Analysis of Behaviors: Kathryn’s Team
Philip W. Holmes
Virginia Commonwealth University
For this exercise, I have selected Martin Gilmore and Jeff Shanley. They will be dealt with in turn.
Martin Gilmore
1. What do you believe are each person’s initial concerns regarding Kathryn’s arrival?
Martin Gilmore has two initial concerns – losing his autonomy and having to operate outside of
his comfort zone – and he is the first member of Kathryn’s leadership team to act on them. His meeting
with a potential client, which conflicts with the kick-off of the Napa offsite, is the first direct and overt
challenge from a team member that Kathryn must face as CEO. As he works to keep that sales meeting
on its original schedule, Martin is also working to remain the autonomous technical expert on Kathryn’s
team – the direct report who can operate within self-defined and usually technical boundaries. Highly
intelligent, with “(a)dvanced degrees from Berkeley and Cambridge,” and widely respected for his “track
record of success as a chief architect at two other technology companies,” Martin wants to operate on the
comfortable margins of the leadership team, and not be challenged there (Lencioni, 2002, pp. 21-22).
After Kathryn tells him to reschedule his sales meeting, Martin engineers an intervention by Jeff,
the former CEO. Kathryn skilfully negotiates Jeff’s clumsy and half-hearted intervention, and presents
her case and preserves her agenda with the same mixture of honesty, directness, and concern for the other
person’s ego that she wields in all of her coaching discussions throughout the book. Note, however, that
while Martin called in a powerful favor in service to his desire to remain autonomous and not be
challenged by priorities that conflict with his own, he is also trying to salvage an important sales call, and
thus to assist the company by coming up with new revenue and customers. His motives for trying to
work around Kathryn are not wholly selfish. He is simply not yet on board with her agenda.
2. Which team dysfunction does each person initially display? Cite specific examples of
behavior to justify your response.
Martin’s initial team dysfunction is Fear of Conflict. His emailed message regarding the sales
meeting that conflicts with Kathryn’s off-site is a marvel of conflict avoidance: it is sent to the entire
team (and not directly to Kathryn, whose off-site the sales meeting threatens), and it actually makes no
mention of the off-site at all. When confronted by Kathryn, he attempts to defend his priorities, seems to
acquiesce, and then covertly sends Jeff out in his defense. Thus, he perpetuates the conflict without
taking responsibility for it. His most telling action – which is also one of the dramatic highlights of the
book – is when he begins to loudly type on his laptop at the beginning of the first Napa offsite meeting.
Note that this strongly passive aggressive behavior (which non-verbally signals his negative reaction to
the topic of the conversation) occurs right at the point when the value of team members challenging each
other is first discussed:
After a pause, Carlos chimed in gently… “Now wait a minute, everyone. I agree that meetings
have been pretty dull and that the agenda is usually a little too full. But I think we all could have
challenged each other more. We certainly don’t all agree on everything.”
Nick spoke up. “I don’t think we agree on anything.”
They all laughed – except Martin, who had opened his laptop and turned it on.
(Lencioni, 2002, p. 47)
Within a few minutes, Martin is loudly typing, derailing the team’s progress and separating
himself from this apparently distasteful topic.
3. What strategies does Kathryn employ with each to move each to the position of being a
functional (rather than a dysfunctional) team member? How successful are these
strategies?
Kathryn is direct in her response to Martin. She could have emailed him about the scheduling
conflict, but chose instead to talk to him in his office. While blunt, her confrontation (like all of her
confrontations throughout the text) is not disrespectful. She simply states what she will repeat throughout
the first weeks of her tenure: “… I only have one priority at this point: we need to get our act together as
a team, or we’re not going to be selling anything” (Lencioni, 2002, page 31).
In response to Martin’s loud and inappropriate typing, Kathryn is again both direct and respectful.
She does not challenge his excuse that he was just taking notes, and (as she often does throughout the
book) she uses this single transgression as a teaching moment for the group, and establishes the ground
rules for all of their meetings going forward.
“Basically, I want you all to do two things: be present and participate. That means everyone
needs to be fully engaged in what we’re talking about….If there is ever a time… when we think
we’re wasting the group’s time by dealing with issues that should be dealt with outside the
meeting, then everyone should feel free to speak up…. But for everything else, I want everyone
fully engaged. And while I understand that some people prefer to use a computer than a
notebook, like you, Martin, I’ve found that it’s just too distracting. It’s easy to imagine the
person sitting there checking e-mail or working on something else.” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 50)
Note the care with which Kathryn chooses her words when she confronts the behavior she wishes
to change. The behavior remains the focus – not the person who performed the behavior, and certainly
not the manner in which Kathryn conducted the confrontation.
