone to contribute.  If all groups are really listened to and their thoughts considered, the construction manager can make a final decision and achieve commitment from all groups.  But if the construction manager unilaterally makes decisions on behalf of the team, they will not achieve commitment from other groups.

The same holds true for the commissioning phase.  As construction ramps down and the project manager transitions decision making authority to the commissioning manager, he/she must facilitate the same healthy conflict with all groups.  If the commissioning team can commit to a path forward, but the construction team has only passively committed, this will lead to problems as the project progresses.

  

Team Dysfunction #4 – Lack of Accountability

From the Book

The most common problem with teams is the inability to hold each other accountable.  People don’t like to be held accountable, nor do people want to hold another team member accountable.  But without accountability, the team is unable to get better and achieve great results.  You may think that not letting a team member know that they need to do better avoids the confrontation and awkward situation, but this is only thinking of yourself and not the betterment of others and the team.  Team members often hesitate to hold others accountable in fear of hurting relationships.

The worst thing that a leader can do is not hold team members accountable.  When the team sees that the leader is not holding someone accountable, each team member quickly learns that they are unlikely to be held accountable as well.

As long as the leader demands accountability, the most important type of accountability is peer-to-peer accountability, not leader-to-peer accountability.  The leader can enable this by being the ultimate source of accountability.  The leader must be held accountable by the team.  When peers see that the leader is not able to be held accountable, it will be difficult to have per-to-peer accountability.

Each team member needs to be comfortable saying to another team member that they need to do better.  You owe it to someone to tell them how to do better.  It is much better to feel uncomfortable in the moment than to not help someone be better. 

Society tells us to never have an uncomfortable moment or push someone out of their comfort zone.  An interesting line from the book is that “iron sharpens iron”, but most team members would rather have a pillow fight.  Without the ability to be open and honest with all team members, you are only sugar coating the issue and not improving the collective ability of the team and project to be successful.

You can practice this by putting yourself in a position to be held accountable.  For example, ask your kids how you can be a better parent and see what they say.  Then follow through by listening to their advice and see how you can improve.

Read more about Dysfunction #4 – Lack of Accountability.

How Lack of Accountability Applies to your Project/Commissioning Team

The project manager must hold everyone accountable, even himself/herself.  If the project manager is seen as not addressing an issue with a team member, it quickly un-motivates the rest of the team.  Others on the team will lower their level of effort knowing that issues with a particular team member are undermining the team’s ability to succeed.  For the above average over-achieving superstars on your team, this will cause them to focus their efforts elsewhere rather than on the good of the project.  The project manager needs to help raise the struggling team member to a higher standard rather than bring the rest of the team down to the lower level.  Peers need to help others on the team be successful as well, since every phase of the project needs to succeed in order for the project to succeed.

The commissioning team can help groups that precede them understand the project end requirements by participating earlier in the project.  When design or construction issues are discovered, the commissioning team owes it to the project to identify these issues and help the engineering and construction groups become better, rather remain silent and wait to discover these issues during on-site testing.  If the commissioning team is not able to hold preceding groups accountable, then issues become much more expensive to resolve later in the project.  And once again, the leader needs to foster a project environment where this accountability can take place.

 

Team Dysfunction #5 – Inattention to Results

 From the Book

The results that you need to be concerned about are the results that impact the collective good of the team.  Do what is best for the team and not what is best for a specific team member.  All decisions need to be driven with this in mind.  One group cannot operate in a silo and only focus on what will make them successful.  All groups have to make decisions with the end in mind.

Company metrics are often misaligned to measure group performance.  Instead, company metrics should focus on the team performance and so that each group has the team’s best interests in mind.  Human beings will always follow what they are rewarded for.  For example, if metrics are based on sales performance, that’s what the sales group will focus on, even if it hurts the results of the marketing group.  Metrics should instead measure the overall company performance.  This would allow one group to help out another for the collective good of the team, rather than only focus on their own metrics.

Read more about Dysfunction #5 – Inattention to Results.

 

How Inattention to Results Applies to you Project/Commissioning Team

Given that commissioning and startup are at the end of the project, it is critically important that the engineering and construction groups that precede commissioning and startup have the end in mind in order to set the commissioning team up for the best chance of success.  The engineering priority cannot be to just get drawings issued in order for them  to move onto their next assignment.  Nor can the construction team’s priority be to install equipment as fast as possible with no regard for quality in order to demobilize quickly.  This is not focusing on project results and is only focusing on the current phase of the project.

This mindset can be difficult for the project manager to instill in all team members since there are often different contracts involved that incentivize groups differently and teams become only focused on their results.  But the leader needs to ensure all groups are working in the best interest of the project.  This requires foresight by the project sponsor to ensure all project participant’s motivations are aligned with the end in mind.

It is best to have the commissioning team involved early in the project in order to help other groups succeed.  When all groups within the project succeed, the overall project will succeed.  Personal results within the commissioning team are important, but each commissioning team member needs to put the project’s results ahead of their own.  The project manager needs to recognize this and reward individuals that put the good of the project ahead of their own, even though this may hurt their individual results.

 

Project and Commissioning Team

If your project or commissioning team is struggling with several of these dysfunctions, start with building trust.  All the other dysfunctions become exponentially easier once you can establish trust. 

If the project manager or commissioning manager is not behaving appropriately to address these 5 dysfunctions, you need to approach him/her with empathy and trust.  You won’t get fired for telling the project manager or commissioning manager the kind truth.  But at least you will know the limits of what he/she can and cannot do.

The 3 qualities you must have to overcome these 5 dysfunctions are to be humble, hungry, and smart:

• Humble – admit when you are wrong, you cannot be ego driven
• Hungry – work very hard to be the best version of yourself and deliver the best results to the project
• Smart – you must be inter-personally smart, and know how your actions affect others

People that are ego driven do not make team players and do not perform well in a project environment.  When filling roles on a team, select carefully and ensure individuals with big egos (no matter how good their experience and expertise may look on paper) are not chosen for the team, and certainly not placed in positions of authority.

Genuine teamwork remains elusive in today’s project environment.  It is a difficult culture to foster when there are so many competing priorities such as contract lines and multiple company priorities.  Contracts are important and must be adhered to, but the groups involved must look past these artificial boundaries and come together to work as one team.  If genuine teamwork can be achieved, the contract requirements will just naturally be met without any need for conflict.

True leadership to foster a teamwork culture also remains elusive.  Too often people are good managers but fail to make the transition to be a leader.  A true leader inspires others and makes them want to follow.  When a true leader sets the example of teamwork and trust, the above 5 dysfunctions are much easier to eliminate from team dynamics.  But if the leader is not able to point the team in the right direction to foster teamwork, the 5 dysfunctions of teams are stronger than ever.

 

Further Information

To learn more about the 5 dysfunctions of a team, you should read Patrick Lencioni’s book.  He goes deeper into each dysfunction and explains how to address each.

Patrick was interviewed on Pat Flynn’s podcast episode #404, listen to hear an overview of the book.

Patrick Lencioni has a podcast as well, check out the At The Table Podcast for more info.

 

Thanks,

Paul Turner, P. Eng, PMP