The Five Dysfunctions of your Ward.
Posted by Matt W. on February 15th, 2007For School, I have recently finished reading the book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.”
I liked it so much I asked my wife to read it. She liked it so much, we are buying a copy for ourselves, planning FHEs on it, and she is going to use it in her presidency meetings.
Â
The basic principle is in the 5 Dysfunctions themselves, and understanding them could help your marriage, you family, and your Ward at church.
The Five Dysfunctions are:
Â
 This image is important because it shows the dysfunctions are foundations of one another.
1. Inattention to Results- A Dysfunctional Ward is Inattentive to results, the goals that they have set, and the individuals are more attentive to their own egos and selves, thus nothing gets accomplished. This happens because there is a lack of accountability to one another to achieve the results.
Â
2. Avoidance of Accountability- A Dysfunctional Ward avoids accountability because they do not want to call anyone out on the carpet for not doing their job (fear of conflict.) and because they are not committed to the goals and priorities of the Ward.
Â
3. Lack of Commitment- People lack commitment when they have no buy-in to what has been determined to be the top priorities of the Ward.  They lack this buy-in because they have been unable to effectively discuss or argue other ideas which they feel would be better for the Ward, and have those ideas analyzed and discussed for their merit. They are unable to voice disapproval for ideas because they have a fear of conflict, and thus are keeping a false sense of harmony. (Please note, there is a difference between conflict and contention here, but I am going to leave that for another time.)
Â
4. Fear of Conflict- People fear conflict because they do not trust that their will be no negative repercussions for voicing their dissonant views. They would rather “Keep the peace” than raise a concern for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that we do not want to make ourselves vulnerable to negative repercussions.
Â
5. Absence of Trust. This is a specific type of trust. It has two key aspects. First, we do not want to be vulnerable to negative repercussions, so we do not trust that the person will take what we say in the right spirit. Second, we do not trust that the person is reasonable enough for what we say to make any difference.
Â
 Ok, with that primer in place, the fundamental problems in our ward are at the top and the bottom of the above Pyramid, it seems to me.
1. What is the Ultimate Goal of a ward. What is the #1 priority.
2. Why don’t we trust?
Â
Â
I have mixed emotions about this. I am not sure the gospel of Jesus Christ is equivalent to what an engineering team or business might be. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.
But, in answer to your above questions:
1 - To invite all to come unto Christ. I believe this is the proper goal, but is probably to general and vague to apply to business type models.
2 - Life and the gospel are very complex. We do not believe others have enough information to really judge us or our results as Christ would. People do not often take personal and family needs into account.
With my recent experiences in the stake I am in, I would be a bit concerned (i.e. horrified) if my stake started implementing this. I am afraid it might open the door to unrighteous dominion by those with vain ambitions who focus to much on results.
Perhaps I need to read the book.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on February 15th, 2007
Eric, The book really is speaking to any team .
I find you concerns somewhat surprising.
I agree that that is the overall result the church should be driven to, so long as we realize what “Inviting all to come unto Chris” means (It doesn’t just mean baptising people. I actually like the synonym “Establishing Zion” but that is tangential.) This is no more vague than the corporate goal of “adding value to the stakeholders”, we then need to break this down as to what we are going to focus on for some duration of time as most important. This probably varies by congregation, as does how to maximize the value of the stakeholders from company to company. It becomes more of an issue of what the needs of the congregation are based on the demographics there-in.
Ah, the trust issue, before I get into my own answer to this question, I should ask you if you’ve ever read “Leadership and Self-Deception”? If not, I recommend it as the companion that makes 5 dysfunctions a valueable book to me. In essence, we don’t trust because we see other people as objects, and not as people who are equally as rational as we are, with thoughts, feelings, and perspectives which are equally as valid as our own.
And then there’s this:
I hold the opposite view, that we would actually have less unrighteous dominion, and not more, because people would be less afraid to stand up against unrighteous dominion.
Comment # 2 left by Matt W. on February 15th, 2007
The Lord’s system is one of accountability, of “return[ing] and report[ing]”. Clearly this is crucial in any organization, but even more so when on the Lord’s errand.
