Question

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 1/83

M

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible due Jun 27

Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers 91 94

Search entries or author

L Reply

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model? How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety? Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader? Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

Original forum posts should be a minimum of 500 words long. Successful forum posts draw explicitly, consistently, and thoughtfully on the

week's material.

The two responses to colleagues should be at least 150 words each.

ALL POSTS DUE SUNDAY THIS WEEK, BY 11:55pm

Forum grading rubric:

Criteria Your Score

Synthesis /40

Participation /30

Written Communication

/30

Total /100

Unread c > 1 Subscribe

(https:// Krista Gillispie (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/376) M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 2/83

Jun 22, 2021

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

I think Patrick Lencioni’s model makes perfect sense when it comes to working in teams or with a team. There are so many different things you have to take into consideration when working as a team to accomplish the same goals. The one that stuck out to me the most was the foundation of the pyramid, which was the “absence of trust.” Currently, my department is in chaos, and no one works as a team at all. The main problem is that no one trusts their co- workers at all. There is a lot of “bad blood” over the years in my department. It runs deeper than that though. There is no trust with our administration leaders either. Everyone runs on fear of saying the wrong thing, offending someone, and getting reprimanded for it, so tensions continue to rise. However, the book mentions being open and vulnerable in situations like ours that are hard to come by because it needs to start from the top first.

It may come across too many that I disagree with what the book says, but that just is not the case. I completely agree with what it is saying, it's simply hard to accomplish that until senior- level leadership does it first. It was interesting to read and see how things grow on top of each other. Take the next step up which is conflict. If you do not trust your leaders or co-workers, you won’t truly be able to solve conflict because there will be no meaningful discussion because of fear. It later leads to where no one wants to be held accountable for anything and will pass blame.

Working as a team with many different personalities is difficult but rewarding in the end if everyone can come together. This week’s reading has given me a lot of ideas and a better understanding of those needs to be done to fix the actual problem.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build more effective teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

Moving forward, I will be working on what I would consider the core of the pyramid: trust. Without trust, your team has nothing and likely will fail. Getting people together and showing assurance that they are “safe” to speak freely will allow us to figure out the root cause of the problem. Otherwise, I feel we will continue to spiral downwards. Getting people to admit to their weaknesses and to ask for help when they need it is a good first step.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 3/83

L Reply

Juror # 12 in Angry Men utilized this model almost right away. Everyone was sure the man was guilty except for number 8. There was a lack of trust that was only proven more as the movie went on. We only later found out that 2 members were set out for personal grudges from their own feelings to find this man guilty. However, they did not relay these feelings until near the end. Their true feelings were not being addressed or heard perhaps out of fear of conflict. They kept on with vile comments and emotions ran high.

Juror number 8 kept building on his doubts and eventually was able to let the others see reason. He was often found asking other members what their new vote was. He was trying to get them to commit to an answer.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I think juror number 8 could be considered a level 5 leader. He thought things through in detail and took a risk going alone with a not guilty opinion. He did what Jim Collins said in his article in week one. “In order to be a level 5 leader, one must have the ability to “build enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will.” Juror number 8 never took credit for knowing what the actual truth was but was brave enough to express reasonable doubt. He cared about the man's life and wanted to be sure of his answer before having a man put to death. He looked at the evidence, saw the entire picture, and did not just go off instinct as others did. In my opinion, this makes him a level 5 leader. He stayed calm and collected even in the middle of a chose room full of angry men.

(http Teresa Ryan (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/249) Jun 22, 2021

M

Krista,

I like to do my response in word before posting or reading anyone else's comments and I see your same comment on trust. It truly is the foundation of a team and as Lencioni states the ripple effect from not having that from the beginning is devastating. I could almost guess the next dysfunctions to occur as I have experienced in my own personal and professional life. Many times to avoid conflict, I have taken on many tasks that were not my own because not only do I not want there to be conflict, but I avoid accountability in groups where I have to work with them on a regular basis. I also am naturally a worker and teacher at heart. I enjoy reading, researching and mostly writing. So, I think I talk myself into using those missteps from a group member as a teaching moment but then I end up doing it the correct way to avoid any embarrassment from that person or hurt feelings. That is the step I must work on from this model. Seeing the words (that I knew already) really resonated with me. “A team that avoids accountability encourages mediocrity..." This is so true - if we do not set a high bar, there will never be greater

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 4/83

L Reply

achievements than the hardest working person. And if we do not share that same standard, it all falls on one person.

I am sorry to read there is such a trust issue in your team. I think it is a great goal for you to work towards and in turn perhaps others will follow your lead.

Thank you for a great, early post :)

Teresa

(http Kimberly Brenneman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2693) Jun 24, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Krista,

I am experiencing a similar very dynamic in my office, and it can be so frustrating sometimes. When there is no trust, there is no foundation for growth, and the tension is just awful. The potential to be a well-organized unit is lost because of a lack of structural integrity within. I do not think you are in disagreement with the concepts posed by the reading, rather like me, you are unable to relate real-life with the contrasting ideas being introduced. It is tough to comprehend when dysfunction is all you have to compare a seemingly normal model to. Various personalities make establishing confidence within an organization tricky to navigate, too. On the super rare occasion when all elements are aligned, the outcome is usually pretty inspiring and makes one curious about why it can't just always be that way. However, c'est la vie. If only we could encourage our crews to consider any of the points referenced in this reading. Great post!

(http Dennis Wilson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2706) Saturday

M

Good afternoon Krista,

Thank you for sharing your office troubles. You bring up an interesting point here. Supervisors may be more inclined to ignore certain behaviors to avoid civil complaints. Of course, I am not saying this is your office’s issue, but it very well could be. For instance, if the problem employees could bring lawsuits or equal opportunity complaints against leadership, they may be less inclined to deal with the problem. Certainly, this is not an excuse at all; however, some supervisors may believe it is a justified reason to ignore the problem. In my career, I have found there are numerous methods to deal with problem

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 5/83

L Reply

people who believe they have the upper hand when supervisors fear reprisal. For instance, I like how Kathryn dealt with Mikey in the readings. Kathryn recognized Mikey’s talents, but also let her know that she was detrimental to the team. Mikey kicked and screamed at first and even threatened Kathryn, but in the end, even she could not deny the facts when calmly presented to her. Sure, this all sounds good in writing, but having leadership have the gul to put it in practice is another thing.

As far as Juror 8, I agree with you. I felt that Davis was a Level 5 leader from the start of the movie. Sure, there was a little game theory involved in the process, but I believe he used his leadership skills to make others see what was wrong. When the jurors went into the chamber, they had a clear goal, there is no debating that. All Juror 8 did was to convince people to take responsibility in their assigned tasks since a man’s life was on the line. He presented doubts in the system. Doubt’s others had not considered because they were focused on their own personal lack of commitment to the cause and failures to accept results beyond their own. For instance, Juror 7’s focus to be at the garden and Juror 3’s personal issues with his own son.

At any rate, I enjoyed reading your post.

Take care!

v/r

DJ Wilson

(http Alexandra Howard (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1059) Sunday

M

Hi Krista!

I think it's interesting how many people want to focus on trust, myself included. I know there's a reason why it's the base of the pyramid so seeing several people mention it seems logical.

I wasn't sure that Juror 8 was trying to get the others to commit to their decision or that he thought with each vote that one or two more jurors may feel more comfortable or likely to change their mind, basically with a vote after each layer of doubt was discussed.

I completely agree with the level 5 leadership expressed in juror 8. Even in that initial vote, it felt like one or two of the jurors may not have thought the defendant was guilty but after seeing hands raised, felt compelled to raise their hands just to be part of the more popular opinion. Juror 8 was brave to stand alone in his opinion and to persist through each piece of evidence. Even in advance going out and finding the matching knife. He had no way of

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 6/83

L Reply

knowing how the other jurors may vote but was determined to understand all the facts of the case and saw the big picture - and relayed this in a calm, non-intimidating manner.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Krista

Thanks for the thoughts and the share re: your current situation. What would it look like if you and a small group of colleagues read and discussed Lencioni or something like it? How might you help build even a small trust "beachhead"?

PR

(http Lauren Irvine (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1058) Sunday

L Reply

M

Krista-

Lack of trust is something that my department struggles with as well. It is unfortunate that we cannot be our true selves because we have to watch what we say. If I bring up something to the supervisor that needs to be addressed, I am called a snitch. If I address someone who made a mistake, it is brushed off. I want to just keep to myself, but whatever I do will be the wrong thing. I will agree with you that it is definitely hard to accomplish the openness and vulnerability within our team without management and leadership actually doing it by example.

On another note, I believe that Juror #8 is a level 5 leader as well for mostly the same reasons you mentioned. I respect that level 5 leaders do not take all of the credit. They take risks, but ones that are worth it. He was able to put aside the phycological safety in order to be fair to this man's life.

Lauren

(http Robert Brown (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1085) M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 7/83

Sunday

L Reply

Hi Krista -- first, it's unfortunate that you are experiencing so many difficulties in your current workplace given the prevailing lack of trust you (and I assume many others) feel both, among your lateral colleagues and your hierarchical superiors. I agree with you both you and Lencioni in that trust is truly foundational to the success (or lack thereof) that a team experiences. When mistrust pervades an organization, the requisite sense of connectivity needed to work through an operational agenda or towards a single mission goal can simply never manifest. I also agree that it is incumbent upon leadership to facilitate and promote through culture, policy and personal example ways in which to defy Lencioni's factors of dysfunction, and inside embrace and encourage a sense of "psychological safety" for constituents of an organization.

I also fully agree with your assessment of Juror #8 vis-a-vis Collins' "Level 5" leadership archetype. Throughout the movie (and due in large part to Fonda's brilliant acting), Juror #8 demonstrate a keen awareness of the personalities which surrounded him, leading them to buy-in to the process of a careful and cautious deliberation, rather than remaining convince of their initial votes due to circumstances or inclinations that actually might have very little to do with the true and fast facts of the case.

(https:// Teresa Ryan (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/249) Jun 22, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

In reading this book/model of the five dysfunctions, it was almost like I could guess the next step based on the first solid foundation of distrust. In any situation where you are working as a team towards the same goal there must first be trust. My experiences with teams are that we must first establish a common goal, knowing that we will be working towards the same thing helps us build a relationship of trust. Talking openly about our strengths and weaknesses as Lencioni brings up is something I practice as well with my team. We also do a team building to encourage each other to work on their weaknesses to become strengths. This is something that takes patience and humility. To know you can trust that your team will not use it against you is crucial. I think about these steps not only in my personal and professional life but I look at our nation as well and our leadership far above our day to day lives. We must trust in our leaders to do what we feel is for the people. Even if we did not vote that way, we must find a way to trust them and hope they make good decisions for our futures, our safety and our relationships outside of this country. I look at our military persons, law enforcement and first

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 8/83

responders. We, the people, must have trust in them. We must believe they are honorable and have our best interest at heart. Without that, there is chaos, there is distrust in the neighborhoods if we cannot trust them. In past and current events alone, we look at police brutality and the impact distrust has caused for our friends, family and neighbors. We must take this first step to avoid the next as Lencioni outlines, fear and conflict. And it must be earned, no matter your rank or position held.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I will be working on dysfunction #4 going forward. I have a bad habit of avoiding accountability and taking on the role of the weaker person as well as my own. While I try to make it a teachable moment, I often do so too gently and without a clear direction that that person needs to own it and correct it. Instead, I do it as I am telling them they have missed the mark. Reading the following script hit me hard, and I knew it all along, but I need to work on telling myself, it is not up to me to pick up the slack for others.

“A team that avoids accountability encourages mediocrity…” WOW, this is so true. If we set a low bar, how will anyone ever rise to a full potential.

This has also happened in classes (not UVA of course) in the past with group work. I have taken on many roles to insure the work is done and done at a high level of competency.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

This movie was fascinating. I had seen it before, many years ago! (I work in the Courts here in my County and have been in the legal field for 20 years in some capacity, so I had a phase of watching movies like this.) Re-watching it after reading Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model, it is clear juror #8 practiced true leadership in the deliberation room. He had to earn the trust of all the others in that room, work through conflict, get others to commit to the right decision and not just to go with the status quo. He also had to hold all the others accountable for their “guilty” verdict. Asking them why, how, calling them out in a sense to make them take ownership for such a serious verdict. He also was up against several (juror #3 in particular about the inattention to results. They had to work through their personal feelings about this crime and any pre-disposed thoughts going in. The judge was clear that if there was any doubt, they must find him not guilty. I commend juror #8 for his calm delivery to the others that were all against him in the beginning. He had to take on very “angry men” to have them see it his way. He was fighting alone, but kept to his beliefs and was able to get those men to join him.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 9/83

L Reply

A true level 5 leader will work through division and conflict. In week 1 we see Jim Collins talk about a level 5 leader must be a person that remains calm under pressure and “attend to people first, strategy second.” (Collins, p2) Juror #8 was committed to doing what he thought was right and was able to lead the others to make a more rational decision based on evidence and not any predisposed judgments they had going in and seeing the defendant and hearing testimony.

(http Slava Akerman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1145) Jun 23, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Teresa,

That was a great read. I enjoyed reading your approach to areas you are lacking at. Accountability and results, which are officially the hardest attributes to concur with, had the most influence on an organization. Although I do not think that the module should be a pyramid shape, it should be equal space for all sections (because they are all important). There are people that are lacking trust (in the full sense of the word) in people working under them but still manage to get the work done. People may lack in more than one area but if they generate the results, I will still consider them a great leader. Those individuals should work on those areas and make their lives easier. I know I lack in that sense something having trust in the team, but still go back and double-check the work.

I like the quote that you provided from the book “attend to people first, strategy second.” (Collins, p2) I do see it as one of the more important priorities of a company. Take care of the people and they will take care of the company.

Slava

(http Teresa Ryan (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/249) Jun 24, 2021

M

Thank you for your response. Being a business owner I couldn’t agree more with your closing. Take care of the people and they will take care of the business.

While I have a hard time with accountability I guess I should add the deeper problem which is, after a while I build resentment towards that person but it is only my own

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 10/83

L Reply

fault. I am not doing any favors by doing the work for them and moving on. I don’t do it for my children so I shouldn’t do it in my professional life either.

(http Kimberly Brenneman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2693) Jun 25, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Teresa,

I really appreciate your position on accountability- you are absolutely right! Your observations connecting this chapter to real-life are spot on. I think that demonstrating a task for someone is completely acceptable. Still, if the expectation becomes repetitive, that will only encourage the person not to put forth the required effort later. It is cool that you recognize having a habit of doing this; I am guilty of it and understand how hard it can be to find that balance between enabling and empowering. Group assignments are a solid comparison we can all relate to. While most people are here to succeed, there are always a few who do not consider certain projects worthy of maximum effort. When a motivated student detects a hint of mediocre work that will affect their grade, the trust dissolves, and ownership becomes questionable. This is where proper leadership is vital to provide guidance and direction.

(http Dennis Wilson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2706) Saturday

M

Good afternoon Teresa,

Thank you for sharing your own challenges with accountability. Interesting enough, in the “The Five Dysfunctions,” and “12 Angry Men,” I thought they did a good job showing how this dysfunction is detrimental to the success of the team. First, in “The Five,” nobody wanted to hold JR, Matin, or Mikey accountable for their actions. However, that all changed once Kathryn took over. For instance, and I know that I like to pick on Mikey, but she left the biggest impression on me. When she showed up to meetings and just rolled her eyes. Kathryn called her out and eventually, the team did to. I bring this up because, in the “The Five” and “12 Angry Men,” it took the team calling out team members. Look at Juror 10 whose racial/cultural biases hindered him seeing the bigger picture. The entire team stood up and turned their backs on him. Not saying your office needs to do that, but I want to point out, not all issues are for one single team member to solve. If the collective team addresses the problem, that could be enough to change dysfunctional behaviors. Of course, I am no expert on leadership since my office has their own issues.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 11/83

L Reply

Anyway, great post!

v/r

DJ Wilson

(http Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) Sunday

Edited by Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) on Jun 27 at 6:39pm

L Reply

M

Hi Dennis,

Your response to Teresa's post is spot on. I kept getting annoyed with Mikey the entire time, but actually was surprised she was the one fired. At the start of the book, I thought Martin will be the most insubordinate of them all, but Mikey clearly had this attitude of superiority and clear lack of understanding how to work with a team. Kathryn calling her out was a true demonstration of leadership; seems to me the team's morale was falling apart while these sort of things were going on prior to Kathryn's arrival. When such issues exist and go unaddressed, they end up eroding the team from within. To me, Mikey was a true representation of a person not willing to commit -- she was refusing to acknowledge the other members of her team, their input, and presented her way was the only way. She was unwilling to have an open mind. Your comparison to the situation in the deliberating room in 12 Angry Men is very accurate -- the men whose personal biases, preconceived judgement and stereotyping resembled Mikey's unwillingness to be a team player. The juror was quietly "called out" by everyone turning their backs on him, as he continued to rant. Great leadership can weed out negative, toxic people and/ or perhaps help them see the bigger picture.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

M

Hey Teresa,

I'll get started with one of my favorite questions and pose it to you FIRST! :)

Did Juror #8 have the "end in mind" the whole time? Was he really just open to inquiry or did he believe "not guilty" and from the start intentionally move the jury to that verdict?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 12/83

L Reply

PR

(http Lauren Irvine (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1058) Sunday

L Reply

M

Teresa

I may end up sharing some of these resources and materials with my supervisor when we have our team meetings. You mentioned you openly share strengths and weaknesses among your team. I think that would be a good exercise for us because if we were to open up about things like that, it would eventually make us a stronger team. I encourage people to come to me (or anyone else) if they have found a mistake that was made. It is more efficient if we are able to recognize what we did wrong instead of just pushing it off. That way, in the future, we can prevent more mistakes and will not be as frustrated with each other when we have to correct mistakes. This reminds me of the quote you included about avoiding accountability encourages mediocracy. You are right - there is not a chance for full potential if we are not holding everyone accountable.