Simply put, Kathryn’s strategies involve good faith and a great deal of patience. As is noted in
several places in the text, she has seen all of these dysfunctional team behaviors before, and she can
generally predict when the leaders will resist her, and why. Battle-tested, experienced, and savvy, she
employs the same tactics with Martin that she employs with every other leader on her team: directness
(balanced with a keen appreciation and concern for each person’s ego), open-ended questions, a relentless
focus on her goals (exposing the team’s weaknesses and driving the team to success), and a deep love of
the process of leadership.
4. How does each person cope with the changes being required of him/her?
As noted above, Martin’s first response to the changes required of him is to decide to operate as if
those changes had no valence or worth. When that does not work, he becomes petulant. He is the last
person to arrive at the offsite, making a dramatic entrance just one minute before the meeting starts, and
he then disrupts the offsite at an important moment by loudly and blithely typing on his laptop. But, I
believe this last petulant action is actually the point at which his coping behaviors begin to change.
Kathryn clarifies for everyone that her problem with Martin’s typing is not personal or
idiosyncratic – he is simply affecting the team’s concentration and sense of cohesion and purpose. And
when she hears his concerns about the occasions when meetings stray into areas where one-on-one
conversations would make more sense, and agrees that team members should intervene at those points,
she validates his intelligence and point of view – without endangering her initial request. This is an
example of how a good leader like Kathryn can build commitment: allow for debate, acknowledge
contrary opinions, give a little ground where appropriate, and thus secure buy-in.
From this point on, Martin stops resisting and begins to cope by attempting to understand. Very
soon after he puts his laptop away, he actually begins to support and defend Kathryn (albeit in his dry and
sardonic manner). His joke about their competitors doing the same thing team-building work that they
are doing, only in Carmel and not Napa, may have been acerbic, but it stopped Mikey’s derailing tirade in
its tracks. Although it is out of his comfort zone (which he announces more than once), he takes part in
the hard work of being vulnerable and opening up to the team. He is honest about his strengths and
weaknesses after the team reviews their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator results, and seems genuinely
shocked and sorry to learn how his communication style is perceived by his peers. When he is confused
by Kathryn’s presentation of the third team dysfunction, he admits it, asks for clarification, and then
eagerly encourages her to move to the next dysfunction. And when his colleagues attack Kathryn’s
conclusion that the team is political, his dry and direct agreement with her definition of the term sways
many of them to her point of view.
The final reveal of the “changed Martin” comes when, in a seeming repeat of his earlier
disruptive behavior, he begins to type on his laptop again, just as Kathryn is starting to talk about the last
of the five dysfunctions. Suddenly aware that everyone is watching him type, he literally and figuratively
“opens up” by showing everyone the actual notes that he is keying on his laptop. He implicitly accepts
that his earlier typing disruption was inappropriate when he finishes Kathryn’s sentence about the
difficulty of holding peers accountable:
“I’m talking about that moment when you know you have to call one of your peers on something
that matters, and you decide to let it go because you just don’t want to experience that feeling
when…” She paused, and Martin finished the sentence for her: “… when you have to tell
someone to shut down their e-mail during meetings.” (Lencioni, 2002, p.98)
5. Describe the “fate” of each. A functional team player or not? When does each see the need
to make an adjustment to behavior… or leave?
Despite his early resistance, Martin becomes a functional team member. The joint customer
satisfaction meetings that he and Carlos hold after the first Napa offsite constitute “one of the few
glimmers of hope” that the offsite made a lasting impact on its participants (Lencioni, 2002, p. 117). And
when the first opportunity for the team to put its new team sensibilities into practice also puts his beloved
engineers into the cross-hairs (when Carlos asks the team to consider reallocating some of Martin’s
resources), Martin “took a deep breath, shook his head as if he were disagreeing with everything that had
been said, and then surprised everyone: ‘Okay, let’s figure this one out’” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 144). This
example of true teamwork – Martin putting his “second team” on the table for the sake of the goals of his
“first team” – proves the value of Kathryn’s team-building philosophy. In effect, Martin embraces and
directs the first tangible exercise of how a highly functional team should work in support of its key
priorities.
