After reading The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni, something shifted; not just agreement, but a quiet recognition. If you’ve ever worked on a remote team where things feel off, people avoid giving feedback, and no one speaks up, you already know: dysfunction is expensive.
This is my sixth year as a Writer. Over those six years, I’ve worked with teams across Fintech, Media, and EdTech; some fast-moving and focused, others slow and complicated. But no matter the industry, the same pattern kept showing up: when projects dragged or quietly dissolved, it usually wasn’t about talent. It was about how people worked together, or didn’t, and remote work only sharpens that reality.
Without in-person cues, casual check-ins, or light hallway gossip, even small issues can grow. Tension often lingers after messages are acknowledged but not truly absorbed. When we skim or dismiss what’s said, assumptions begin to form. Over time, these unchecked assumptions can quietly erode trust, a vital element in any relationship. Trust is easy to overlook, but once it’s gone, its absence is unmistakable.
Lencioni’s model resonated because it highlights what many teams overlook: the hidden costs of unresolved friction. More importantly, it provides a framework for understanding what’s going wrong and offers a path toward healthier, higher-performing collaboration.
In this article, I walk through each of the five dysfunctions, pairing them with real scenarios I’ve observed in remote teams. These examples aren’t theoretical; they’re drawn directly from what’s happening in meetings, Slack threads, Microsoft Teams calls, Google Meet sessions, and missed milestones across modern workplaces.
Let’s start with the first and most foundational issue: Trust.
Dysfunction #1: Lack of Trust
You might not notice it at first. No one is arguing, and no one is missing deadlines. On the surface, everything appears fine. However, underneath, something critical is missing: vulnerability.
When Lencioni talks about trust, he doesn’t mean “I trust you to do your job.” He means, “I trust you enough to be real with me.” Vulnerability-based trust is the kind that allows teammates to say things like:
- “I don’t understand this.”
- “I’m falling behind.”
- “I think we’re making a mistake.”
In teams where this kind of trust is lacking, people tend to play it safe. They limit themselves to updates and nod along, even when they’re unsure. No one wants to be the first to raise a red flag or admit they are struggling because the culture doesn’t reward honesty; it prioritises image protection.
I’ve often seen this in remote teams, especially in early-stage startups where everyone is trying to prove their value. The fear of being perceived as incompetent quietly outweighs the desire to collaborate openly. Feedback stalls, problems mature, and eventually, accountability is replaced with silent resentment.
The solution isn’t a trust fall exercise or a team retreat. It requires leaders to model vulnerability first, and consistently:
- Admitting when something didn’t go as planned.
- Asking for help in public, not just in direct messages.
- Creating space in meetings for uncertainty, not just for solutions.
Trust takes time to build and only seconds to break. If you want a team that can truly operate as one unit, especially across screens and time zones, this is where the work begins. What happens next when teams trust each other just enough to get along but not enough to disagree?
Dysfunction #2: Fear of Conflict
If trust is the foundation, conflict is the pressure test.
Lencioni is not warning against toxic outbursts or personal attacks. Instead, he is highlighting the absence of constructive tension—the type of disagreement that sharpens thinking, uncovers blind spots, and ultimately leads to better outcomes.
When teams fear conflict, they do not express their true thoughts. They shy away from difficult conversations and settle for less. This avoidance is rarely loud; it’s often quiet, comfortable, and sounds professional. However, over time, it creates an environment where decisions go unchallenged, concerns remain hidden, and resentment builds below the surface.
In remote teams, this dysfunction is even easier to conceal. A smiley emoji, a muted microphone, or a “Looks good to me!” in the chat can mask underlying confusion, frustration, or misalignment that team members feel but do not voice.
I have worked with teams where this very dynamic delayed entire launches. Misunderstandings went unaddressed early on because no one wanted to “cause friction.” Instead of openly disagreeing, the team ultimately paid a price in wasted cycles, rework, and strained trust.
So, what’s the solution? It’s not about encouraging “devil’s advocacy” for its own sake, but rather normalising disagreement as a part of progress. This can involve:
- Asking, “What are we not seeing?”
- Creating opportunities for dissent, not just consensus
- Rewarding clarity, not just cohesion
Avoiding conflict does not keep the peace; it simply delays the fallout. Once a team stops challenging one another, a new dysfunction emerges: people may nod along in meetings, but they have already mentally checked out, leading to a lack of commitment.
Dysfunction #3: Lack of Commitment
Alignment isn’t just a vibe; it’s a decision. Without it, teams struggle to commit. They hesitate, play it safe, and offer half-hearted agreements during meetings, only to drift in different directions once the call ends.