Lauren

(https:// Adam Black (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1101) Jun 22, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni's "Five Dysfunctions" model?

The foundation of Patrick Lencioni's five dysfunctions of a team is the absence of trust. According to this model, without trust will result in the further dysfunctions occurring. Experiences I have had that relate to this key dysfunction of trust is when I worked at a different rehab company and another organization bought them out. The new company kept all the remaining therapists but brought in new management staff. It was rumored that this new company thought about laying off some therapists, which because of this, many therapists were reluctant to display any mistakes. Furthermore, according to Lencioni (2002), "team members who are not generally open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation of trust (p.188)." This issue carried on and even

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 13/83

Edited by Adam Black (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1101) on Jun 22 at 7:10pm

L Reply

resulted in some turnover, but whence trust between managers and employees where ensure this issue was resolved.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

As the model goes in order trust, conflict, commitment, accountability, and results, so do the process of dealing with the conflict in 12 Angry Men. Juror # 8 first starts by admitting that he might be wrong, which builds his foundation of trust. This building of trust leads to the other Jurors delivering their passionate debate on the conflict. When more information is divulged through debate, Jurors start to buy in and commit to a not guilty plea. The others who are still pleading guilty are forced by Juror # 8 to say why they're still pleading guilty. This leads to the top of the model, results, which is when the final Juror puts his personal conflict with his son apart through his plea decision.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Juror # 8 is absolutely a level 5 leader. Juror # 8 starts with personal humility by admitting that he might be wrong. From the beginning, we see him have commitment and strong personal will to not stop talking until all aspects of this trial are discussed. He organizes the other Jurors and uses resources such as the knife and apartment layout to discuss the issues of the trial. He asks for the accountability of every Juror to defend their decision. I think Jurors like Juror #8 need to be in every trial. He has a true sense of open-mindedness and commitment to the truth.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

To help build psychological safety at my workplace I believe we should start with not interrupting one another. When people are cut off from voicing their opinions, it is usually received as that opinion being judged. We need it to be set clear that interruptions will not be allowed. Next, I believe during my workplace meetings in which there is a time limit, everyone should have their turn speaking on a given issue. Certain people try to be persistent in voicing their issues without others being able to express their own. This will help advance my KLCs in that it will help support my organization and help strengthen the ability to form agreements with others.

References

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Basss.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 14/83

(http Pamela Witt (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/147) Jun 23, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Adam,

I like the emphasis you put in trust being the foundation of the dysfunctions, I think we all have had similar experiences where the lack of trust or lack of phycological safety at work, was a domino effect for the other four dysfunctions. They certainly tie in together. At first, I found it a bit intimidating how challenging it is to be constantly keeping tabs of all the dysfunctions in order to succeed but there is no way around it and I think that everything plays out in a more organic if that strong trust foundation is present.

As far as juror #8 being a great leader and the process he followed, I have to agree with you. I think that after comparing/contrasting his course of action through the discussion with the other jurors you can find clear examples alluding to the 5 team dysfunctions plus attribute juror#8 with humility and determination.

(http Krista Gillispie (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/376) Jun 24, 2021

L Reply

M

Adam,

You brought up some great points in your post. I particularly liked that you talked about trust and how if it's not played out correctly can lead to turnovers and mistrust among employees and managers. It was a perfect example that if the foundation isn't set properly, everything else can start to crumble.

I agree that juror number 8 is a level, 5 leader. He was able to show patience and look at the complete picture and not rushing through the evidence. you mentioned that he had open-mindedness, which again I agree with. I think that is a problem that many people struggle with in possessing.

It sounds like you have a plan that you can start to build upon. Not interrupting and letting people have a voice and opinion in situations will go a long way for trust and respect. I think a lot of organizations struggle with this and don't let their employees voice their opinions much. We have this problem in my organization as well and is something I would want to change as a future manager.

Nice Post,

Krista G.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 15/83

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Adam

Anything else you see Juror #8 to do build psychological safety in the room/with specific individuals?

PR

(http Robert Brown (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1085) Sunday

L Reply

M

Adam, I like and agree with many of your takeaways from this week's reading. I agree (as it seems many others do) that Juror #8 definitely displayed the qualities attendant to a "Level 5" leader. His careful, deliberate (and unyielding) commitment to the process of deliberation, despite the inclination or outside agendas of the other jurors, clearly falls in line with Collins' definition of such a leader. I also like your specific observation about the establishment of trust in the jury room by Juror #8's demonstration of humility in the opening scenes of the film, when he admits that he may be wrong in his initial contradictory vote--and needs to give further deliberation, as to the others, to the fate that the group will ultimately render to the defendant. This is somewhat assuming, but nonetheless important, demonstration of Level 5 leadership -- whereby Juror #8 leads by example, with humility, and upon sincere conviction -- rather than with a gregarious or otherwise off-putting display.

(https:// Jagdeesh Bhattal (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1090) Jun 23, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

In the beginning, Katheryn is just taking inventory. This is something we advocated for newly hired Directors for Sporting Organizations and NPO’s that I oversaw. Too often people want to come in and imprint their personality on an organization. I caution that the first thing needed is to understand the organization. Internal reality is vastly

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 16/83

different from external opinions. So, it is wise to take the time and internalize the 365 views of an organization. Depending on the size and complexity of the organization’s objectives, this could take from 3-9 months. “She believed that as long as the board would give her enough time and leeway” (Alex M, I will take this to the sporting world I know so well ) This is a huge factor in success. Kevin Kelley is an American high school football coach, who never punts the ball. And if you look at the statistics, he is right. But can you imagine an NFL coach not punting on 4 and 5, never? Alex Ferguson (retired Manchester United manager) Completely changed the mindset of International soccer “you can’t win anything with kids” Ferguson introduced the class of 92. What these 2 have in common is unwavering support from their leadership, without confidence, people are less willing to take risks. One of the first things I tell my kids I coach is to take risks, they won’t be punished. It is up to me to tell them what kind of risks are the right ones to take The conflict between the Sales meeting and the retreat is one I am familiar with. When people lack vision or purpose, they lose sight of the big picture. Then I would have colleagues turtle in and fall back to what they believe are their strengths. This is very common and short-sighted. Katheryn is 100% acting the part of a leader, in understanding this is nothing but short-term gain. It also allows for individuals to prove their worth, by saying “hey look, I am doing my part, even if the ship is sinking” “I’m not saying this to call out Jeff, or anyone else, in particular. It’s just a fact.” I am surprised by how cultural this is. And I openly admit my fault and lack of patience here. In other parts of the world that I have loved in if I make a mistake, my colleagues’ point it out to me, and sometimes not so politely. I am currently the chair for a local charity, and we are having trouble with a board member who is way out of their depth, and is so transparent about their private agenda, that I have had more than a few discussions on what I thought was just stating facts and trying to move to a solution. Here is a comment from another board member “Deesh, you get a blue ribbon for forthrightness.” But if you don’t identify the cause, how do come up with a solution? “I see a trust problem here is the lack of debate that exists during staff meetings” Katheryn or rather Lencioni, has in my opinion accurately identified the key component for me. Toyota famously did this with their product groups, believing that if team members who are in sync argue about the headlight, the end result will be a better headlight. We hold post-match evaluations of everything from prep to managing decisions. And everyone is susceptible to criticism because we know it comes with honest intention i.e., trust.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

I will be brief here as I have already written way too much. The tactic employed by Juror#8 and Katheryn is the ability to get to the conclusion by pulling not pushing.

th

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 17/83

This distinction to me is nuanced and critical. They ask questions, they don’t attack, they don’t cajole. They persist by staying on message and looking at the issue and avoiding personal commentary. The juror stays calm and patient throughout. And stays focused on the case and does not give up until he leads the team to what we believe is the truth. In the beginning, he states he just wants to talk about the case, not automatically hand down a guilty verdict. He doesn’t say he wants to change minds. The psychological safety manifests itself by using different persuasion tactics, but not being combative. He uses imagery to recreate the scene. By showing the old man could not do what he said he did, he changes one opinion. He uses hard evidence (the knife). He asks questions like what a black defendant could not be believed. But a black witness could. The safety is that jurors change their minds without fear of loss of self-esteem or ego.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Juror #8 shows humility by not announcing that he is smarter or otherwise better than the other jurors. He just wants to talk and ask some questions. His will displayed by not giving up and ensuring that the innocent man is found not guilty. At those surface traits, #8 is level 5, but I think it is too short a time period, what is his enduring legacy, did all the other jurors go away better individuals who are not racist anymore? It was transformative for the accused, but how about the other people in the film?

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

In the areas in which I can influence, I think the biggest thing is getting the right people on the bus. I am very good at staying on task, despite any personal issues I might have. I have of course played with individuals I have disliked. But as long as we contributed to the same end goal, it was ok not to be personal friends. But often I come into a situation like Katheryn who has to deal with legacy personalities. My dilemma is that I recognize they are not the right fit but do I try to change them or replace them? Neither solution is necessarily clean, and I am not better at one than the other. And I also need to figure out the cultural sensitivities to understand how to critique better and have people understand that it is not their self-worth, but maybe they just made a lousy pass. Someone help me out, I had a parent tell me all season that their kid was a striker, and one game due to an injury the player got to start up front. In 90 mins the player took 6 touches and hit one ball that was closer to the corner flag than the goal. (Paul is howling at this) After the game, the parent approached me why I didn’t play their kid more as a striker. My response got me a call with the higher-ups the next day

.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 18/83

L Reply

(http Pamela Witt (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/147) Jun 23, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Deesh, I appreciate your insightful observations and comments of the book and how you apply the dysfunctions to your personal experience as a soccer coach and charity board member, I can only imagine the demand of full awareness when leading kids or being part of a board.

Like you, I paid special attention to the trust section of the dysfunctions because as Lencioni's put it, it is the foundation of everything, to make your team be vulnerable enough to take risks and not be afraid of backlash or ridicule and I really liked your reference to the kids "One of the first things I tell my kids I coach is to take risks, they won’t be punished. It is up to me to tell them what kind of risks are the right ones to take" that pretty much sums up what trust is all about as far the dysfunction pyramid. The leader (you in this case) is there to steer and guide the team as they navigate through their vulnerability and take risks.

"as long as we contributed to the same end goal, it was ok not to be personal friends" Deesh I have been through this many times and it shows a level of maturity and professionalism that is required in successful teams, I think that you do not need to be friends to be successful team members/co-workers.

Great post!

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

M

Hey Deesh

The 'asking questions' piece you mention is really critical -- and increasingly is a differentiator for leaders. For much of our careers, we're rewarded for having the answers. As we ascend and when we really want to have broader impact, asking the right questions becomes a key leadership skill --- and that can be a hard pivot for those of us who really LOVE being a subject matter expert.

I had an executive recently share this with me, too: "If I have the last word, I try to never have the first word" -- in other words, let inquiry and discussion open up without biasing it

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 19/83

L Reply

and then jumping in with questions along the way.

PR

(http Paul Roberts (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1051) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hi Deesh,

I did have a good chuckle!

We have all been in the meetings and made a suggestion or pointed out a potential roadblock and then the question well what is your solution pops up? This is and has always been a frustration for me. Whether I knew about it beforehand or learned about it in a meeting this type of confrontation is not good. Some folks are able to identify pitfalls and roadblocks from a technical and strategic perspective and not engineer a solution on the spot.

Conflict is healthy and needed, whether on the board or with a parent having to explain that they are not the next Messi. It is not always received as it was intended but without it, there are unrealistic expectations and beliefs. This is a hard one to get right. Too hard and you are the rude and insensitive one, to relaxed and you are not clear or honest. It is a balance where I have always tried to practice, clear, firm, and direct.

(https:// Pamela Witt (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/147) Jun 23, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

According to Lencioni's pyramid model of team dysfunctions being:

1. Absence of trust

2. Fear of conflict

3. Lack of commitment

4. Avoidance of accountability

5. Inattention to results

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 20/83

In regards to past experiences within a team (this one is negative), I would need to go back to my first and second semester at Uva with my couple of first business classes. There was a clear absence of trust among the team members namely, unwillingness to be vulnerable within the group. Fear of conflict came from team members that needed to step up to the stronger, more opinionated members yet they/we did not and it was necessary many times, tensions only grew from there. Commitment was there but at an individual level so all the work was done and we got a good grade YET that was to achieve an individual A and not regarding group results at all tying into the the third dysfunction: lack of commitment (to the group that was). There was very little accountability and if when there was peer reviews, the comments came across as negative and not constructive. Being with that group for a whole year definitely did a number on my stress levels and attitudes towards finishing my degree at UVa. The positive side of the experience was learning what NOT TO DO while working in teams.

Luckily for me, the third, fourth and fifth semesters I worked with wonderful teams on my business classes which are very demanding, technical and challenging. Trust was organically present, we confronted each other in a constructive and respectful manner, we were all committed to the success of the group, held each other accountable without fearing back-lash and obtained great results! Some of the team members I worked with have successfully graduated from BIS and some are in this class so in you read this post, thank you for working with me in a positive, constructive team environment with no to very little dysfunctions :)

- Alexander Morrison

- Dan Lepore

- John Napotnik

- Alexandra Howard

- Jessica Bauer

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

Mr. Davis attempted to create trust among the group by being vulnerable and honest about his desire to discuss the case because it was the right thing to do. He open the door to conflict but attempted throughout the discussion to keep things as respectful as was in his power. His commitment to bring true justice to the boy in question spread among the jurors and they all started turning their verdicts. Mr. Davis made sure to keep everyone accountable reminding them a life was in their hands and the seriousness of the outcome, he had a result in mind and communicated it so clearly to the other jurors. In the end the end goal was achieved and the boy acquitted thanks to Mr. Davis, his determination and team leader skills.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 21/83

L Reply

In regards to psychological safety at the workplace which according to Harvard professor Amy Edmondson is "making people feel that they can take emotional or relational risks in the organization (Johnson, p. 121)", It seemed that Mr. Davis was able to create trust among the jurors by being vulnerable first. Being opposed to eleven "angry men" required courage which is part of being vulnerable and establishing trust among peers to do the same and follow the lead.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Juror #8, Mr. Davis, an architect (which we learn at the end of the movie) took the lead from the very beginning. He was humble yet stern and determined in what he wanted to accomplish and those are traits from a level 5 leader. He only stepped on people's toes enough to open discussion and needed conflict as a boy's life was at stake. He showed respect towards others and I liked how he helped one of the most difficult men in the group get his coat on when it was time to go. He reminded of Kathryn, the new CEO from Lencioni's book and how the juror's room was full of "Mikeys" (the difficult marketing leader from Decision Tech, Inc.)

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I believe that starting to address team dysfunctions at work in Lencioni's order is a great idea, trust being the first step. That is something we have at work although we do not work in teams, my insurance agency is considered a team by our corporate office and we are essentially a team in spite of working individually. I would say I need to focus of conflict and accountability, sometimes my coworkers do not do their job well and instead of calling them out for it I fix their errors on my end, sometimes without bringing it to their attention because it takes too much time that I usually do not have but that is ultimately just enhancing the problem. My boss needs to focus on attentions to results and making his agency team accountable.

My KLC is about self confidence which I am already feeling more confident in my leadership knowledge from what we have read about in class for far. I hope I can put the theory to practice at a new job in the near future which is the hard part...