When Martin listened to Kathryn’s reasons why he should not use his laptop during the meeting,
and then actually turned that laptop off, “more than one of the staff members looked at Kathryn as if she
had just talked a bank robber into handing over his gun,” and the symbolic power of that act is difficult to
discount (Lencioni, 2002, p. 51). A bank robber without a gun is no longer a bank robber. A bank robber
who hands in his or her gun has in fact been transformed. This, then, is the point when Martin adjusts his
behavior. When Martin puts his laptop away and participates, he begins to let go of his need to be
autonomous and to stay in his comfort zone.
Jeff Shanley
1. What do you believe are each person’s initial concerns regarding Kathryn’s arrival?
While he never states it so directly, it is impossible not to believe that one of Jeff Shanley’s initial
concerns is, “where do I belong in this new team, reporting to this new CEO who took my job?” His
position when Kathryn arrives is an odd one. As a board member, he is one of the directors to whom
Kathryn must report. As the former CEO, he has knowledge and memory of the role that Kathryn has just
accepted. And as the VP of Business Development, he is a direct report to the new CEO. No person in
his situation could balance all of those former and current roles and experiences without some confusion.
Beyond his role confusion, Jeff is also concerned about redeeming himself. We learn from the
chapter titled “Backstory” that when DecisionTech was launched, it was widely expected to do very well.
We also learn that it has not done well, and that its popular CEO took much of the blame for the failure.
Throughout the book, Jeff and his colleagues refer directly and indirectly to his role in the company’s
struggles, and Jeff reveals his regret about his evident failure, as this example attests.
“And as painful as it’s been for me to sit here for the past few days and realize how unsuccessful
I’ve been in making us work like a team, we have a long way to go yet” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 112).
2. Which team dysfunction does each person initially display? Cite specific examples of
behavior to justify your response.
Jeff’s initial team dysfunction is Fear of Conflict. He does not support Kathryn, the new CEO,
when Martin approaches him in the parking lot to talk about the client meeting that is scheduled to occur
on the first day of the Napa offsite. Instead of coaching Martin to either accept Kathryn’s direction or
approach her again on his own, he enables Martin’s and the team’s dysfunction by becoming Martin’s
proxy and perpetuating the issue. And during his lunch with Kathryn, his fear of conflict makes him an
almost comically nervous figure:
(Jeff) paused, then worked up the courage to raise the issue that had provoked the lunch
invitation. Straightening his silverware nervously, he began… Kathryn was almost amused by
Jeff’s discomfort…. Again Jeff paused, hoping for his new boss to mercifully interrupt….”
(Lencioni, 2002, p. 33)
After the lunch, Jeff becomes as guilty of passive-aggressive conflict avoidance as Martin was earlier. He
demurs when Kathryn pushes back, but then immediately reaches out for help to the Chairman of the
Board, just as Martin had earlier reached out to him. “I just got off the phone with Jeff,” says the
Chairman only a few short hours after the lunch is over. Jeff puts Kathryn in an awkward position with
her mentor and forces her to negotiate more difficult waters on behalf of the offsite and her plans to
resurrect the senior leadership team (Lencioni, 2002, p. 35).
3. What strategies does Kathryn employ with each to move each to the position of being a
functional (rather than dysfunctional) team player? How successful are these strategies?
Kathryn employs many of the same strategies with Jeff that she employed with Martin. During
her lunch meeting with Jeff, she is pleasant and courteous, but also direct. Despite his evident discomfort,
she never rescues him as he fumbles to make Martin’s case; however, she still takes care to acknowledge
his emotions, ego, and concerns.
Kathryn chose her words carefully. “Jeff, I understand your opinion, and I’m fine with your
disagreeing with me, especially when you tell me face-to-face.”
Jeff was noticeably relieved, for the moment.
“However, I was hired to make this organization work, and right now it doesn’t.”
Jeff looked like he was trying to decide whether to be humbled or angry, so Kathryn clarified.
“I’m not trying to criticize what you’ve done so far, because it seems to me that no one cares
more about the company than you do.” His ego now assuaged, Kathryn drove the point home.
“But from a team standpoint, we are completely broken.” (Lencioni, 2002, pp. 33-34)
Kathryn’s method of dealing with Jeff is as effective with him as it was with Martin. True, after
she rebuffs him at lunch, Jeff does take his case to the Chairman of the Board. But when Kathryn deals
with the Chairman the same way that she dealt with Martin and Jeff, and when (despite all of these
interventions and discussions) the sales meeting is not allowed to interfere with Kathryn’s plans, Jeff
seems to accept Kathryn’s position and prerogatives. He offers no substantive or inappropriate resistance
from that point on in the book.