What Lencioni refers to as a lack of commitment happens when teams fail to make clear decisions and stick to them. This issue isn’t about a lack of motivation; it’s about unclear direction. Nothing undermines momentum faster than mixed signals.
Here’s how it showed up in a media team I worked with: three weeks into a campaign sprint, everyone believed they were heading toward a launch. However, the client thought they were still in the pitching phase. No one had finalised the brief. Why? Because no one wanted to make a definitive decision. Instead, they rushed to build something that was ultimately incorrect.
Remote work doesn’t cause this dysfunction; it just hides it better. There are no casual check-ins like in a shared space — the kind that surface confusion before it escalates. No spontaneous follow-ups. Just quiet drift, until the deadline hits and no one’s ready.
So, how do we fix this? By making commitment visible and non-negotiable. Here are some steps to consider:
- Make decisions openly rather than through fragmented conversations across multiple threads.
- Confirm ownership, outcomes, and deadlines in straightforward terms.
- Normalise asking, “Are we aligned?” before individuals go their separate ways.
Disagreement isn’t the enemy; ambiguity is. When commitment is lacking, follow-through becomes optional, leading to a cycle of finger-pointing. This behaviour is known as the Avoidance of Accountability, and that’s what we’ll address next.
Dysfunction #4: Avoidance of Accountability
There comes a moment on every team when someone drops the ball, and everyone notices. This moment defines the team culture. Do team members speak up and ask, “Hey, what happened?” Or do they look away, adjust quietly, and carry the weight themselves?
Lencioni makes it clear: when teams avoid accountability, it’s rarely because they don’t care. Instead, it’s often because they want to avoid conflict. No one wants to come across as a micromanager, or worse, an unpleasant person. Thus, instead of confronting the issue, people tend to accommodate it quietly and repeatedly, until resentment builds or results start to suffer.
The real risk is that when expectations go unspoken, they start to seem acceptable. That tolerance quietly resets the standard, and the people still holding the line begin to wonder why they bother.
High-performing teams don’t shy away from problems. They confront them early, honestly, and with respect. They do this not with shame or passive-aggression, but with a sense of shared ownership:
- “This matters, so I’m bringing it up.”
- “We all agreed to this. Let’s stick to it.”
- “If I missed the mark, I would want someone to call me out, too.”
Accountability isn’t punishment; it’s a means of protecting trust, quality, and momentum. Once teams stop holding each other accountable, they stop caring about the results. When that occurs, dysfunction becomes the default. This brings us to the final breakdown: Inattention to Results.
Dysfunction #5: Inattention to Results
This is where the downward spiral truly begins. A team starts with energy, innovative ideas, and clear goals. However, along the way, these goals can become blurry. Personal agendas begin to take precedence. Factors like status, comfort, and ego start to drive decisions, pushing the shared result to the background.
This dysfunction doesn’t always manifest as laziness; sometimes it’s more subtle. For example:
- A team member focuses solely on their KPIs, while the larger project suffers as a result.
- A leader prioritises defending their team’s successes instead of acknowledging the team’s failures.
- Individuals start optimising for their appearances rather than the actual outcomes they deliver.
This issue is particularly challenging for remote teams. Without constant visibility into outcomes, progress can start to feel more like a vague sense of activity rather than concrete results. Everyone may seem busy and engaged, but nothing substantial is advancing.
High-performing teams, on the other hand, keep their eyes on the scoreboard. They define success clearly and work toward it collaboratively, not to impress leadership or outdo one another, but because the work matters and results are the true measure of achievement.
When teams lose sight of their results, dysfunction becomes the norm. However, when they focus on achieving results, trust builds quickly because team members can see each other committing to the collective goal, rather than just their interests.
Where Teams Break and How They Win
Dysfunction doesn’t appear in bright lights; it slowly creeps in, often hidden behind silence, false harmony, unclear goals, and polite indifference. However, it can compound very fast. By the time it becomes noticeable in the results, it has already affected the culture.
The good news is that every single one of these issues is fixable. You don’t need a hero CEO or a perfect organisational chart. What you need are teams willing to be honest, confront what isn’t working, and commit to raising the standard.
- Start by building trust.
- Encourage healthy conflict.
- Drive for clarity.
- Support one another and hold each other accountable.
- Above all, focus on the results.
When teams prioritise function over ego, everything else improves: decisions, delivery, and growth. That’s when work becomes enjoyable again and real momentum builds.
What’s next?
If this resonated with you, that’s a sign that you’re paying attention to what matters. You don’t need to rebuild your team from scratch. Start by naming what’s off. Share this with someone on your team. Use it to spark the kind of conversation most teams avoid until it’s too late. By naming the dysfunction, you’re on your way towards building a solution.