(http Slava Akerman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1145) Jun 23, 2021

M

Hey Pam,

I agree with you that he is the true face of a Level 5 leader. He is humble, he possesses

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 22/83

L Reply

the indomitable will, and above all humble. It is very hard to find good leaders and leaders' behavior, especially under pressure and under the gun. I believe what he did here was above all architect (like you said in your answer) he did build his case brink by brink why the boy is indecent. I also like the fact that he was able to find the correct path/approach with every individual in that room. Especially juror #3 who had his own emotional connection to the case, as it reminded him of his own situation with his son. It was very humble of him to help the last juror (a person who was the most vocal and nasty) to put his jacket on.

I find it interesting how we all think of our groups and group projects from previous classes. We think of the interaction and progress that the team made with someone always in a position of leadership. I know that we had our moments when people were not as motivated, but a group leader at the time was able to help to change their attitudes. But the biggest thing I see is that we all adopted the 5 stages of Patrick Lencioni's pyramid.

Slava

(http Krista Gillispie (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/376) Jun 24, 2021

M

Pamela,

Its always nice that you can turn a negative situation into a positive one. Working in teams is always hard because people have different styles and personalities. I was in a couple of groups throughout the BPMH program that was challenging similar to how you described it. However, I think as time went on, people started to learn how to work together and what was expected from them and things got better for me in that regard.

I can also understand you just fixing the errors instead of calling people out on it. I am guilty of this too, however, I found it left a bad taste in my mouth (sort of speak), towards my coworkers and decided if I keep fixing their mistakes they will never learn.

I agree that juror number 8 is a level 5 leader. Being humble but stern is an important part of being a true leader. it is something that I hope I can obtain as a future manager. He was able to pay attention to small detail and not rush. If I was on trial, I could only hope that the jurors would be like number 8. I'm glad that you are feeling more confident in your leadership! It's always exciting when everything we've learned comes together!

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 23/83

L Reply

Great post,

Krista G.

(http Alexandra Howard (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1059) Sunday

L Reply

M

Pam!

I'm so happy I'm on your good list! You're on mine too! We definitely had some challenging teams at first! I think we did a good job of making sure necessary tasks were able to be completed - albeit some of us felt more stress than should have been necessary.

I agree with what you wrote about Juror 8 and psychological safety. That he was able to seem vulnerable and also that he was able to come across in a non-confrontational manner. He never said he was right - more that there was room for doubt which swayed him into the not guilty camp. He was not accusatory.

I completely agree that juror 8 was a level 5 leader. I didn't think it came across in the movie like he was determined to bring everyone to his way of thinking. Maybe that was just my interpretation. It seemed to me like he just wanted to go through the facts logically, not that he even had it all lined up from the start, he just had his doubts and as the steps played out, the others came around somewhat naturally. His leadership in pursuing the conversation was key though.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Pam

Nice affirming shout out to your colleagues!

And thinking back on situations where there was less trust, etc., what might you have done differently to try to move the "trust needle" a bit? (not suggesting it was your sole responsibility!)

PR

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 24/83

(http Pamela Witt (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/147) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hi Professor, looking back I would definitely make sure to share my thoughts and I think that being vulnerable myself would have been a good starting point, voicing out my concerns in a respectful way, sharing my anxieties and how group chaos caused me anxiety because that would be vulnerable of me and maybe that would have created part of the trust that Lencioni refers to as being the foundation for the other 4 dysfunctions to not occur. I know now from bad experiences that keeping quiet only makes things worse…

(http Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) Sunday

L Reply

M

Pam,

This was a great post, because many of us can understand the teamwork required for some of the business classes we had to take. I was really fortunate to end up in a team with wonderful team-members, who were pulling for the task equally, and most importantly, we were helping each other out concentrating on the final task, rather than our individual grades. The classes were challenging, demanding, and the projects were not simple, so I cannot imagine the amount of stress you must have had if you had to deal with difficult teammates on top of it. I am very familiar with the team and the members you listed above, and I can tell you, from a spectator's perspective, we (our team) can all tell your team was excellent (we were always looking forward to your team's presentations). Moreover, it was also reflected in your team's response as a judge -- your team always found and pointed out, or praised all of the positive elements of your opponents' presentations, and then offered the required criticism which was never presented in a negative, demeaning manner.

As for your confidence, I also struggle with that a lot, much of which stems from the fact I am foreign and have always felt timid speaking or worrying about people being able to understand me. I must tell you, having several classes with you, you are an inspiration!! Great to see you are gaining confidence! Keep inspiring, Pam!!

Svetla

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 25/83

(https:// Slava Akerman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1145) Jun 23, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model was very insightful into the operation of a team at a workplace. When looking at his model and the pyramid shape application of the attributes, there is a clear line of what is needed to see results at the end of the progress. When working your way up from the base of the pyramid which is trust. As a manager with my previous employer, it was all about trusting your team. It always starts with finding an individual's weakness and if they can be trusted to confess to any mistakes that have been made. When they do make them, they possess the ability and humility to ask for help or take risks to fix the situation on their own. We also look into conflict resolution, if it's with a co-worker or even solving work-related problems. Do they come up with their own solution to a problem or ask for help? From my experience commitment is another avenue of dedication to a company. It is common for individuals to jump from place to place until they find a comfortable place to stay. Which is a great transition to accountability at the workplace. I encounter this the most when people do not own up to their mistakes and problems at the workplace. As with everything there are results that can be placed on team performance throughout the process. When a true team is developed and they are acting as an organism the results of any failure/problem will be successfully accomplished. In the end, what I gained is an understanding of what is important to follow and what can be left behind.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

After watching the movie and reading Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions” model, I can definitely see it applied in the movie. As the deliberation started in the room begun juror #8 immediately stood out and provided opposition to the common theme in the room. Through his actions and the bravery to stand up to his belief was the turning point in gaining trust from others. By explaining his point of view, his why to the arguments he showed the holes in the persecution arguments. As they deliberated, he managed to break all the arguments one by one (motive, witnesses, history, and stereotype), by doing so he gained the other jurors' trust and respect. The conflict application in the movie began from the first vote they conducted to the last juror's change of heart. Juror #8 was not fazed by intimidation, his odds, and the push back from others he managed conflict through humility and leadership. He believed in something that is far greater than just indicting someone. He took the commitment and responsibility of the juror to give the defendant a fair trial, by proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. He wanted to make sure that all involved knew the accountability

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 26/83

factor in that case on the jurors, witnesses, and prosecution. He took it a step further and even proved to the jurors that the evidence presented in the case was not concrete (like the duplicate knife he purchased). The end result was of course the acquittal of the suspect by voting nonguilty by everyone in the room. He was able to change their mind and convince them of the right thing to do. The movie showed the psychological attributes of Juror #3. We learn at the end of the movie why he was reacting the way he did with emotion instead of facts and evidence. Juror #3 was definitely emotionally compromised, and bringing his personal life to this situation compromised his judgment. The movie showed that psychological safety played a major role at the beginning of the movie that people chose to take the easy way out. Juror # 8 was definitely above that and presented leadership attributes in the group.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I definitely can see Juror #8 as a Level 5 Leader. By putting all of his personal bias and personal opinions aside, he was able to lead the room to follow him. He did it through humility and indomitable will, which is exactly like a level 5 leader would run his/her organization. He asked the people in the room to disregard their bias and look at the evidence in a nonjudgmental view. His ambitions to make sure that the suspect gets a fair trial, by concentrate on the cause and not themselves (like others did especially juror #3) elevates him to a level 5 leader.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

When looking at Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model I can honestly say that trust will be the specific behavior I need to work on. I do find myself checking and re-checking my employee’s work. I want to trust employees from day one, but this can be a problem especially from past experiences. I do believe that trust is something that individuals must earn before moving on. Trust is earned by admitting mistakes and be held accountable for them. It involves risk-taking and getting feedback on what an individual did right and wrong. It is when an individual asks for help and makes sure that he/she performs on the top level before trust can be given. Even after all that I do believe that manager cannot just let go, he is in charge of delivering results by managing a team. With trust, there is much more wiggle room to what can be allowed. But even then, a manager must go back and verify that the work was done properly. So as a manager I think it’s almost impossible to have that type of relationship with your employees, a relationship of complete trust.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 27/83

L Reply

(http Teresa Ryan (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/249) Jun 24, 2021

L Reply

M

Slava,

I could not agree more that the foundation of the model is trust. Without that there is no moving forward in business and in personal relationships. That has to be the core of any team.

I found your question about a teammate/co-worker coming up with a solution on their own or asking for help very insightful. As a manager in your past and possibly present, do you agree that it is always nice to have your co-worker try their best to resolve any matters outside of asking for help first? Or course there are some matters that may not be able to wait for a trial and error but I am always relieved when someone comes to me with scenarios that have NOT worked so that we can narrow the problem to get a solution. It frustrates me when someone comes to me and has not tried to troubleshoot at all and the fix is simple had they just worked the problem. This again, goes back to trust.

We also see the same in juror #8 as a level 5 leader. To get everyone to change their minds form what they were set on to see the bigger picture is important to note, but I also believe doing through in a calm manner through threats and anger, he managed to give the person a fair trial. Truly a good leader.

Great post,

Teresa

(http Scott Montgomery (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2691) Jun 24, 2021

M

I too saw juror 8 as a level 5 leader and appreciated how he organized the solution and took a 11-1 guilty vote to innocence through the varying process of a difunctional tema being mitigated along the way. He brought many attributes of compassion, leadership, dissection dn heard and listened to the other jurors. He heard them all.

I also appreciate you will be working on trust which is the hardest in my opinion of all attributes. Ive unpacked a lot of leadership qualities the past 10 years and love the varying authorities and styles. Scott Eblins Next Steps and Strength Finders as well s my

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 28/83

L Reply

leadership coach (weekly for 10 years now) have been a real drivers for how we've incorporated leadership profiles and 360 feeedback as well as learning techniques for trusting each other. We've improved culture and open dialogue and continual communication opportunities (one on ones and weekly check ins) The forming, storming norming phases of growth have been a real journey requiring a lot of trust along the way.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Slava

For sure, there's little if any safety in the room at first -- and that drives everyone to groupthink and the easy way out. It's interesting to me, too, that while Juror 8/Davis does create psychological safety over a short period of time, he's also not a touchy feely, super friendly kind of guy either. Which suggests there are lots of ways it can be done and show up effectively.

PR

(http Slava Akerman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1145) Sunday

L Reply

M

Professor Ronayne,

I would add that all leaders are different. They are different in their style, demeanor, and qualities. The qualities will vary from leader to leader, but it is the overall vision and guide to the organization that would determine the direction of the company. I think it's important for a leader to use any tool he chooses in order to achieve his optimum goal. As Juror #8 showed us that he will suppress some qualities just to straighten others. Like I said before what makes him a level 5 leader is his ability to do just that.

Slava

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 29/83

(https:// Lindsay Lancaster (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/372) Jun 23, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Personally, I have been jaded by poor leadership in some of my past bosses. We had a department chair in my prior workplace that just didn’t meet the qualifications for the position that she held, but what was most frustrating was that she had very low emotional intelligence and poor leadership skills. At the root of her leadership inabilities was absence of trust in our small department of 15ish people. Historically, our department had met all deadlines on time, attended all legally required meetings (importantly in our school district!), and were never behind on meeting our therapy frequency minutes. “Trust is the foundation of real teamwork. And so the first dysfunction is a failure on the part of team members to understand and open up to one another… It is an absolutely critical part of building a team. In fact, it’s probably the most critical” (Lencioni, pg. 43-44). I have witnessed the inability of a “leader” to extend their trust to us, and when there is no trust then every other dysfunction is present, as the “absence of trust” is the foundation of teamwork. As s department/team, the trust that we experienced on the most basic level was natural and easy, and there wasn’t anything that our “leader” could do to waiver our trust in one another. On a scale of level 5 leadership, our boss was a -100 but her incompetence brought us team members together, in a sense, to support each other through this tyrant leader’s reign until she was fortunately removed from her position.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

Here are the exact points on Juror #8’s model as it played out, according to me:

Absence of trust: At 12:50. This is at the time juror #8 verbally admits to the group of jurors that he can’t be quick to declare this 18-year-old is guilty of something that carries such large ramifications such as the death penalty. While it appears throughout the movie that there is convincing evidence pointing to the defendant potentially being guilty, juror #8 states he would like to have a discussion as a group before making this decision collectively. He opens up the room for conversation but is met with an ambush of doubt, questioning his judgment, and criticism. “The most important action that a leader must take to encourage the building of trust on a team is to demonstrate vulnerability first. This requires that a leader risk losing face in front of the team, so that subordinates will take the same risks themselves” (Lencioni, pg. 201).

Fear of conflict: At 14:30. This is when the mild conflict begins, and a true debate starts. Jurors are seen progressively getting more heated with one another. For an onslaught of reasons that are displayed through character development, each person has their own reasoning for deciding why the defendant is guilty. One juror “feels” like he’s guilty, one juror is prejudice against “slum” kids, one juror just wants the easiest and fastest decision to be made so he can

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 30/83

go to a baseball game (yikes, who would want their fate in his hands?!). Throughout the heated debate, juror #8 is observed not raising his voice to another, not interjecting, but letting the debate play out naturally with little intervention. “It is key that leaders demonstrate restraint when their people engage in conflict, and allow resolution to occur naturally, as messy as it can sometimes be… a leader’s ability to personally model appropriate conflict behavior is essential” (Lencioni, pg. 206). And boy does this jury deliberation get nasty!

Lack of commitment: At 31:40. Juror #8 proposed a secret ballot, where one once this was conducted there were now 2 jurors that were declaring the defendant “not guilty” and this is where the tide started to really shift. “Teams have all the information they need, but it resides within the hearts and minds of the team itself and must be extracted through unfiltered debate” (Lencioni, pg. 208). All of the information that the jury needs to convict the defendant has been laid out, that part is true. But as juror #8’s goal was to have a reasonable discussion because this topic is heavy, they need to analyze the evidence as a team. “Great teams make clear and timely decisions and move forward with complete buy-in from every member of the team, even those who voted against the decision” (Lencioni, pg. 207)… this quote stuck with me while watching the remainder of the movie because we witnessed each juror come to terms with this on their own schedule.

Avoidance of accountability: At 32:45. Once the second “not guilty” juror admitted his change, everyone in the group started to argue and yell at one another. Tensions were high and arguments became extremely heated, almost personal attacks. “The unwillingness of team members to tolerate the interpersonal discomfort that accompanies calling a peer on his or her behavior and the more general tendency to avoid difficult conversations. Since this is a jury board and not a group of friends, family or coworkers, perhaps these men think they have “nothing to lose” speaking to each other like this. They don’t seem to be affected by the inefficiency of their conversation for hours. It is worth noting that the jurors come back to juror #8 several times to guide them back into more facts, opinions, and discussions about evidence.

Inattention to results: At 40:30. This is where I observed juror #8 take more authority, when he steps in and takes the tic-tac-toe game away from jurors that are not contributing to the debate. Juror #8 dictates his opinions, rationale, and thoughts on the case and evidence, planting some doubt in jurors. “Team leaders must be selfless and objective” (Lencioni, pg. 220). As we continue to watch, each juror is manipulated (not in a negative way) to reconsider their call, even down to the juror and his glasses who seemed so strong in his conviction, but he had “reasonable doubt” that a lady who wears glasses was not wearing them at bedtime to witness the killing of the defendant’s father.

Psychological safety is the belief that you won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. Where the jury room seemed to be a humiliating environment for juror #8, he doesn’t appear to be shaken by the messages of his fellow jurors.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 31/83

L Reply

“People need to feel comfortable speaking up, asking naïve questions, and disagreeing with the way things are in order to create ideas that make a real difference,” says David Altman, CCL’s chief operating officer. “It doesn’t mean that everybody is nice all the time. It means that you embrace the conflict, and you speak up, knowing that your team has your back, and you have their backs” (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020). Juror #8 felt comfortable to speak up but very few members of the jury team “had his back”, even after they all declared not guilty.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I think juror #8 has some level 5 qualities, but I find him to be a strong level 4 leader. He starts off the conversation with a goal to just get the jury talking about the future of the defendant. He didn’t feel right making this decision so quickly because this is someone’s life and future, the defendant was facing the electric chair. He speaks rationally to the jurors and never raises his voice at anyone. A level 4 leader is characterized as a “competent manager; organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives” (Collier, 2001). Level 4 leaders is still highly effective, determined, successful leaders and juror #8 is still a gentle leader to this group without being a level 5 leader.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

“When you have psychological safety in the workplace, people feel comfortable being themselves. They bring their full selves to work and feel okay laying all of themselves on the line” (Center for Creative Leadership). Who wouldn’t want to curate the type of environment that lets people feel comfortable and safe when they choose to speak on their thoughts and opinions? Diversity of employees provides a diversity of thoughts, perspectives that could and should be considered for the future of companies and their success. But more importantly, this lends to psychological safety in teams.