Personally, I think that all five of these are in harmony with the gospel, along the lines of the specific examples you’ve given for each of the give parts.
I just put the book on my Amazon wish list.
Comment # 3 left by Connor on February 15th, 2007
I made a post once about stewardship/accountability here.
In short I might ask what we really mean by accountability within the church among members of the church. Can we give each other a raise? A promotion? More interesting work assignments? Not really. Can we give each other a dock in pay? A suspension? Fire each other from our callings? Not really.
So in a practical way, what do we even mean when we talk about accountability within the church? Does not God himself take care of accountability? Should we not leave that to him? Sure we return and report. Then what?
I did my home teaching! -> Congratulations, you’re the next bishop.
I didn’t due my home teaching. -> Two fast Sundays next month.
I gave out a BofM! -> 5% tithing next month.
I was a bad example. -> You are the next Scoutmaster.
I’m not really trying to be to sarcastic here. What do we really mean when we say we need more accountability in the church?
Comment # 4 left by Eric Nielson on February 15th, 2007
Isn’t this just the negative reversal of the commitment pattern I learned so well in the MTC? And isn’t the commitment patter a formulized (and useful) summary of the way we treat people when we genuinely care about them anyhow? Interesting ideas.
I’d say the level we LDS folk excel at is “fear of conflict”–perhaps because it’s easy to mistake all conflict for contention?
Comment # 5 left by Janet on February 15th, 2007
What do we really mean when we say we need more accountability in the church?
I don’t necessarily think that accountability means assigning rewards or punishments as you’ve given in your example. Instead, I imagine more of a direct follow-up in regards to responsibilities.
For example, I expect my home teaching district supervisor to call me at the end of the month to check if I’ve completed my home teaching, ask how my home teachees are doing, if there’s anything that they need, etc. I expect those “above” me in my calling to work directly with me to make sure I’m accomplishing what I’m supposed to do, ask if I have questions, offer assistance, etc. Basically in any assignment or calling within the Church, I envision accountability as your “superiors” assuring that the tasks are complete, that everything turned out okay, and encourage me to “do a little better” and look for areas of improvement.
Comment # 6 left by Connor on February 15th, 2007
Connor:
So that’s it? An expected report IS the accountability? Nothing more? If that’s all there is to it, I suppose that is harmless enough. But that seems to go on all the time already right? Is this all Matt is suggesting with 1 and 2 above? What about the ‘calling out on the carpet’?
I guess I am seeing a bit of a contradiction between 2 and 4. Am I misreading 2? It seems that 2 is saying we should be calling certain people out on the carpet for not doing their job and that this is a problem. 4 seems to be saying that a fear of negative reprecussions is the problem. So if we do 2 are we not going to make 4 even worse?
I guess point 2 as described above seems out of place to me. I am really not trying to be a trouble maker here. This is a pet peeve issue for me in local church leadership and I would like to get a better handle on it. It seems like an extreem application of 2 might be to publicly display individual home teaching reports and publically criticizing the ones with low performance. Am I completely wacko off base with this? I am more of a teach correct principles and let them govern themselves type. Of course accountability may be a correct principle, but then whence the govern themselves?
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on February 15th, 2007
I have to wonder how much accountability is really about calling people on the carpet and how much is about giving us, as a group, an idea of where we are. I suppose there are times that there is “reproving…with sharpness [directness]” but I’m not sure accountability in the Church is necessarily the same type of thing we see in corporate America…where you report to your boss and get chewed out if you fail somehow. I think there is (or should be) a different spirit about it at church. What I usually see is leaders encouraging with love, sort of trying to take people where they are, rarely taking on individuals and calling them to task, and addressing issues as much as possible at a general level. Men, have you ever been called into the bishop’s office for not doing your HT? Ladies, have you ever been chastised by a RS pres for not doing VT? Doctrine should be focused on, not behavior, right?
If accountability is really going to work, IMO, we need to think more about all the reports and interviews (temple, for example) and check-ups (like HT are supposed to do: are you praying? reading scriptures? etc.) as a way for us to think about being accountable to the Lord, not really to each other.
