Dysfunctionality on scientific teams

Back to book reviews! The backlog is growing!

Last year, I read a lot about management, trying to educate myself more on the topic and to connect with the lives of—and challenges faced by—scientists. In September 2024, I posted about the factors driving an individual’s motivation in a scientific team; the discussion was framed as a review of the book “Drive”, by Daniel H. Pink. This time we will expand the scope and consider what makes a team work well together. The inspiration for this post comes from reading The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni.

The author is a well-known figure in private industry, coaching companies on organizational health and teamwork. He has written several books, many widely acclaimed. So, we should probably start with a disclaimer: the “sociological” theories in the book have found deep appreciation among several leaders and corporations, and have been built upon the author’s empirical experience—but, to my knowledge, they have not been rigorously tested using scientific methods. Still, human experience is quite valuable, and the thoughts in the book definitely got me thinking.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team is mostly composed of a long story in which the author role-plays (a common practice in business training, I’ve come to learn) characters navigating team conflict within a company. They are somewhat saved—or at least set on a path toward progress—by a new CEO who has mastered the concepts behind team dysfunction. The author then re-describes these ideas in detail. The five dysfunctions are presented in a causal relationship, where each layer serves as a scaffold for the next:

Again with the disclaimer that this was not presented as a scientifically verified psychological process, I gotta say I can quite relate to this perspective.

Looking at modern science in general, it’s rare for individuals to work entirely alone. They exist, but they don’t represent most of the statistics. In my own scientific collaborations—and from observing those of colleagues—I’ve often seen teams exhibit some degree of dysfunction that can fits the pattern above. Here are some signatures that some may relate to:

• invulnerability: defensive behavior when criticism to one’s results - calculations, data, analyses - are raised, lack of attention during appointments
• artificial harmony: researchers lower in the hierarchy ceasing to communicate with supervisors; researchers higher in the hierarchy ignoring contact with trainees and direct reports for long periods of time; not communicating mispace of production rate
• ambiguity: extended timelines to produce results, projects that never finish, repeatedly rescheduled meetings, spacing out during meetings and not recording action items
• low standards: lack of interest in reviewing write-ups, careless attention to one’s own or others’ technical results, lack of initiative
• status and ego: pursuit of self-interested endeavors or priorities without transparency; griping; judging

I hope the language above makes it clear that these examples are not biased toward any particular group of scientists: they can occur among trainees and students, managers and supervisors, and in virtually any field of science.

What is the onset of these dysfunctions? The author doesn’t say much about how they begin, and I believe that characterizing early warning signs of dysfunction—or signs that a team is headed down that path—could be very important. In science, I dare say much of this can arise from overcommitment to too many activities. The workload of science managers can be extreme, and the path of individual contributors often resembles a random walk. Haste and pressure can lead to mismanagement and miscommunication. The often present high degree of freedom in scientific environments, without proper management, can also easily lead to ambiguities and individualism.

The author also emphasizes (in a good attempt to sell another of his books) that not all people are capable of being team players, and that paying attention to certain virtues can help in hiring and fostering more productive behaviors. I don’t feel too comfortable to judge what others can or cannot do, but I think I see where the author is coming from, and I guess I like the advice.

On the pathway to solving such dysfunctions, the author highlights the importance of humility (“the most precious virtue and antidote for all sin”), which enables vulnerability and creates the possibility of trust among human beings—who he sees as naturally inclined to self-protection. If the pyramid model above holds, a approach to fix the problem is to erode it from the base—by entering into risky discomfort and building trust.

My backlog of book reviews is getting large. I hope I can make a dent in it. This year I’m moving my reading interests from management to philosophy of science, and it looks like reading will be slower; since the content is much denser, I may post revisions by chapter. In any case, stay tuned for more lessons learned from the literature!

• 2025 4
• 2024 13