Center for Creative Leadership. (August 31, 2020). “What is Psychological Safety at Work?”. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/what-is-psychological-safety-at- work/ (https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/what-is-psychological-safety-at- work/)

Collier, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership. Harvard Business Review.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.

Lumet, S. (Director)(1957). 12 Angry Men. [Film]. MGM Studios.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 32/83

(http Teresa Ryan (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/249) Jun 24, 2021

L Reply

M

Lindsay,

I find your comments about juror #8 helpful. I was on the fence for most of the movie, but in the end I found him to be a level 5 leader. I think the breaking point for me was that there was a bigger picture, and through anger and resentment he was able to remain calm and stick to his guns about his position. He was not insulting as the others were as to their beliefs, but rather questioned as to be insightful and helpful and perhaps have them understand there was little explanation they could give other than a personal predisposed judgement. It was their job as the judge noted to be sure they were convicting based on evidence and that there could be no doubt at all if they were to find him guilty.

I respect your comments and find them to be also very true of juror #8.

I too have had past managers/directors that have been ill prepared for their positions. And as you stated, may not be based on education but rather level of compassion and concern or respect for their staff. This is key in order to get your colleagues to have your back and work hard for you or the team. Without trust or a good leader, the foundation is broken.

Thank you,

Teresa

Is there anything regarding the last question you feel you would work on to advance in your own skills or challenges as a leader?

(http Adam Black (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1101) Jun 24, 2021

M

Lindsay,

Excellent and very thorough post! The movie 12 angry men did a fantastic job displaying the five dysfunctions model. Although I do believe juror #8 is a level five leader. According to Collins (2001), a level 5 leader “builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will (p.5).” Juror #8 displays personal humility from the very beginning of the movie when stating that he doesn’t know if he is right or wrong. Throughout the film, he very much admits that he might be wrong about his plea decision. But through professional will, he persists in being determined to at least fine the most likely truth of the case. He stays calm and collected we’ll still holding personal

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 33/83

Edited by Adam Black (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1101) on Jun 24 at 7:20pm

L Reply

humility and professional will; because of this, I think he’s a great example of a level 5 leader.

References

Collins, Jim. (2001). Level 5 Leadership. The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Lindsay

I'll tell my buddy Dave Altman that you quoted him! ;)

Great breakdown of the key Lencioni concepts and how they show up in our movie "case study."

So a question for you that I posed to others: Is Juror #8 really just interested in asking some questions or does he have the end in mind? in other words, is he set on "not guilty" and quite intentional leads the group in that direction from the start? And is there a bit of a clue at the end when we learn his profession?

PR

(http Lindsay Lancaster (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/372) Tuesday

M

Hi Professor Ronayne!

I really liked Dave Altman's quote because it's so applicable to every industry. Psychological safety should be a right in the workplace environment but unfortunately it is not. Additionally, I think so few employees have accepted feeling psychologically unsafe that it's become an endemic in particular environments, such as restaurants and bar workers. It's almost become acceptable in those professions, whether this is related to the industry shortage now that restaurants are experiencing, that workers have left that profession and pursued other areas to feel psychologically safe... well

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 34/83

Edited by Lindsay Lancaster (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/372) on Jun 29 at 1:03pm

L Reply

that's another can of worms. COVID changed so much more than we can visibly see and I wouldn't be surprised by that domino effect.

Your questions regarding juror #8, my opinion was that he didn't really have an end game in mind. I don't think he wished to sway the entire jury to determine "not guilty", I think he wanted to have a more thorough conversation. With the sentencing that was on the line for this young defendant, it was only morally and ethically correct to talk it through as a group. Juror #8 initially requested an hour to do this in which everyone agreed.

I wish I knew an architect or more about an architect's brain or any stereotypes that would lead me to think his profession lead to some clues on his behavior in the jury chambers. I can only assume with their attention to details, they are very calculated and logical but that is just an assumption!

(http Jagdeesh Bhattal (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1090) Sunday

M

Hi Lindsay,

Your mention of bad bosses in positions they should not be resonated with me. I have a friend who asks me quite regularly how to interact and communicate with her leadership. Basically, her bosses are in upper management, but they are just promoted SME's. They have very little actual leadership acumen. However, I think that the root problem lies with the C-level execs of the company. they have a myopic view of the company and they place performance metrics squarely in the ledger. Meanwhile, the front-facing staff is trying to deliver good service with integrity which they need to in order to meet those metrics. Essentially the whole organization breeds a toxic work environment. the company functions and outwardly it is successful, but I wonder if they took a more comprehensive approach and cared about more than the dollars, would they ultimately be more successful.

Very good post, with some insightful comments and honest self-reflection.

Deesh

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 35/83

L Reply

(https:// Kimberly Brenneman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2693) Jun 23, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni's "Five Dysfunctions" model?

The essential components of a cohesive team are Trust, Conflict Avoidance, Commitment, Accountability, and Results. Presently, my group's reservations for exposing personal vulnerability often prevent us from establishing trust amidst each other. There is also a lack of commitment, no fear of conflict, constant avoidance of accountability, and proper emphasis rarely focuses on the result. Leaders must lead by example and demonstrate healthy mechanisms to interact effectively, which (unfortunately) is just not the case in my office.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

Juror 8 established trust, focused on the truth of the case, and refused to quit until the other jurors confronted that truth. When he reveals that one of the chief witnesses was almost certainly not wearing her glasses when the defendant allegedly committed this crime, he successfully convinces them of reasonable doubt. This idea influenced the most hesitant jurors, and the verdict reflects their position. His persuasive capabilities shine, and the other jurors gradually switched their original votes from guilty to not guilty. Juror 8 stands by his beliefs and has the strength and agility to apply them. Ultimately convincing the jurors to choose the defendant is Not Guilty; they evade wrongfully convicting an innocent person.

Psychological safety: Juror 8 was not abrasive or intimidating; he did not talk over the other jurors about evidence he observed throughout the trial. Instead, he exercised patience which is required to reach people authentically and also helped to develop an organic flow. He listed intently to his peers. As a result of his openness, the other jurors grew more receptive to hearing about evidence confirming the defendant's innocence. Juror 8 did not offer the defendant's integrity as gospel while he presented information but instead used it as a device to open the minds of his fellow jurors.

Juror 8 also created a safe space by suggesting jurors anonymously cast votes to share any differences in opinion. The initial ballot opened the dialogue between members to weigh options. In the end, Juror 8 opposed popular belief in support of the constitutional right of being considered innocent until proven guilty, and his leadership was successful because it was not an over-bearing struggle to win power.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 36/83

Edited by Kimberly Brenneman (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2693) on Jun 23 at 10:32pm

L Reply

Yes, he is an awesome example of a Level 5 leader. Humble, passionate, and dedicated to the group's decision-making process and the authentic outcome.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

While I accept that I do not have the power to change some things, moving forward, I will make a conscious attempt to resolve the absence of trust within my department. As much as the other items desperately need attention, respectively, they are beyond my scope of duties and could cause other leaders to take umbrage with such an initiative.

Lencioni, Patrick. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable.

(http Lindsay Lancaster (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/372) Jun 25, 2021

L Reply

M

Hi Kimberly!

Great post! I really enjoyed your insight on psychological safety and how that was ever present in 12 Angry Men, especially demonstrated in juror #8. He did provide a safe space for everyone to refute his claims, opened the floor for anyone to speak without interjection, and politely challenged points of view that weren't "offensive", and suggested anonymous votes be cast in order to prevent judgment from others.

I like to consider psychological safety in other settings to because this can sometimes be a trait that doesn't exist in every environment. Psychological safety is so important in workplaces, home environments, and even our class settings. It might seem difficult to set the tone for psychological safety but moving through Lencioni's model, starting with the first dysfunction and preventing absence of trust, this is how those can strive for a psychological safe environment.

Thanks for your insight, it genuinely helps with my comprehension of our material :)

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

M

Hey Kimberly

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 37/83

L Reply

I also strikes me (as I noted to Slava) that Juror #8 also isn't particularly warm or friendly or charming -- yet he can still create a sense of safety for the group.

PR

(http Ryan Allers (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2716) Sunday

L Reply

M

Great post, Kimberly.

The last line of your post strongly resonated with me. I understand exactly where you are coming from as I feel precisely as you do at my organization. For me, the difficulty is determining what I may respectively address and what may be perceived as "beyond my scope of duties," as you perfectly phrased it. Sometimes, the items that need address may exceed our scope, however, they could have a tremendously negative impact on the entirety of organization. So, you can continue on and let the issue fester and hope that it gets addressed at some time. Or, you can address the issue and take the risk of entering into territory in which you are not welcome and reaching "beyond your scope of duties." Lastly, you may address the issue and be met with praise and/or gratitude for taking initiative on an issue that has been plaguing the organization. I find it likely that most, and certainly myself, would err on the side of caution and move forward and hope the appropriate individuals correct the course.

(https:// Lauren Irvine (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1058) Jun 24, 2021

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Trust is the foundation of teamwork. We need to be vulnerable with other team members, know who they are and what they’re good at, and what mistakes they’ve made. I have had an issue with trust with team members in the past. I feel like I always had to be watching my back or watch what I say around certain people. Without trust, we have a fear of conflict. Conflict is not only good, but required. We have to include conflict when we have trust. When I have avoided conflict in the past, it really ended up in poor communication between the team. Conflict is important because without it we encounter the lack of commitment. Teams that don’t

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 38/83

L Reply

engage in conflict do not really commit to decisions they make. When I did not have trust with a team, I did not voice my feedback which ended up affecting the team’s final decisions. Without commitment, teams encounter the inability to hold each other accountable. When people are committed they have more courage to come to each other about their performance. When I am held accountable by my teammates, we are able to see when our team falls behind or is not achieving goals. If people are not holding each other accountable, they are going to encounter the inattention to results. In order to focus on the collective results of the team we have to trust, engage in healthy conflict, commit to decisions, hold one another accountable for those, and achieve true collective results.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

Juror # 8 was so focused on the truth and was not willing to give up until the others saw the truth too. He is holding the others accountable. He sees conflict in the trial because they are accusing him solely based on his background. There was a definite lack of trust throughout the movie. Juror 8 earned the others’ trust and got them to commit to a decision. Psychological safety, the belief that one can speak up without risk of punishment or humiliation, is different with jurors. All of them have to be there until it is a unanimous vote. So ultimately, the others would have to listen to what he has to say because it is not a vote of majority. It did take guts to go against the others.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I believe that Juror #8 is a Level 5 Leader. Level 5 leaders display personal humility and indomitable will. They're incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the organization and its purpose, not themselves. He is not there for the other jurors to like, he is there for a fair trial and to get justice. It would have been easy and a lot of people would have probably just gone along with the others’ opinions to get it over with.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I will let it be known that it is important to speak up, ask questions, and challenge the way things are going now. I want us to feel comfortable being ourselves and everyone to be accepting of each other. We will have the most success when our diverse group come up with solutions and decisions together.

(http Adam Black (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1101) Jun 24, 2021

M

Lauren,

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 39/83

L Reply

I also believe that juror #8 is a level 5 leader. He not only displays the qualities of each of the five levels but also shows to be selfless. We never once believe that juror #8 wants to hurry up the decision process for his own benefit like some of the other jurors; he persists in respecting the life at stake. I think this characteristic of being selfless is an additional admirable characteristic of being a high-performing leader. Sometimes, when leaders have the decision to go forward on projects, they can indirectly choose the one that is better for them, and that will make their life better. However, leaders need to stop and think about what is better for the other general employees and the organization’s mission and morals. Also, in the view of their employees, a selfless leader will help the leader earn their respect. Overall this movie was great in providing a visual of a level 5 leader. Great post!

(http Molly Fanney (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2752) Sunday

L Reply

M

Lauren,

It really never occurred to me that vulnerability could be so important in the work place! I also thought of being vulnerable as something you saved for your family, closest friends and your partner. I think in the business world we are taught to equate or at tie vulnerability to weakness. Not only does it foster trust, but it fosters the development of new ideas! I too have experienced some pretty extreme distrust between myself and coworkers and it was detrimental to our ability to work as a team. I think you are spot on when you say that conflict cannot truly occur without trust, at least not the constructive kind. I think you are even more correct when you say that teams cannot perform without conflict. It enables a team to communicate and to weed out issues and those team members that are not committed to the goals of the team. The pyramid model presented in "The Five Dysfunctions" has just really rang true for me when I have applied to any workplace conflict I can think of.

Thanks for your post!

(http Scott Montgomery (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2691) Jun 24, 2021

M

I agree that juror 8 is a level 5 leader. He remained steadfast in his desire to pursue innocence through unanimous inquiry. It does take guts to go against the grain initially but as time went on the truth unveiled itself. His compassion in pursuit of the right answer was impressive. it makes one think for sure before moving with the masses.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 40/83

L Reply

Im proud of you for working on speaking up. As a leader in my orgnaziation if team mates don't speak up its hog ties progress. I appreciate that you will work on that for the greater good. Its hard but VERY IMPORTANT.

(http Lindsay Lancaster (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/372) Jun 25, 2021

L Reply

M

Thanks for your insightful post, Lauren!

You emphasized vulnerability and trust in groups so much and I couldn't agree with you anymore. I also seriously related to your avoidance of conflict because that is something that I'm guilty of. After reading Lencioni's book, specifically about the "fear of conflict" dysfunction, I didn't realize until then that I was actually contributing to the problem sometimes. It was an eye-opening read, personally, where when I allow others to use me as a doormat, turn into a "yes" person, and don't air out grievances then I am directly responsible for communication breakdown. It is also extremely unfair to myself to let things bottle up and then there is a risk for me emotionally/mentally exploding on someone that likely doesn't deserve it. I will definitely be mindful of this in the future as this can negatively impact myself and others, which is generally why I try to avoid conflict in the first place! It's a vicious cycle.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Lauren

What were a couple of specific things you saw juror 8 do that helped created some psychological safety for the group?

PR

(http Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) Sunday

M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 41/83

L Reply

Lauren,

I agree that trust is the foundation of any great relationship, including team-building. I think also, this was greatly demonstrated with the Juror #8, who gained the other 11 jurors's trust by 1) being completely honest from the beginning -- I did not get the sense he actually knew what the correct verdict was, but his hesitation to blindly and quickly make a decision regarding another human being's life showed his compassion, commitment, and reasonableness. He did not vote "not guilty" because he was convinced at trial that the young men was not guilty (in my opinion), but rather that he was not entirely convinced he was guilty; when asked if he thought the boy was not guilty, his reply was "I don't know". This to me, showed his vulnerability. 2) Juror #8 did not come across as particularly warm and fuzzy, but he did reflect humility and compassion towards others. Another way he provided trust is through demonstrating an alternative way the incident may have taken place -- first, and most important was the knife -- this cast the greatest shadow of a doubt within the jurors. He kept asking the question "is it possible?" With his next demonstration he re-created the length of the old man's apartment and provided visual proof that it could be possible the man did not see the boy, as it is possible he may not have walked through his apartment in 15 seconds. I think the ability to show, not tell people is huge way of offering trust.

Svetla

(http Jagdeesh Bhattal (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1090) Sunday

M

Lauren,

Reading your post made me think of a team I was on for a class recently. We functioned as a team, we delivered, but in the end, it was toxic. In reflection, I believe that our end goals were different. They felt just good enough was sufficient, but I thought it needed to be perfect. The point I am trying to make is we talk about trust and team building, but I think the most important thing is to have an honest Q&A about why people are involved what is everyone's end goal. if it is not the same, then functional teams can still happen, but I don't think great teams can happen. I often have political debates, with people from around the world, and after many years (I know I am slow) I have learned to ask the person "what is your end goal? what is your objective?" Once I have a clear understanding of that, then we can have meaningful discourse. I ask my players what is their individual goal for the season? it is crazy how different the answers are, and not a good fit for a truly successful team. I think what Juror 8 did was get everyone to realize the dame end goal, then they began to work together.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 42/83

L Reply

Good post, and thanks for making me articulate half-formed thoughts.

Deesh

(http Robert Brown (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1085) Sunday

L Reply

M

The frustrations you feel about certain individuals in your workplace, or throughout your career history, are certainly shared by many others here. It can be hard to trust people in a public work environment (whether or not someone has given you a specific reason to mistrust them) because we all feel like we are being continually watched with respect to your personalities, attitudes and of course, work product. The 500-lb elephant that often resides in the room the fact that most of us find ourselves in a competitive work environment, which in and of itself breeds a reluctance to open up fully, for fear that such demonstrations might be used against you or otherwise leave you unguarded and thus compromised or taken advantage of by others.