As to the goals of a ward, aren’t “results” supposed to be about what we are becoming? How do we really measure that?
As to trust, I think this is a huge deal that reflects at the core our relationship with the Savior. I think we sometimes try to protect ourselves from not appearing perfect in our “outward performances and ordinances” so to speak (more law of Moses like) rather than realizing that the Lord loves us as we work toward our eternal goals, even as we are imperfect in doing so. I don’t know how to really articulate what I’m thinking here, but if I really see myself as accountable to the Lord, and I am reporting to Him each day, and I care most about what HE thinks and not worry so much about managing an image with people at church, then I will likely be able to trust more, fear conflict less, be more committed (because I’m committed to the Lord), recognize that I am accountable to Him even as I may have accountabilities through reports and assignments and whatnot, and I will thus be more able to become.
In short, I think we fall short when we don’t make the Lord the focus of everything we do at every level of this pyramid.
I think the more we individually and collectively focus on the Lord, we will be able to trust each other more because we will really be pointed in the same direction, motivated by the same desires, and worried less about letting our imperfections show because the Lord’s love will define us, not our performance.
Ah, what a surprise. I’m rambling.
Comment # 8 left by Michelle on February 16th, 2007
Michelle, ramble away.
I think you are really on to something. I would more fully endorse the approach Matt is talking about if the Lord is the supervisor that is running the show. Perhaps it is my lack of trust, but I think that life is to complex for mortals to evaluate very well. I think that is why we have such a simple, subjective yet standardized temple recommend interview. Going beyond the basic questions is really not appropriate in that setting for good reason. Often the temple recommend is as much a self evaluation as anything.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on February 16th, 2007
Eric, personally, I feel that if you trust someone to help you when you are wrong, then it is not so much calling out on the Carpet, but assistance. Calling out on the carpet destroys trust, holding accountable increases performance. Also, as the chart notes, holding someone accountable is a lot easier when they are committed to the end result.
Let’s simplify it from the Ward to your house. You and your wife are a team, you have desired results you wish to accomplish. (You may want to raise your children to be “good” people, based on your agreed definition of what a good “person” is. You may have a variety of different goals, of course.) I assume you trust your wife, you and she have discussed, and I’ll bet passionately, items like whether spanking is appropriate, what bed times will be, whether your kids should have to eat vegetables, etc. You may have had differences of opinions on any number of these things, because you had conflicting interests. But because you trusted that your wife loved you and was a reasonable human being who cared about your thoughts and feelings, rather than keep the peace, you let her know how you felt in your areas of disagreement, and she let you know how she felt. Via this process, you were able to influence one another into a compromise situation where you both were able to commit to the decision. Later, it was easier for you to be accountable to your wife for enforcing the decision because both of you had a clear understand of what the decision was and the reasons for it, so that when deviation from the decision was done, and further you trusted that deviation from the decision was not intentional rebellion.
Does that make more sense?
Comment # 10 left by Matt W. on February 16th, 2007
Oh no. Your bringing my wife and marriage into this? Yikes. She reads this stuff sometimes.
So yes Matt, this makes perfect sense. I see it all clearly now. If everyone could just be like my wife the world would be a perfect place.
(perhaps we can continue this through email).
Comment # 11 left by Eric Nielson on February 16th, 2007
Just kidding.
My wife and I do not see eye to eye on everything, and compromise is a good word for what the results are.
In our family I work full time, and my wife is a stay at home mom. My wife has a value system different from many. For her she is about 90% nurturing mom, 5% church member, friend, sister etc., 3% an individual, and about 2% houswife. This may not be completely fair but it is my view of things. I’ll probably really get a scolding when I get home.
Any rate, I understand. I like that she is a hall of fame mom. That is a big part of what I love about her. And at some point I need to accept that if we are going to eat dinner I will have to make it. If we need a run to the grocery store I will have to make it. If the dishes need done….you get the point. I get it, I understand it, I don’t always like it, but the marriage as a whole is great and our differences in these areas aren’t worth arguing over so I accept it and move on. No big deal. There are worse problems around and I don’t want to trade my problems for some of the other problems.