4. How does each person cope with the changes being required of him/her?
It is difficult not to conclude that Kathryn’s determination and fortitude begin to transfer to Jeff
soon after the resolution of the problem with the sales meeting and the Napa offsite. In fact, Jeff is the
first member of her team to say something supportive at the offsite – and he does so in a way that
showcases his burgeoning courage. Right after Mikey fussily declares that there is no passionate debate
in the group because they lack the time for it, he weighs in.
Kathryn sensed that the others might not agree with Mikey, but she wondered if anyone dared
challenge her. She was about to do so herself, when Jeff offered tentatively, “I’m not sure I’m
with you on that one, Mikey. I don’t think we lack the time to argue. I think we’re just not
comfortable challenging each other. And I’m not sure why.” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 46)
Granted, Jeff’s pushback is described as tentative, but this is Mikey, after all, and no one else has the
courage to take her on so early in the offsite meeting.
Soon after, when Martin admits that he likes “to have conversations with people on a purely
intellectual level and not have to worry about what they’re feeling or anything like that,” Jeff decides to
“take a risk” and confront Martin with the ramifications of his communication style. “The problem is that
it can sometimes make people think that you don’t like them. That they’re a waste of your time.” Martin
listens to this direct comment from Jeff – as if it’s the first time that he has ever heard such a thing – and
though he is “visibly disappointed,” he accepts it, and supposes that he “can see how it comes across that
way.” This is a clear break-through for both of these men (Lencioni, 2002, p. 69).
By the time Kathryn works her way to the fourth dysfunction (Avoidance of Accountability), Jeff
has a revelation about his own personal initial team dysfunction. “OK, I see where conflict fits in. Even
if people are generally willing to commit, they aren’t going to do so because…” And Carlos helpfully
completes his thought: “… because they need to weigh in before they can really buy in” (Lencioni, 2002,
p. 96). When the team is feeling flush about how quickly they are able to agree on their first overarching
goal, and some of the members push to suspend the offsite meetings, Jeff’s comes to Kathryn’s aid. His
comments help salvage the off-sites, and (as noted above) also reflect his ongoing acceptance of his
culpability in the company’s predicament:
“I’d have to say that canceling our next session in two weeks would be a bad idea. I just think
that when we go back to work, it’s going to be easy to slip back into the same stuff we’ve been
struggling with for the past couple years. And as painful as it’s been for me to sit here for the
past few days and realize how unsuccessful I’ve been in making us work like a team, we have a
long way to go yet.” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 112)
5. Describe the “fate” of each. A functional team player or not? When does each see the need
to make an adjustment to behavior… or leave?
As noted above, Jeff plays an odd role at the beginning of the book (board member, former CEO,
and direct report to the current CEO, all at once). However, his task at the end of the book is seemingly
even odder: he proves that he is a fully functional member of Kathryn’s team by leaving that team, and
taking a second demotion (reporting to Nick, the COO, who was a former peer).
In fact, his decision is not really so odd; it’s really rather noble. He does not leave the team
because he cannot work well with Kathryn or his colleagues, or because he disagrees with the team’s
direction, or because he has a different and personal agenda. He leaves because it’s the right thing to do –
because his talents and experience fit better in Nick’s organization. “You guys,” says Kathryn to Jeff’s
former peers, who are stunned by his quick departure and assume that Kathryn has forced him out, “this
was Jeff’s idea” (Lencioni, 2002, p. 184).
There is no clearer depiction in the book of “attention to results” in action. There is no clearer
depiction of putting one’s personal needs second to the needs of the team.
One could argue that this is Jeff’s point of change – that, in a bit of perverse logic, he decides not
to leave the team when he decides to leave it. I would counter that Jeff, like Martin, changed early – that
when faced with Kathryn’s cool, professional, courteous but unmovable demeanor during the conflict
about the sales meeting and the Napa offsite, he decided to stay and learn from her. But that does not
mean that his final and self-imposed job change is not a powerful and meaningful point of change for
him, and a crucial symbol for his colleagues and for the readers of the book. Jeff is introduced to the
reader as a confused and conflicted professional, pitied by colleagues and rank and file employees for
being forced out of a job that he did not like and could not make work. By the end of the book, he is
more forthright, clear-headed, supportive, honest, and active, and his second demotion is actually an
intentional, freely-selected, tactical move. After a hard period of confusion over his role and rueful
sadness about his failure to perform as CEO, Jeff finds his best team, his best role, and himself.
References
Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.