(http Daniel Lepore (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1683) Wednesday

L Reply

M

Hi Lauren,

I agree, without trust teamwork suffers. Being able to express strengths and weaknesses and being able to ask for help is critical if the team is to excel and be highly functional. I do think it is possible to have a team that succeeds at completing tasks without a high degree of trust, but those "wins" will be more individual contributions than teamwork. Having trust creates the opportunity for teams to ask each other for help without fear. This alone will make the team stronger. When teams ask for help and balance each other's strengths and weaknesses, the team as a whole performs better. The team becomes less reliant on individual contributions and less susceptible to staff turnover.

Thanks!

Dan

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 43/83

(https:// Scott Montgomery (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2691) Jun 24, 2021

M

Week 3- Patrick Lencioni 5 dysfunctions of a team/applied with ’12 Angry Men”

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

I have worked on and lead many teams in my career to date. I have found there is a truth in the 5 dysfunctions of a team, if dysfunctions are mitigated however teams have the power to trailblaze success and uncover overwhelming achievements. The foundation of a solid team includes trust. In order to advance the problem or desired outcomes of a solution the team must collectively agree to trust in its participants. Ego is not a bad attribute but must remain at the team level in order to achieve results. The collective ego will serve the cause effectively rather than individual ego which seeks personal reward and can pull down the outcomes. Individual recognition or attention distracts from the greater good. In order to engage in constructive progress, the team must engage in conflict with each other, or innovation will not supersede the usually preferred artificial harmony humans bring to a team. The team must embrace commitment and agree on the mission and the way to achieve it or the outliers can undermine the success if they don’t feel heard or cant voice their opinions they ultimately won’t buy in or perpetuate the maximum potential of the mission. The last critical piece is accountability. If you buy in there must be accountability to execute. You can’t let personal desires to avoid conflict, enhance personal ego or lack of trust prevent achieving the goals.

A lot of what I gleaned from the 5 dysfunctions being mitigated I have incorporated in my firm. We hold team meetings, executive meetings one on ones to maintain proper messaging of mission. We reward outcomes. We listen to feedback and implement where possible. We have held several profiling sessions that include Emotional intelligence (Eqi, Eqi-360), Enneagrams, DISC and others and have taken personnel profile intelligence further to include 360 degree feedback. Worldgate met the mark of desired outcomes results of the leadership circle profile 360 when the firm had only 25 employees in 2014. Leading Worldgate from it’s first contract in 2010 to its many annually the past few years has had me incorporating all that Ive read of Lencioni’s book and more. We’ve also focused on our culture as a way to be inclusive. Check out http://worldgatellc.com/why-choose-us/ (http://worldgatellc.com/why-choose-us/) to learn more about our prominent behaviors. I would agree there is some good synthesis of activity that Lencioni has outlined.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety? The ultimate result being innocence from a 11-1 guilty vote initially prove the model played out being led by juror 8 and in turn how the other jurors

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 44/83

Edited by Scott Montgomery (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2691) on Jun 24 at 8:17pm

L Reply

synthesized the material from different angles. The team struck safety from my lens just in how the accepted each other’s tones and perspectives despite their harsh words of criticism along the way. Blunt transparency can be very safe if everyone’s on board and can be heard.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader? Juror #8 proves to be a level 5 leader or at least as close as I could imagine one to be. He represented the important attribute of both a level 5 leader taking it to the finish line but he also incorporated the attribute described above with his juror team. He trusted, represented compassion, he was courageous and deliberate. He engaged in conflict and stayed the mission of proving the boy’s innocence.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge? I hate to say I don’t see much adjustment needed for my organization having graduated some of these dysfunctions over the years. We are always on pursuit of these types of higher leadership skills addressed in an this excersize. If anything for now, we are continuing to focus on messaging and continuity of mission through weekly check in and bringing the right players to the right meetings.

Lencioni, Patrick. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Scott

You get a question that I've posed to some of your colleagues, too: Juror 8 -- did he have "not guilty" in mind from the start or was he really just interested in a few minutes of inquiry? Maybe there's a subtle clue at the end when we learn his profession?

PR

(http Scott Montgomery (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2691) Tuesday

M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 45/83

L Reply

I think he was open to inquiry and his architecting capabilities overran an instance guilty verdict. I didnt see him having it in mind from the beginning, I think he wanted to deconstruct as an architect would want to build.....

(https:// Dennis Wilson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2706) Saturday

M

In Patrick Lencioni’s, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” a roadmap is presented that deciphers behaviors of a team. Specifically, five types that will derail any team with the absence of just one. This is important to note because leaders will spend countless hours focusing on one behavior but may not be truly encompassing them all. Hence, the reason their teams continue to fail after extensive remediation efforts. Equally important to note, some people may assume a leader must be directly in charge of another person. Like a boss to a subordinate in a company. However, this is not the case. Leaders come in many forms whether they achieve Level 5 or not. Everything from a project team lead to the person who helps steer people to achieve an acceptable/valuable result. For instance, in Reginald Rose’s, “12 Angry Men,” it depicts a leader, who arguably is a Level 5 leader, that is not in charge of the team, but helps to steer the team to successful results by countering dysfunctions outlined in, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.”

First, it is important to note upfront the jurors were dysfunctional from the start even though they had a clear set of goals, which was not the case with Kathryn’s team in, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.” Each juror walked into the holding area knowing what the agenda was and what needed to be done. You either vote guilty or not guilty as a group and the defender would be acquitted or killed through the death penalty. However, right out of the gate, the fifth dysfunction was presented. Every juror except 8 voted guilty because their own agendas were more important than the collective. Throughout the movie, Juror 7’s only motivation is to get to a ball game. He walks about the room asking, “You a Yankees fan?” Similarly, Juror 3 is personally invested in seeing the defendant found guilty because he has personal issues with his own son. Juror 3 completely ignores anything being presented by the other jurors to find the defendant not guilty because it goes against his personal narrative. This was made blatantly obvious when he says, “Yeah, well I’ve got a kid. He is twenty. We did everything for that boy, and what happened?”

Second, Jurors 3, 7, 10 and 11 at points are disruptors. Just like Martin and Mikey were. For instance, Juror 11 spends time taking notes, they all spend time talking amongst each other, and even changing their votes to please the majority. In all, every last dysfunction was broken in the beginning of the movie. You had Juror 7 changing his vote to not guilty and diminishing

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 46/83

trust amongst the jurors. Juror 3 trying to command the group through intimidation tactics and Juror 10 dismissing every opinion about the trial from start to finish. Hence, the reason the other jurors turn their back on him to correct his behavior. At any rate, it is not until Juror 8 slowly steers the juror meeting on track that gets the team to meet their goals. He is not in charge of the group, but he guides them through” personal humility and indomitable will.” Therefore Juror 8 is a definite Level 5 leader. Throughout the movie he shows humility and will through his pushing the other jurors to talk and listen to everyone’s thoughts about the case, by realizing their decision meant life or death and should not be taken lightly, and demanding input and accountability from each juror’s actions/inputs. A lot of people put in similar situations would have not been as successful as Juror 8.

With that said, it sheds some light on my own experiences with teams. My team is currently dealing with a new hire who is taking advantage of certain aspects of the government Covid protocols beyond having personal family issues. What I mean by this is, she teleworks like other civil service (GS) employees; however, she intentionally ignores emails, does not call into meetings, and fails to meet deadlines because she believes she is untouchable. She believes she is untouchable for two reasons, 1. She is a career civil servant with a stellar past, and 2, Senior leadership has failed to address the issue. In fact, if I were to classify her, she is worse than Mikey. At least Mikey showed up to meeting to give a frown and actually produced work. Whether she got input from the other team members or not. My team member flat out does what she wants to do and is not being called out or being held accountable by anyone in a position to do something in fear of the union. Sure, the other team members call her out on occassion, but she does not care for the problem mentioned earlier: Senior leadership does nothing in hopes she will self correct. As a result, the team is truly dysfunctional for four of the five reasons. Fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention of results by one team member. A team member who should have been shown the door six months ago in my opinion.

At any rate, in both 12 Angry Men and in my office, “Psychological Safety,” is/was a concern. In 12 Angry Men, initially there a was a problem. However, as the meeting progressed, jurors revolted against anyone who oppressed others’ opinions. Prime example is when one juror told another juror, “I will lay you out, if you speak to the old man like that again.” However, in my office specifically, everyone’s opinion is valued. We often go around the table and solicit/encourage personal thoughts on a topic which promotes Psychological Safety. This normally results in all team members feeling as if they were equal contributors to the agenda and feeling valued. Although, moving forward, there could be more that we as a team could do to enhance Psychological Safety. For instance, I have noticed that some team members are not comfortable speaking in the conference room. Not because anyone challenges them on their thoughts, but, because they have come to me and others and stated they do not like speaking in front of others, so they dread attending the meetings. In response to this through reading, “The Five Dysfunctions,” going forward, I may try to gather team members in a less

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 47/83

Edited by Dennis Wilson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2706) on Jun 26 at 5:40pm

L Reply

formal location to see if that changes anything with the shy individuals. In the book, I noticed certain team members seemed to open at the offsite. Something my team has not done in the four years I have been attached there, which may be a contributing factor to why we have dysfunctions. The individual I complained about is one of the people who doesn't like to speak at meetings but does when it is their turn.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Dennis

You've got an accountability challenge for sure!

And per your next steps, yes -- change of venue and using space differently can really help shake things up affirmatively.

PR

(http Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) Sunday

L Reply

M

Dennis,

I truly enjoyed your reflection and comparison of the film and the book. Just wanted to point out, your new hire reminds me of Mikey. I hope this is addressed soon, because it may trickle down and affect employee morale.

Svetla

(https:// Alexandra Howard (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1059) Sunday

M

I think I should say first, I really enjoyed reading the Five Dysfunctions of a Team book. I read it before our semester began and couldn’t put it down until I finished – and I’m not a reader. I related to so many situations throughout the book.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 48/83

I think some of the insights I took from the book were around the absence of trust and fear of conflict. The absence of trust really hit home as I read through the book. I enjoyed reading about the experiences the team had at their “off-sites” and their relationships with each other in general. I saw in myself, as well as staff, fear of conflict and have had some conversations since reading this where I’ve made a point of facing the conflict head-on – or working with staff to build their relationships with each other – which is something I’ve worked on even before reading the book. It was nice to feel validated while reading when other managers who I work with don’t focus on the same areas. I definitely have felt like I’m more the manager in the state (of the two of us) who is more people-oriented, team-building-oriented, and reading this book made me feel like that’s not bad at all. There has been a definite lack of trust and a fear of conflict company-wide, but for me within my Connecticut bubble – ever since the company has made so many organizational changes and there have been a couple of rounds of layoffs/restructuring in the last year. It’s been a lot for everyone and there’s a lot of false harmony just to get through a moment. It’s been a major challenge to gain trust back among our team and have them speak honestly without just agreeing.

Also – both in the book and in the movie 12 Angry Men there were references to an awkward silence. I think in the book it was when the CEO was talking to the head of Marketing and let an awkward silence continue until the Marketing manager essentially realized they didn’t want to stay and the silence helped push her along. Then in the movie toward the end, there was an awkward silence before the final juror converted to the not guilty team. I’m not good at awkward silences, but am working to improve when necessary!!

There were a lot of parallels between juror number 8 and what I took from the Five Dysfunctions book. He trusted the process and that was reflected in his willingness to speak. Toward the beginning when he had the vote redone secretly, this was a way of allowing others to come forward without fearing conflict and without having the trust in the other jurors.

Juror 8 I felt was a level 5 leader. He was always humble. He never indicated that he was right – he always framed what he said as it’s possible, that there could be doubt or another option, not that he was the only option. He saw the big picture from the beginning and was willing to take the time to pursue all avenues for the sake of the process, even beyond the young man on trial.

I think I can continue to build psychological safety in my team by remaining calm, like juror 8, and I think continuing to make sure all team members are heard when they have concerns and that they feel their concerns are valued and able to be expressed freely without fear of judgment. I’ve tried to be this way already, while additionally calling out staff when they speak negatively of someone else – even when that other person isn’t around – and making sure everyone knows the value of each member of our team and that everyone brings different strengths and weaknesses. Continuing with my Key Leadership Challenge, I’ve been working on building trust with some of the staff by asking for help/delegating tasks that I’ve always held

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 49/83

L Reply

control over – trusting them to handle some of my normal tasks. So far they’ve been great – trust but verify. I think they go together because the more we all trust each other – not just one way – we’ll be a much stronger team.

(http Peter Ronayne (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/262) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hey Alexandra

You're onto something for sure -- a combination of asking questions (like Juror 8) and allowing for some processing/silence, can be really powerful for a team. And it takes practice -- so give yourself some grace!

PR

(http Molly Fanney (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2752) Sunday

M

Alexandra,

I also thoroughly enjoyed the book and read it really quickly. This is not the type of book I generally enjoy reading so I found it to be particularly effective. Like you, the concept of the absence of trust really hit home for me. As I look back at past work experiences and even my job now, I realized that I never really thought of trust being an issue. Perhaps lack of communication, but never trust. It makes so much sense! And is such a pervasive issue. False harmony, like you point out, can be very damaging as well, even if it is more comfortable for everyone in the moment. You also make a great point about prolonged silence. I am also working on not jumping to fill the dead air when an awkward silence happens. I think you are spot on about the recurring votes being taken in the jury room. As the conflict and discourse continued, these votes allowed the jurors who were changing their mind- and for much of the film changing their minds to a very unpopular opinion- it allowed them a safer space to speak their true feelings. Juror 8 made a serious point to try and create space and time for each juror to voice their opinion and when the conversation was spread out among the jurors evenly, we saw the most progress. When the discussion was hijacked by the same adamant and aggressive jurors such as 3 and 12, the progress slowed or came to a temporary halt.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 50/83

L Reply

Great post!

(https:// Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

I worked for a small law firm which had the most dysfunctional team leadership. Partially, I believe, the reason was the nature of small law firms where the principal lawyer is the leader, but in this particular case, the principal/ owner of the firm conducted a very authoritative form of “leadership”. The firm had twelve attorneys and twenty staff members. The principal lawyer believed the entire firm was to represent his character, as his name was the name of the firm, but while he was a great lawyer, he was a terrible leader. Many people came and went for a few years, but what I found interesting is that after new, bright arrivals came, it was not long after that they conformed to the dysfunctionality of the firm, and began to mimic behaviors that were negative and condescending. Everyone in the office, including the staff, hit nearly all of the five dysfunctions described in Patrick Lencioni’s book. I say nearly, because it appears (on the surface at least) that everyone was committed to their job, to the firm’s ultimate success, but even this element lacked the clarity and the buy-in that Lencoini refers to. At some point, we called it the “I don’t do windows” syndrome. No one was willing to go above their immediate task or “job description”. It was clear to everyone that the toxic environment stemmed from the top down. The boss was a person who hated direct confrontations; he was otherwise impatient, and refused to listen to others' suggestions. The atmosphere created distrust, accountability avoidance, fear of conflict (although private talks among staff made the situation even worse). “Perhaps more than with any of the other dysfunctions, the leader must set the tone for a focus on results.” (pp. 219) This is the perfect description of the firm dynamic. I have since learned, not just from Linconi’s book, but also from personal experience that the most successful teams are dependent on trust, ability to face imperfections, example set by the leader of the commitment, not only to get the work done, but to the team.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

What is interesting in the film, the Foreman should be the leader in he jury room, but he displayed some awful leadership traits, especially at the beginning when he demonstratively turned his back to one of the jurors, and said “say whatever you want to say” I think he said “I don’t care”, especially when the person disagreed with him. He also showed a great

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 51/83

Edited by Svetla Jacques (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1052) on Jun 27 at 2:11pm

L Reply

weakness, and inability to accept criticism as well as inability to control the room. I thought “wow, I wonder how much work we can get done, if we lock the door during our business meetings and are not allowed to leave until the issues are resolved, or at least there is a consensus and a plan?” As for Juror #8, he clearly managed to create doubt in all members of the jury, in a very calm, reasonable, and rationale manner. What Juror #8 was simply doing, is what a defense lawyer should have done in the courtroom. When I saw Professor Ronayne’s earlier email regarding “what is the significance behind his job being an architect?” I thought immediately “oh no, the professor is doing it to us; he is making us think there was some premeditated conspiracy?” I think his profession may be symbolic – the architect of the verdict; lawyers do it all the time, especially defense attorneys, whose job is to poke holes in stories. What impressed me is Juror #8’s ability to bring out the other members’ personalities and backgrounds whilst steering the ship in the direction opposite of their initial stance point. He clearly had compassion and dedication to his job as a juror too. He was not going to send a young boy to the electric chair without talking about the case, without asking questions and deliberating.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Absolutely. He was patient, compassionate, and humble in his opinion and not judgmental. He did not force his opinion on the rest, he wanted to "talk about it". He was able to reach unanimous consensus in the process.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

In our firm, we need to start from the beginning – with the retreat/ or an offsite meeting. Personally, I will initiate more communication, and will be open to more communication among the staff and the attorneys. I will be more patient.