So, what to do if you are an EQP and you have a lousy home teacher in you quorum. Perhaps he has other priorities (let’s assume good one’s) that put HT to the bottom of the list. There are all kinds of accountability floating around. This man is likely a husband, an emplyee, a father, an individual, has a calling, blogs (strike that), etc. How much should an EQP do in terms of home teaching accountability as an example? I mean beyond teaching correct principles and letting this brother set his own priorities in life?
I guess a thought which just popped into my head, does this pyramid need to be a universal pyramid for the whole ward? Everyone has a different situation. Is there a custom pyramid for each family? Or one pyramid fits all?
Any rate, thanks for helping me talk through this. I am not trying to be difficult.
Comment # 12 left by Eric Nielson on February 16th, 2007
Eric, no worries, and I am sure mileage may vary, but the concept is conceptiually vague enough I think to allow for that and still be intact.
First, the wife, read Leadership and Self-Deception. If you are strapped for cash, it’s follow-ups are the Peacegiver and Anatomy of Peace, which are both free and online, a more technical version is Bonds that make us free, which is also free and online. I think these illustrate the heart of the Trust issue more fully.
(Please note I am not directly addressing the spousal issues with you because I have a fear of conflict here, based on a lack of trust. I am afraid to tell you something I think you do not want to hear from me, so I am unwilling to push you on the marital front. Instead of being straightforward with you, I am pointing you to the source, in a sort of appeal to authority where I remove myself from the equation.)
Anyway, let’s look at the HT instead. When you follow-up with a man how has not done his homteaching, the question becomes why? You can either keep the peace (fear conflict) or ask him, “Why?” You don’t have to ask in a rude or confrontational way, but you can ask him. This way you can discover what the conflict is. Is he overtasked, as you paint the picture, or is he under-committed to home teaching or to the famileis he is hometeaching? If it is a lack of committment, you can acknowledge his concerns, and then reason with him (resolve the conflict) with changes on either his part (Where you influence him to increase his committment(paradigm shift) and thus improve his behavior) or your part (where you change his hometeaching route in some way) or both.
Hope this helps.
Comment # 13 left by Matt W. on February 16th, 2007
Well, I’m not really sure my spousal issues need to be addressed. I don’t particularly view us as being dysfunctional even though we have different goals sometimes. I think that is inevitable and even healthy. Part of my hesitation in all this is avoiding the one size fits all goal set.
I do think that there may be a possibility that this model was expressed bacwards. Is that the case? For instance, if I were faced with being a new leader of a dysfunctional team I would be more comfortable with this sequence:
Trust->reduced conflict->common goals->positive accountability->evaluate future results as they come
Than with this sequence:
Evaluate past (negative) results->Institute accountability->Set goals->handle conflict->expect trust.
My descriptions above show my bias, but is this intended to be a sequence of events beginning with establishing trust and ending with reaping results? This makes much more sence than the reverse sequence. If this is the case then I like the approach and I was thrown off by the order of sequence.
If this is not the sequence then I need more therapy. (But probably not marriage counseling).
Comment # 14 left by Eric Nielson on February 16th, 2007
I also should point out that I was not in the least trying to make my wife look lazy. In many areas she is hyper-vigilent. But the church, like life, has all kinds of good choices to make within it.
No, she did not put me up to this
Comment # 15 left by Eric Nielson on February 16th, 2007
You are Corect, Trust is the foundation. In the Book, trust and results are presented first, and then the middle pieces. Sorry for the confusion. And sorry for the worry over you and your wife. I won’t jump to conclusions (but I still recommend the books.)
Comment # 16 left by Matt W. on February 16th, 2007
Did I just see Matt W doing online marriage counseling?
A part of me wants to nominate that for hall of fame glory, even though I know he really is sharing resources that are helpful for any of us. Just found a bit of funniness in it all.
Maybe cuz I’m desperate for a laugh?
Comment # 17 left by Michelle on February 17th, 2007