(http Jen Collier (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/3264) Sunday

M

Hi Svetla. I was very impressed by your assessment of the Jury Foreman and completely agree. It was almost comical how bad he was at leading the jurors to a verdict. He sought consensus before even the simplest task, like how to take a vote. He did little to support the jurors in getting to know each other before diving right into the task at hand. It was clear he wanted to the role of leader, but did little to help the group remove barriers and work through conflict. When his opinion was questioned, he reacted defensively demonstrating his own self doubt and feelings of insecurity. I also find it interesting that he often called for others to control their emotions, yet he struggled to control his own. The

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 52/83

L Reply

jury was successful despite his leadership instead of because of it. I shutter to think what would have happened to the accused had Juror 8 not been in the room. Great post, well done.

(https:// Molly Fanney (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2752) Sunday

M

Patrick Lencioni’s model for teamwork as outlined in his book, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” thoroughly explores the common traits of not only a highly dysfunctional team, but also a highly successful one. He claims that the basis of all dysfunction in a team is the absence of trust. This foundation really resonated with me, as without trust one cannot expect others to engage honestly, sincerely and wholeheartedly when they do not trust their teammates. I have seen this play out in a previous job. I worked in a law firm as I do now, but as a personal injury paralegal. It was only a mid-sized firm with two personal injury attorneys, so our team was made up of a pre-litigation attorney and his paralegal and a litigation attorney and me as his paralegal. When I moved to this sector of the firm, I was received kindly and encouraged for the hard work I had already demonstrated working directly under another lawyer. I found very quickly though that despite having no experience in this area of law and my team being fully aware of this, I was basically left to perform the job by myself, despite us clearly being a team. I also quickly found out that my performance in my new position was being criticized by the pre-litigation paralegal. I wasn’t communicating enough with her or offering her my assistance enough. Instead of coming to me directly, though, she went to her boss, who met with my boss and I was called into a conference to discuss my poor performance. Not only did my coworker not trust me enough to handle her feedback well and alter my behavior, I now did not trust her, as I felt that she went behind my back to criticize me to the man signing my paychecks, when she was supposed help guide me through the new job. It came to a point that the other paralegal refused to speak to me directly. I do not think I was without blame in this situation at all, but I certainly did not feel safe going to this paralegal and asking for help or offering to help her and was often left having no idea what I was doing wrong. My experience only continued to worsen as the trust between us continued to dwindle and other events with other staff caused distrust between myself and most of the people I had to work with on a daily basis. Not only was my immediate team lacking any communication whatsoever, the conflict and lack of conflict had bled into my interactions throughout the company. To no one’s surprise, I ended up leaving the job. Even though I have looked back on that experience and considered what I could have done differently many, many times, I don’t think I realized how much of the situation may have come down to a very simple lack of trust. We were never even capable of getting past that first hurdle because it was so critical to our ability to work as a team.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 53/83

L Reply

I can say that my current work experience is quite different and that is most simply because we trust each other. For the most part, our staff does not fear conflict when it is necessary and is constructive, but we still could improve our lack of commitment and avoidance of accountability. Fortunately, when one of my coworkers is frustrated and their commitment is waning or they do not wish to be accountable for their behavior, they are at least comfortable voicing their feelings so that they can be addressed.

I think Lencioni’s model was really evident in the eventual weeding out of the jurors harmful to the overall goal of the jury: to reach a just verdict. It Is only through the actions of Juror 8, much in the same way that Kathryn the CEO in “The Five Dysfunctions” did, that the jurors when finally working as a team, identified the individuals that did not have the ability to sacrifice their own personal interests for the goal of the team, wouldn’t hold themselves accountable, had low standards and were ambiguous. Jurors 3 and 12, had clear personal motivations for finding the defendant guilty that until the very end were quite unwilling to give up, would not be accountable for the issues they were causing in deliberation among the jurors and did not seem to value the true meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Juror 8 challenged all of the jurors, yet never in an effort to move the jury away from its ultimate goal. If anything, Juror 8 was the driving and grounding force of the team, continuously bringing all of the men back to why they were all there in the first place. Juror 8 encouraged conflict which enabled the men to truly dissect the evidence presented in the case. He created an environment for discussion where there was no room for ambiguity, unless the evidence was so ambiguous that it could be taken as fact. The lack of psychological safety that existed at the time of the first vote in the jury deliberation room could be the cause for the almost unanimous vote for guilty. As time went one and as each juror felt safer to express his more honest thinking about the argument Juror 8 was presenting, they were able to change their minds and openly say so.

Juror 8 could qualify as a Level 5 leader. His mission and goal for the team of jurors did not waiver and he sought it at all costs, even when the discussion almost escalated to physical altercations. He was the most capable man in the room when it came to logic and looking at the evidence in an unbiased, clear-headed manner. He certainly did not lack humility.

I believe a key component in building psychological safety at my firm is to continue to foster a space for my coworkers to air their grievances and to be supported. I like to think of my position as a support position, and after some time in this class, also a leadership position. I see the importance of providing support to my coworkers and how the overall success of the firm is contingent on it.

(http Ashley Jenkins (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1065) Sunday

M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 54/83

L Reply

Molly,

I agree that trust in the workplace is so important. It really is shocking once I thought about I how much trust is lacking in many work environments. I feel like 9/10 times when someone I know has been unhappy in their job it stems back to the lack of trust. My best friend had to punch in and out for her breaks while she was breast feeding to pump. The entire thing started because a few of the other workers in the factory complained that she was taking extended breaks. The boss had to be able to track and prove how long she was taking breaks for in order to prove to the other workers that she was in fact not taking extended breaks. Needless to say she quit that job because the lack of trust, among other dysfunctional issues. I also like your idea of creating a safe space for workers at your firm to be able to voice their grievances with support. Sometimes just being able to talk about something and feel heard can make a huge difference.

(http Chanthang Ney Oliver (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1010) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hi Molly- I think the experience you went through at your previous employer is something we can all relate to. You mention that trust dissolved between you and your coworker and I would have to agree that it would be difficult to come back from something like that. Prior to my current role, I never felt comfortable to go directly to a coworker to provide them with feedback. I didn't want to upset them and I certainly didn't want to deal with any conflict that could arise from that discussion. I felt that it was safer to discuss things with my supervisor, I never intended to get the other person in trouble, I was just really bad at communicating. Fast forward to my current role, it is vital to the success of employees and the team to provide honest feedback and in turn, this builds trust. The trust has to be multidirectional and by that I mean that employees should also be able to provide feedback to leaders and the management team. I know that is difficult for some but its a very important part of building a team. Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed reading your post!

(https:// Jen Collier (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/3264) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 55/83

Both “Five Dysfunctions” and the Google article reminded me the importance of Psychological safety when working with others. On a broader scale, they also tied back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In all three Self Actualization and achieving the full potential of a team cannot be done unless specific other needs are met first. The book did a good job at illustrating that a team does not have to fully master one level before tackling the next. There is constant adjustment and growth and slips backwards can definitely happen as well, especially as team members are added or leave. Recently I have learned firsthand how introducing new members to a team without properly acclimating them to the group, it’s norms and behaviors, can be a huge detriment. Recently, someone new joined a cross functional team I was working with. The team had been in tact since the project initiated and was fairly high functioning. When the new person joined, the team continued to work as usual, expected the new person to learn by example. Since this new person didn’t have the advantage of building trust and didn’t understand the way that the team resolved conflict, they felt isolated and withdrew. When other team members questioned them in order to hold them accountable, they felt targeted which only isolated them more. Eventually, we realized our mistake and circled back investing time to get to know this person and realign as a larger team on how we would be successful.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

I had never seen 12 Angry Men, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found it fascinating that the Juror’s never introduced themselves to each other until the very end of the movie. They jumped right to a vote. After the first vote, they targeted Juror #8, calling him names, bullying, and even threatening him to change his mind. Instead of striking back, Juror #8 asked questions and got to know the other jurors to understand why they felt he was guilty and then presenting the evidence in a way that created doubt. He never forced anyone’s hand, but left them discover their own answers. He outlined right at the start why they were there and the importance of their role. Reiterating several times throughout the movie that he had no personal agenda or need to be right. Through his transparency, the jurors built trust and slowly came to see their own bias creating the psychological safety they needed to speak their truth.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Juror #8 is in fact a Level 5 Leader. He often initiates with statements like, “I don’t know” or “I could be wrong” demonstrating his humility. Instead of just restating his doubt in a louder voice like some of the other jurors, he seeks to understand why the others are so sure the accused is guilty. He uses that information along with what he learns about each Juror to align with the right people and present the facts in a way that resonates and ultimately sways the Juror to question their stance. He empathizes with the accused and

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 56/83

L Reply

defines a process where he asks a question to the group, solicits their feedback, and calls for a revote to measure the result at each interaction. He demonstrates all of the characteristics of Level 5 leader, reiterating that the word leader is not a title, but a role we all play.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

My name is Jen and I am a people pleaser. It’s not something I am proud of, but I have a hard time with conflict and telling people no. That means I will be focusing on Fear of Conflict. Some people pleasers are motivated by approval and need constant positive feedback. That is not me. My people pleasing is routed in not wanting to cause anyone pain or discomfort. I would much rather inconvenience myself, taking on more work or sacrificing my own feelings instead of casing anyone else discomfort. In most cases people pleasing is a learned behavior passed down through families like eye color or left handedness. In my case it comes from losing my dad suddenly and unexpectedly to a heart attack when I was eleven years old. I have specific memories of believing if I was just good enough, or kind enough, or helpful enough, maybe my mom wouldn’t be so sad. That being said, I recognize the dysfunction in the behavior and it is something I am actively working on every day. It ties into my KLC which is all around prioritization. Part of that journey is getting better at saying no to the wrong work, so the right work can get done and burn out does not occur.

(http Ashley Jenkins (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1065) Sunday

M

Jen,

I work in a small office and new hires has been so hard. I think you have a valid point about establishing the norms of the team with the new person. I also think that the minute they feel "attacked" they will withdraw and it makes a rift between them and the team. One of my goals is to be able to be better at training new hires and I think that them being better aware can help build trust. I am glad that the team was able to circle back around and save the relationship. I feel that we have not bee so lucky on these occasions and end up losing the new hire. I also can relate to being a people pleaser. It is another issue that seems to get in my way of being able to effectively delegate tasks to other members of my team. I know that me asking another team member to be the one to stay late will make them annoyed, so then I always do it and wonder why I am exhausted and on the verge of burn out at times. I agree that my people pleasing is rooted in the same issue as you, not

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 57/83

L Reply

wanting to inconvenience or cause discomfort/pain to others. I am very sorry for the sudden loss of your father, I can not imagine how tough that was!

(https:// Ashley Jenkins (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1065) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions model really makes a lot of sense to me. These disfunctions are something that I think all places of work have to deal with at some point, shape, or form. For me, the foundation of absence of trust has been most notable. Working in healthcare, the experience from one place of employment to another can vary widely. I have worked for Doctors that are very kind to their employees and on the flip I have worked for Doctors that are abusive to their employees (ex. throwing instruments at assistance, being cursed, and even kicked). Even once you leave this type of abusive environment it is hard to trust the new team/doctors. I think that this trust issue can put wedges between the staff and the doctors, creating a staff vs doctor mentality. It can be detrimental to the effectiveness of the team. Being able to trust the people you work with and know you can count on them makes working together as a team. I have also seen reverse roles in which employers do not trust their employees. I think many of the abusive Doctors are these people. They often micromanage and ultimately undermine the team.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

Right from the very beginning you can see the dysfunctions model play out. With trust being the base, no one trusted that the boy may be innocent other than juror #8. The idea behind a trial is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, however, juror #8 presented with that idea in mind. Not only did he go in trusting but he had to earn the trust of his fellow juror members through discussion and helping them see the truth rather than going with guilty just because others were. I think that he was able to make the other feel psychologically safe by taking the initial risk himself and opening discussion that was not the “popular” answer.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader? It is hard to determine from a snip-it of how someone interacts rather they are a level 5 leader or not. With that said, I think that juror #8 was a level 5 leader for the group during this interaction. He tried to bring reason and critical thinking to the group. He was also humble and respectful, even when it came to open discussion that involved conflict. He was willing to put himself out there to consider the boy’s life; showing that

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 58/83

L Reply

he wasn’t only thinking about himself and what others would think of him but wanting to get to the truth.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

Moving forward I would like to adjust my fear of conflict. I think that this fear holds me back from being able to give people direction at times. I think this will help me be more effective at delegating tasks to others. My fear isn’t that I need to micromanage, it is that me asking someone to do something to help me will result in a conflict. My leadership challenge is to be a better leader to new hires and help in the training process, in turn helping retain new hires. I do think that that overcoming my fear of conflict will help me train new hires. Sometimes I am afraid to hurt others feelings but giving constructive criticism is a huge part of training and helping new hires improve.

(http John Napotnik (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1050) Sunday

L Reply

M

Ashley,

You make a great point regarding past experiences determining a preconceived bias against certain aspects of teams and ultimately causing dysfunction. I had not considered something like what you described between nurses and doctors. I am sorry you have experienced this level of dysfunction, but I am curious if you have been a part of any nurse/doctor teams where this has not been the case? I do not know much about the medical industry or how these teams function, but I am wondering if turnover and shift changes may have something to do with what you experienced? I can imagine that in industries where you have high turnover, as well as different groups of people working together at different times of the day, or different days of the week, that establishing well- functioning teams is exponentially more difficult. My reasoning is that because you are working with more people less frequently, that conditions might not be optimal for establishing trust, engaging in healthy conflict, etc.

Thanks for sharing this experience in your post. I hope this changes for you very soon!

John

(http Tiffany Richardson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/283) Sunday

M

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 59/83

L Reply

Ashley, I agree. It is essential that teams trust one another allowing them to be effective in their roles. As you know in healthcare, everyone has their role and some overlap, but ultimately when the roles are being fulfilled it really comes together to complete the bigger picture. The movie was a great depiction of how trust, or lack the lack of trust, can really determine the mood of the situation. Great point about how he made the others feel safe when he put himself out there first, taking the initial risk. I think it is important when leading, and in general, to lead by example- even if that means sticking your neck out first and farthest. It also showed that he was allowing himself not to get caught up in the groupthink, but to have his own opinion and idea.

I like how you included how it is hard to determine someone's leadership qualities from just a short clip. I agree he was a leader during THIS interaction. He was able to remain calm and provoke deeper thought among the other jurors.

I struggle with fear of conflict also. I am rather quiet person and like to take things in rather than being the squeaky wheel, but I can be squeaky when the time comes. This is a weakness that I would like to intentionally focus on improving.

-Tiffany

(https:// Ryan Allers (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/2716) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Acquired insights aside, I actually found Patrick Lencioni’s book a rather satisfying read. My wife has already begun reading my copy and I’ve recommended it to a few colleagues. I’m hoping that this may institute some evolution with how we work with one another. Additionally, I believe it will assist us in recognizing difficulties that we currently experience within the organization. Unfortunately, I believe our greatest hurdle exists at the bottom pyramid of the model, that being, an absence of trust. In no effort to perpetuate stereotypes, most members of the team tend to be quite a bit older and tend to be men. I’ve witnessed it with my own father, my grandfather, my father-in-law, and many members of our team, they tend to disguise or deny vulnerabilities. It’s the perceived “manly” thing to do, to disregard weakness, inadequacies, or shortcomings. Naturally, this does very little to increase of effectiveness as a team. They are always right, all the time, and attempts to challenge the unhealthy trend is met with contempt. Therefore, those of us who may recognize what’s occurring are left feeling a

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 60/83

L Reply

sense of unease and concern over voicing a dissenting opinion. The numbers and seniority play in their favor, and it’s quite difficult to overcome what the potential consequences may be if opposition if one were to thoroughly follow through with opposition.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

After viewing, I’m actually unsure that Juror #8 didn’t initially have the same opinion as the other 11 whom of which he shared in the deliberations. However, once the inquiries began and expanded, it became clearer that they were all marching towards near unanimity. This was accomplished by Juror #8 fostering an atmosphere that was conducive to competing ideas free from judgement that may have been leveled by their fellow peers. It was a slow, but steady progress as the film continued on that was quite endearing to witness.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I’d say Juror # 8 was a level 5 leader. He remained motivated in seeking out the truth throughout the entirety of the deliberations and regularly displayed compassion and kindness to his fellow jurors. He engendered continuing honest discussion based upon mutual respect and trust.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I think our team could benefit greatly from some offsite meetings. The environment we are currently in can be a bit “stiff” at times, and this is reflected in the overall effectiveness of the meeting. Personally, I need to be better about not shying away from confrontation. I know there are issues within the organization, but fear of repercussion has caused me to become stagnant. I need to push through, be respectful in confronting, and they final result may turn out to be positive.

(http Tiffany Richardson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/283) Sunday

M

I agree, the book is a good read. I, too, will be recommending it to some coworkers. I found it to be very enlightening and accurate. I was able to recognize some of the behaviors from the book as behaviors that currently take place in our staff meetings/department. While my workplace isn't mostly male, it IS located in a small rural community lending itself to a whole different set of issues. Many of the people who are employed have been there for years. It is unusual for new, unknown employees to be hired or promoted limiting new ideas and perspectives.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 61/83

L Reply

Again, I agree. At the beginning, Juror 8 was likely just wanting to get out of there like everyone else, but also wanted to young man to have a fair jury. He was the only one who wasn't afraid of conflict among the others or going against the group's idea. This alone is part of being a level 5 leader. He was able to express his views with rational honesty while remaining kind.

I avoid conflict too. This is an area I plan to work on. I have ideas, but never speak up or want to engage in discussion about furthering the idea.

Thank you for sharing.

-Tiffany

(http Chanthang Ney Oliver (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1010) Sunday

L Reply

M

Ryan- I think its interesting that you recommend shifting meeting offsite and I think its a great idea. When we hold events offsite, I notice a shift in company morale and had some really good feedback from employees. What I like most about these offsite events is how they start. As employees arrive, they chat amongst each other about the drive and parking and then the conversation continues to a personal level. The informal start allows employees to relax and get to know each other and I found that engagement is higher. I also agree that the absence of trust is the basis of dysfunction in teams. Without trust, people will not feel comfortable to speak freely, there will be no accountability, and this creates an ineffective team. Establishing trust is a process that doesn't happen overnight but it can be difficult to figure out how to begin. I think psychological safety is the key to developing trust between team members. I enjoyed reading your post and good luck with future team meetings!

(http Daniel Lepore (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1683) Wednesday

M

Hi Ryan,

I too enjoyed reading Patrick Lencioni's book. Written as a relatable story, it kept my attention throughout and the story served as an excellent example of the five dysfunctions. I agree that trust is foundational to having a high-functioning team. In my

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 62/83

L Reply

organization, we have pockets of trust, where individual units trust each other, but not cross-functionally. For us, this leads to backchannel politics and ex parte decisions. The cross-functional trust issue extended beyond any one organizational unit and it seems to be somehow connected to our organization's history and culture. The further removed people are from each other organizationally, the less trust exists. Since our organization has 25 separate subunits, all geographically dispersed, we have 25 separate subcultures making it extremely difficult to build trust on a broad scale. I think our best bet is to focus first on our individual teams, then on individual subunits.

Thanks, Dan

(https:// Chanthang Ney Oliver (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1010) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Lencioni clearly identified the major dysfunctions of teams as absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. I’ve experienced each of these in the teams that I’ve led but the ones that I see most often are avoidance of accountability and fear of conflict. As I began my journey in a leadership role, the morale of the current team was in disarray. Employees didn’t trust management to make fair choices, there was distrust between employees and departments would quickly blame another for mistakes. I wasn’t sure what I was getting myself into or if I had the ability to be successful in this role. The thing that scared me the most was the response I would receive when giving feedback to employees. Holding myself accountable seemed to be easy but trying to hold someone else accountable in the scope of the team was far more difficult than I imagined. I remember one of the first conversations I had was an issue between two employees who seemed to never get along. They made a point to avoid communicating with each other and this ultimately overflowed into the entire team. My solution to this problem was to have them discuss their issues with me as the mediator. One employee was honest while the other was closed and irritated that I had forced her into the conversation. The employees would never solve their differences but this conversation was the shift that the team needed. It set an example to the team that difficult conversations are sometimes needed, we needed to hold each other accountable for the good and bad things.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 63/83

L Reply

Juror #8 was incredible and set a great example for leadership. The dysfunction that I noticed in the jurors was the avoidance of accountability. At the beginning of deliberations, all but one juror made the decision to vote guilty. The goal of the team was lost, they were to convict someone of a crime through discussion, not through personal motives like the juror who had tickets to a baseball game that evening. Juror #8 did not change his stance in wanting to deliberate the investigation and this in turn encouraged other jurors to hold each other accountable. The group of jurors started out resenting each other, they encouraged mediocrity by not fully deliberating, and they did not respect each other. Through the leadership of juror #8, the team began to “ensure that poor performers feel pressure to improve, identified potential problems by questioning one another’s approaches without hesitation, and establish respect among team members who are held to the same high standards”. It seems that accountability increased the jurors’ trust amongst each other which in turn allowed them to feel less vulnerable when discussing their thoughts. It wasn’t just the deliberation of the case but the jurors discussed their personal lives which created psychological safety amongst the jurors. This allowed the jurors to establish a bond where they “know that [they] can be free enough, sometimes, to share the things that scare us without fear of recriminations” (Duhigg).

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

The qualities that Level 5 leaders have include deep personal humility, intense professional will, and they act quietly, calmly, and determinedly (Collins). Given these qualities, I believe that Juror #8 is a Level 5 leader. He led the other jurors through successful deliberations, never claimed to be the leader but rather encouraged each juror to be an active participant. He also did not take credit for the success of the jurors but instead felt personally accountable if they didn’t complete the task at hand.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

Prior to my leadership role, I was a peer to many of the employees that I now manage. I learned that I needed to create boundaries with the staff and have since been very quiet about my personal life. Not that I don’t discuss anything with my employees, I just don’t go into detail about my personal life but I see that it can be very beneficial in building a team. I think the key for me is to find the right balance with the amount of information I choose to discuss with employees.

(http Paul Roberts (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1051) Sunday

M

Hi Jen,

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 64/83

L Reply

Self-accountability and awareness are two things that I think are key for a good leader. Without it, you are just someone trying to tell others what to do and will not get buy-in.

I also had the same view with the film - the abruptness of guilt, without conversation was surreal. The way that he mirrored the five dysfunctions was easy to see after I read the book. I think that it helped me see just how the book can be used to handle and address different situations. But more so how he was able to build a team with one goal in mind.

Boundaries are hard to establish when there is growth within the organization. You are now managing the same people you used to work alongside. Being able to separate that and allow for the professional boundaries to be added must not have been easy. Balance is key and it seems like you have been successful in knowing this about yourself and your team.

(http Alex Morrison (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/142) Sunday

M

Hey Jen,

Going from team member to manager is, in my opinion, the most difficult transition one can make professionally. Divulging information to your buddies who you sit next to all day every day is something you have to do to keep from going crazy. That said, this is also no different than having Facebook in high school and putting dumb comments and pictures up to define you for the rest of eternity. Kids now are being educated on the long-term ramifications of what the share over social media. My question is, why don't they teach this concept on what to communicate professionally in college ?

The first firm I worked at was for 17 years. which means, I was working with people in my mid-thirties that I also worked with when I was 20. Do you think I may have been different when I was 20? Would my coworkers have had a different picture of me if they had met me at 35? That's a Texas-sized 10-4. When I went to my new firm, I decided to keep to myself much more than at the last firm. In my 20's I made friends for life from sitting next to them every day. Two of my best friends from the office are married now and I went to see them at the beach a few weeks back. It's important to build those relationships, but at this age I don't need any more friends, which is very helpful professionally.

Point being, building personal relationships with your coworkers is so important to you personally, but you need to figure out where the line is to avoid giving up too much to the wrong person. Letting your work define you, and not your interests or personal history.

When you get that figured out, I'll have a book deal waiting for you.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 65/83

L Reply

Thanks Jen!

(https:// Tiffany Richardson (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/283) Sunday

M

Week 3 Discussion

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

I found Lencioni’s “Five Dysfunctions” to be spot on. Lack of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results are commonplace in most work places. In his story, I was able to see characteristics that are present within my team. Personally, I struggle with a couple of the areas- lack of trust and fear of conflict (more avoidance of conflict for me.) I am not a confrontational person so I definitely steer clear of conflict. I also find trusting others to hold up their end of the duties is difficult for me. There are many times that a team member has left work to be completed by someone on short notice, sometimes completed by me to ensure we are meeting deadlines or prepared.

In department staff meetings, it is not unusual to see a lack of commitment or inattention to results. Many just come to work to do their job and get paid-nothing more. This leaves others who are committed to pick of the slack. This results in decreased morale- because some feel like they are always going above and beyond while others are just doing the bare minimum and getting by. It is a tough situation. As Katherine showed with her instruction and leadership, to get out of this situation it requires inter- and intrapersonal work and commitment from each member in addition to the other areas.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

In the movie 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 was able to provoke thought in each of the other jurors by building on his doubts. This allowed each juror to think about or work on personal struggles that might be getting in the way of the real goal, or matter at hand. Juror #8 was able to stay calm and collected leading the group toward an honest decision, based on facts versus groupthink.

As it came to a close, you could see the real struggle within some of the men. Past circumstances, or experiences, were leading their decisions instead of the facts presented during the case. Juror #8 allowed others to think aloud and leading the thought process to the

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 66/83

L Reply

next set of evidence building trust and psychological safety along the way. By doing this he showed the others that it was a safe area to express their ideas.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Juror #8 is a level 5 leader. He was able to establish trust among the group even when they weren’t certain about his suggestions. He remained cool and collected while encouraging productive thought among the others. He did not discourage any ideas without first investigating and stepping through each to test its probability. He was able to regain control of the group when needed and realign to the task. He recognized when issues went deeper for some individuals and provided a quiet presence instead of leaving them to deal alone.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

Moving forward, I will be more attentive and include trust building exercises within the department. While I don’t lead many of the meetings, I can suggest some healthy conflict among the group to really get things out and build the confidence needed to work through issues as a group. Within my group, it is also important to have accountability and have attention for the detail and results. These are two areas I will be focusing on because there is reward involved that will also lend itself to increased trust and morale.

(http John Napotnik (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1050) Sunday

M

Hi Tiffany,

Great post!

Your last point about The Five Dysfunctions is spot on. When team members are not committed or lack attention to details, it can derail a whole project or even team. The one thing I wanted to add to this is that the team accountability piece is huge here. When team members trust each other, and engage in healthy discourse, then they are more willing to hold each other accountable to the objectives of the team, ultimately helping to prevent the low morale and the derailment that you mentioned. We saw this in the book when the different team members pushed on each other when they were veering off course or focusing on things that were not important to the group.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 67/83

L Reply

The thing I loved about 12 Angry Men is that, as you pointed out, Juror 8 created a safe space to express their ideas,. By doing so, he actually did not have to be the one to do all the convincing. He had several other jurors thinking on his level and they ended up championing the cause to the rest of their peers, ultimately resulting in the unanimous "not guilty" verdict.

Thanks!

John

(http David Dindo (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/3220) Sunday

L Reply

M

Tiffany,

I enjoyed reading your post, and agree with you that fear of conflict is a large aspect in which I also need to work on. I was initially surprised to read that you mentioned lack of trust, but I was not thinking about 'trust' in the same sense that you mentioned in your post. Which, once I read that part of your post it sort of 'clicked' for me. I have been on both sides of that coin, in some situations I find myself just not really being able to depend on certain members turning in their work, or even delivering work that adheres to some form of quality or standard. Though, I have been once before on the receiving end of that situation, where someone pestered me quite a bit about whether or not I was going to submit my portion of the group assignment in. In my mind the entire time, I just couldn't help but think what a ridiculous question it was, because it was sort of like "Why wouldn't I submit my portion of the assignment in?" I just found it odd, especially since we were being graded independently. So, it resulted in me becoming frustrated, and I just ignored the remarks until I on my own time submitted everything. But, I can see now why someone might be concerned especially since I have also been on the flip side where people actually do not submit their portion of the assignment at all. To make matters worse, I have even had instances where someone does not submit their portion of the assignment, and yet they get the same mark or grade as those who did, despite the professor saying that would not be the case. Odd, but it does happen. So, in hindsight I can see what you are saying that building trust, but also just being able to rely and depend on your partners is very important in any relationship, especially one that does more and more depend on commitment and trust.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 68/83

(http Alex Morrison (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/142) Sunday

L Reply

M

Hi Tiffany,

I think many fall into the same boat as you (myself for sure) with the lack of trust in others and confidence in myself as a leader. I know classes like this can really help turn the page and address both issues, but those are the two attributes in a leader that are the hardest to correct. They say 'trust takes a lifetime to gain and a moment to lose," but I believe that goes more into our trust in a person, not in their ability. If you look at it specifically that way, then if we have issues trusting our reports' abilities, then that is because we have not set them up for success. That is either because we have not trained them thoroughly enough, or we don't know what direction we are going ourselves which is causing us to avoid delegation. The best thing about looking at it this way puts more of the ownership on ourselves, and will motivate us to become better trainers and delegators.

I also believe if we are more prepared and organized in our training and project planning, we will be more confident in our delegation and others will see this and feed off it.

Thanks for sharing Tiffany!

(https:// John Napotnik (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1050) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Throughout The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, I was reminded repeatedly of individuals and teams I have encountered before. The correlation is that the worst teams I have been apart of have had the highest amount of dysfunction by virtually checking all five of Lencioni’s boxes, whereas the best teams I have been a part of have eliminated all five of his dysfunctions.

To start, the best teams that I have been a part of have had their own version of a Katheryn. The leaders of these teams have been trusting, communicative, resolute, transparent, and more. The CEO for my last YMCA association in Roanoke operated wholly on a foundation of trust. I was part of the executive leadership team for this association, and we very clearly had a Mikey as one of our team members who was unaware of how her actions showed that she was an unwilling team member, and when challenged she had emotional outbursts. I

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 69/83

remember sitting with our CEO and asking what his thoughts on this individual were, and his response was that he would prefer to continue to keep trusting her to do her job, and that he would continue counseling her on how she was being perceived. I saw this same quality in Kathryn, who several times throughout the book was challenged by her team members, both individually and collectively because they were not trusting of her or her processes (Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team).

Fear of conflict was the defining quality of one of the worst teams I have ever been a part of. We were a small team for a non-facility YMCA, that consisted of the Executive Director (my supervisor), an office manager, a childcare program director, and myself as the camp, sports, and aquatics director. The childcare program director clearly lacked trust in all of us, and was constantly asking the Executive Director to step outside so she could vent, cry, and smoke because she got her feelings hurt in our team meetings. I was the newest member on the team, but very quickly her attention and lack of trust turned to me, but it also rotated, and one by one, she would ask others of us on the team to step outside and hear her out, depending on who she was upset with that week. The issue was not so much these pointed side conversations, but rather, that none of us confronted reality with her due to the fear of upsetting her more. It finally came to a head when I had had enough and approached the Executive Director about calling a meeting so we all could resolve our differences, for the sake of our team and our Y. Instead, I was transferred to another Y, the office manager quit, and for two years, our replacements would be hired and either fired or transferred because no one could get along with this individual, and members and program participants fled for the same reasons, all because the Exec. would not promote healthy conflict. At first, I was reminded of Martin with this person, but he ultimately became a great team member. I believe this is due to Kathryn (and others on the team) establishing trust and a culture without judgement and calling out him (and each other) when they were acting against the interests of the team. I feel like the same could have happened for this individual had our leader fostered the same type of culture.

Lastly, I have been a part of some really great teams in terms of relationships, but inefficient in terms of results. The issues on these teams have always been lack of accountability, or too much focus on individual results rather than team results. The real problems with teams like these are the feel-good feelings are fleeting after the team continually produces suboptimal results. In the Y world, we group directors together in cabinets or committees of like job descriptions, i.e. the Aquatics Cabinet consists of Aquatics Directors from all the different branches within an association. In my last Y, we had the idea to have these cabinets start meeting every two weeks once we were able resume operations after COVID. Very quickly we started receiving staff complaints that these meetings were a waste of time, nothing of any value was getting accomplished, and more. Once I jumped onto one of the Aquatics meetings, it was clear there was no direction, no clearly defined objectives (and thus no reportable outcomes), and instead these meetings turned into report meetings where the different

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 70/83

Aquatics Directors were trying to outdo each other by reporting their numbers for swim lessons or swim team. Once we recognized this, we went through a process similar to Kathryn’s when they tried to narrow down what their team should focus on to boost the company’s profits. Some said more offer more swim lessons, while others said focus on limiting the number of lifeguard saves, etc. We ultimately eliminated twice per month meetings, settled on a targeted and reorganized swim lesson program, assigned different aquatics directors different roles, and outlined clear objectives and timeframes that we could celebrate once we accomplished those objectives. The result was massive growth at all of our branches in our aquatics programming, and thus our membership.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

All of the dysfunctions are prevalent throughout 12 Angry Men. As the dialogue between Juror # 8 and the rest of the jurors evolved, we witnessed escalating conflict as one by one, the dysfunctions were resolved and the jurors ultimately sided with Davis (# 8).

To start, it was only when Davis gained his first follower, # 9 (the old man), that trust started to form between the jurors. While it wasn’t fully established until the very end, the men started defending each other and ultimately walked away from the table when it was clear that trust was not being reciprocated among all the jurors. Yet it was Davis who initially extended trust, knowing that the ten remaining jurors were not necessarily against him, but against the idea that a level of reasonable doubt actually existed in the murder case they were deliberating over. It was this first act that allowed the others to eventually trust that their peers would not judge them once they all were on the same page. Similarly, we saw the multiple times when the absence of trust broke down all communications, as when they foreman, Juror # 1, shut down after being challenged on how he was leading the group.

We saw the young juror with the glasses and high-pitched voice change his vote after he was no longer afraid of conflict with the other jurors. We saw the marketing executive flip flop between verdicts a couple times, and juror # 7 (wearing the fedora) switch his vote because he wanted to end the deliberation to make it to a baseball game. Because both jurors were not actually committed to the purpose of the jury (to determine if reasonable doubt existed in the case), we saw frustration amongst the other jurors and ultimately more time deliberating (inefficiency) due to their ambiguity. As the juror with a cold went on a racist, classist, rant, we saw the rest of the jurors turn away from him because he had not been held accountable for his words and actions before that point (other than a few warnings of violence) until it was ultimately too much for any of them to bear, and resulted in him being completely shut down from that point on. Lastly, we watched the last holdout fight furiously in vain, even against all reason, because he paralleled the kid on trial to his own son, putting his ego above the cause of the team of jurors, until he could not take it anymore.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 71/83

I am not sure the team of jurors ever achieved a determinate level of psychological safety, as described in the NYT article, since insults were slung about from most of the men until the end of the film (Charles Duhigg, “What Google Learned from its Quest to Build the Perfect Team”). I would argue that it was finally achieved with the collapse of the last holdout onto the table in tears, and that that was the point where the team could accomplish their task in unanimously reaching a verdict. This is reinforced by the fact that juror # 8 grabbed his jacket, put his hand on his shoulder in a comforting manner, and helped him put the jacket on as they walked out of the room.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Without a doubt, I felt that Davis (Juror # 8) was a Level 5 Leader. He demonstrated great humility throughout the film, frequently expressing that he could be wrong, the 18-year-old suspect, could be guilty, etc. This level of humility was also seen as he faced an onslaught of criticism for his initial “not guilty vote,” and continued to do so until the end of the film. He did not cave, nor sink to throwing insults back at the other jurors. Additionally, he professional will to stick to the cause of their deliberation was remarkable and ultimately gained him the trust of his fellow jurors. This is most notable when the second to last hold out states that the witness testimony of seeing the suspect kill his father through her window and the windows of the last two el-cars proves that the suspect must be guilty. At this point, juror # 8’s professional will had spread to his peers, and it was his first follower, the old man, who maintained that same standard and drove the nail in the coffin by determining that the witness must have worn glasses based on similar indentations on her nose to the juror’s.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I will be focusing on having and promoting healthy emotional conversation. While I consider myself to be an empathetic leader, I have furiously and feverishly shied away from conversations where emotions come in to play. In fact, I even advised one of my direct reports last year to do the same when a couple of his team members were feuding and he was trying to be their friend first and manager second (I still maintain that the feuding was unhealthy for work and was a threat to psychological safety, but I took it to the other extreme and said there should be no room for emotion at work, which is also a threat). After reading the NYT article, I see the importance of fostering healthy emotional conversation amongst my team members. My old CEO had a saying that we sometimes see our peers more than our family, so we need to embrace them like family in order for the work relationships to work. To do this, I will ask questions about how assignments or incidents make people feel, and how I can support them while they are feeling certain ways. Going back to my Key Leadership Challenge, I think this will also help foster trust with my direct reports, who I am going to have to lean on pretty heavily to make some big changes in the next couple of months.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 72/83

L Reply

(https:// Paul Roberts (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1051) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

I have worked with the team as the leader and the group and reading this book does outline a pretty similar picture of my experiences. I have been both part of the team and the leader and at the end of the day leading these conversations and being a part of is not far off from this book. The simplicity of the five dysfunctions is also why building strong teams can be so complicated. No matter what the strengths are of the team or leader there tends to be at least one dysfunction that is apparent when one really starts digging in. For me and my past experience, I believe that fear of conflict and ego is what stands out. Conflict is positive and must be present to elevate and drive results. This fosters communication and relationships that push not only towards the same goal or target but also is key to buy-in. The way that Lencioni explains this, and that conflict is what helps create the buy-in, even if someone did not agree that when they can speak their minds, propose possible alternatives, pitfalls, and concerns. Even when they originally didn’t agree this helps foster trust and the buy-in. They feel heard and that their opinion is valued. Ego is another one that stands out. I have worked in big organizations with people that had lots of letters after their name. The ego that came with that was not always the easiest to manage, opinions, experts in their field, very intelligent, and yet unable to admit being wrong or correction. For me, ego has been the hardest to overcome. As a leader, patience and humbleness are an integral part of creating a successful team that builds on one another and not against seeing who is the smartest or correct. I like how Lencioni breaks this down to team or me and that if you are more focused on your individual contributions than the success of the team then maybe you should not be on the team.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

I think that he followed the model and really you can map this out.

Trust – speaking his mind but qualifying it with he may be wrong in his assumption. This built trust with the group by acknowledging he might be way off base but wanted to discuss it more. This bought goodwill with the fellow jurors. Conflict – they did not agree but he was able to speak his mind and thus created a debate of thoughts and opinions, swaying the others after communicating without any preconceived

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 73/83

L Reply

notions, just facts. Commitment – they committed to a goal of using the information to make a decision of guilt or not, beforehand they did not have a commitment of justice, but rather biased. They regrouped and made a commitment to take the facts of the case to make a judgment. Ego – it is not me it's the team. Being able to step back and remove personal feelings of the case and from outside of the case and focus on the goal of the group. He was able to help steer this to think about the common goal and not their own personal feelings.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

Yes, he wanted to do the right thing and while the rest of the jurors were quick to vote guilty he wanted to take the time to discuss and review and not jump to a conclusion. He wanted to remove the immediate emotion from the group and have them take a new approach, one that was patient and willing to have conflict while trying to remove the bias that they came in with. I think that as a Level 5 leader you have to be able to garner a group's attention with calm and collected thoughts that force them to step back and share their opinions – which he did successfully.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

I will be working fear of conflict. To me, this is a key part of each of the other four behaviors. Without conflict, there can be no trust, accountability, commitment, or results. The team will be focused on their individual performance and not build the relationships needed to hit the common goal. Conflict perpetuates growth and a challenge with one another, not to fight and argue but rather to communicate, hold each other accountable, and push each other to be better and grow. Conflict drives success.

(http David Dindo (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/3220) Sunday

M

Paul,

Excellent discussion board thread, and I found it to be quite engaging and intriguing. I agree with you that fear of conflict is a big factor for me personally, and attempting to simply state out the obvious when it is needed, but to also push the group/team in the right direction. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on how conflict as you say drives success, and I do agree that ultimately having conflict can push the group towards a better and more

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 74/83

L Reply

refined path. However, I do feel as though sometimes that need for conflict does stem from some group members lacking commitment, or any enthusiasm to contribute at all. As a result, often is the case the group will just bleed productivity and little to no effort or coordination will be had. Which is why I think conflict as you mention is needed, to kind of jump start the team in gears, but to perhaps even enforce the idea that this is a serious situation, not an opportunity for certain parties to simply use this moment to slack or let other members carry their weight.

(https:// David Dindo (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/3220) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Patrick Lencioni’s model in my opinion are fairly accurate about the challenges and hurdles a team often faces. In my experience, lack of commitment is often the number one issue I seem to gain from my team or group. I've been involved with a number of group projects at both college and university, and it is one of my most dreaded prospects in any course. For the sole reason that every time I am involved in a group project one or more members depending on the size of the group have no commitment or intention of adding anything to the group discussion or to even providing their own work. For some odd reason, everyone sits around twiddling their thumbs in anticipation of someone to speak up and take charge. Yet, even when someone does take charge or try to drive the discussion to something worthwhile, members seemingly have no interest in following suit or even dedicating any effort to the work or project itself. I think alongside the lack of commitment quickly follows suit the inattention to details, and I think that is quite common. The majority of the time in my experiences one or more members will often feel that the rest of the group/team will carry or boost their own shoddy work. Which in many cases is unfortunately true to some degree, I've had group presentations where all it takes is for someone to be an excellent orator and the group will preform beautifully. The lack of trust is something that I do find personally a little bit odd, I have never personally been in a situation where 'trust' came into it, but perhaps there are some occasions where group members may not trust another member to deliver quality work or to deliver at all. A group or team is in my opinion a very challenging aspect of schooling or even in the workplace, but I do believe someone taking initiative to bring everyone together and under a common goal can truly make the difference between decent and excellence.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build more effective teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 75/83

Personally, for me my primary behavior that I would like to work on is the fear of conflict. Sometimes I find myself with a fairly clear idea or understanding of where the group needs to be and which direction to take the project in. However, it is not necessarily a fear of conflict or argument, but rather I don't feel like it is worth the time to get into some discussion or debate about whether or not my suggestion is indeed the correct one. I've seen papers or even presentations where I personally think the work is poor, or the organization of the entire assignment is weak and unappealing to an audience. But, rather than tell someone how they should do their work or how to organize themselves I prefer to stay quiet and just let them do their own thing. While most of the time it goes by unnoticed or everything is perfectly fine, I still do believe that just because someone grades well or is perceived as good, doesn't mean we shouldn't take the extra step to set at the very least a standard for good quality work.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men?

Juror #8, a lot to say about him, and for the most part his leadership is excellent, and exhibits the characteristics that a level 5 leader would have. Morally, I am not all too sure how I feel about the performance, as I am not too sure about persuading or presenting an argument that perhaps shifted the belief or mindset of some jurors that can alter the outcome of a defendant. Again, we can sit here and say he presented the argument in a clear light and simply showed people the holes and gaps in the prosecutions theories. But, I've read about 'cases' in our history being lead or decided by one man rather than 12 equal jurors/peers of the community. That being said, the leadership skills were unmatched by juror #8, his ability to not only control the room, but to even control the narrative. Interestingly enough, juror #8 had to actually prove himself as an effective and capable leader, it was not simply stated that he would be a leader and everyone should listen to his instructions. Rather, after rebutting each and every argument, while also being calm and collected in how he spoke with everyone, it was almost a battle to prove that he was the one in charge or morally just. I am not entirely sure if his nature was just rather calm and collected, but it would be smart on his part to do so, because you could face conflict or confrontation and force someone to double down or get defensive over their position. Once someone is locked or defensive over their argument, that is someone who is not going to change their mind, and it becomes rather futile to continue discussions. However, by remaining calm and collected nobody else in the room felt 'attacked' for their own beliefs and or opinions.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I think ultimately juror #8 at the very least conveyed characteristics that exhibit potential to be a level 5 leader. I think there is something to be said for someone who stuck to his or her own principles, and he did just that. It is often very easy to just go with the crowd or popular opinion and avoid conflict, something that I often do myself. However, he stuck to his own morale principles, and likely saw the whole picture for what it was, and at the end of the day wanted to

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 76/83

L Reply

at least show the rest of the jurors his opinions and the way he views something. I think without question he is a level 5 leader, and is someone who showed not only leadership, but the ability to be endearing and even charismatic with his fellow jurors. Most of all, I think he developed a line of trust, and forced the rest of the jurors to face accountability with the prospect of someone being put to death, and not taking into account all of the details or at the very least, hearing out a possible rebuttal to their thought process.

(https:// Alex Morrison (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/142) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

“One of the best ways to lose the trust of a team is to feign vulnerability in order to manipulate the emotions of others”

This is what I constantly have in my head when I think about my boss. He helps me manage by giving tips on ways to “work” people. I think “manipulate” may be a bit aggressive, but when a boss gives tips to a report about how to get what they need from their reports, then it’s pretty likely they may be leading by example. I understand that I sound like a victim here, but what Lencioni showed me is that I’m actually more of the problem. I go to work every day and I work hard and as a teammate, but in my head I always think that I should be keeping my boss at arm’s length, successfully accomplishing Dysfunction #1. The bigger issue is that my lack of trust is painting the picture of someone that could very well be sincere and using tools to make me the most effective and productive leader I can be, but I’m just reading it wrong. This only perpetuates itself that I’m not willing to be vulnerable enough to bring it up. If I was wrong that could get worked out, and if I was right, then mentioning this would make him cognisant going forward. If someone called me out like that, I’d think about it every time I saw them.

This feels like a bit of the chicken or the egg, but whether or not my shortcomings are the cause, correcting my behavior would be the solution for both.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

I think this model played out initially by juror #8 showing that he was vulnerable enough to admit that he didn’t know if he was guilty or not, but he just didn’t know. This is a difficult predicament to be the only person holding up everyone else when it would have been just as

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 77/83

L Reply

easy to vote with the rest and move on. This also showed he was standing up for what he believed to be the right thing to do. He also exercised psychological safety by giving each juror who was thinking through their verdict, the safety to do so without being the lone man standing. He continued this throughout as each juror began to shift their verdict by giving them the confidence to be vulnerable. Nobody felt that way in the room at the beginning, but even the last hold out showed his vulnerability when he broke down and changed his verdict at the end.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

I’m not sure if he was quite a Level 5 leader, but I will admit that he has many of the characteristics of one. The one thing that stood out to me that proved this was when he was attempting to convince 11 jurors who were looking at what he was doing as an impossible battle he said something to the extent of ‘let’s discuss this for an hour, if everyone still feels the same, I’ll change my vote.’ This looked like a bold gamble at face value and one that he was also guaranteed to lose. This did several things however. It gave him time to voice his opinion and really hear out the rest of the group’s reasoning, it was a negotiation that the others were willing to jump at, and after an hour and reading each juror’s input, he would likely know if he was just prolonging the inevitable and would be ideal to cut his losses anyway. He was able to quickly get a buy-in of the whole team for the first step, which was the only step at that point.

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

One can’t learn without failing. One thing I tell my team on day one is that I’ve never seen anyone get fired for making a mistake, even a big one. As a manager, giving my team the safety to be allowed to fail means also giving them the ability to review and analyze their mistakes, understand the point of failure, and ultimately improve the project and the employee. From what I have seen, those who are scared to make mistakes, are unlikely to progress in whatever they are attempting. I am hoping that my KLC will give more autonomy to my team on projects. Their sense of ownership will hopefully allow them to control the environment where mistakes will be for their eyes only, and they can look at me as more of an advisor or sounding board. Knowing that these projects will likely be small groups within my team working together, I plan to promote them to allow the same psychological safety in each other that I do in all of them.

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 78/83

(https:// Robert Brown (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1085) Sunday

M

What insights about your experiences with teams (present and past) do you gain from Patrick Lencioni’s "Five Dysfunctions" model?

Melding elements of human psychology, behavioral science and good, old fashion life experience, Lencioni’s “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” offers some valuable insight into those seemingly obvious, yet often misunderstood or overlooked, social dynamics that can hamper a team’s ability to fulfill its organization agenda and fullest potential.

I would like to first note that the author’s decision to present his work through the lens of a fictionalized story anchored with various elements of anecdotal realism—a “leadership fable” as the author describes it—was a unique and highly effective choice of literary device for this book. As a reader, I found myself fully immersed in the story of DecisionTech, Inc. and its new CEO, Kathryn, who faced the dual and simultaneous leadership dilemma of establishing her ground as the new chief executive of the company, while also “righting the ship” of an organization whose internal team dynamics—and its resulting commercial outputs of profitability, market share and sustained corporate growth—were failing to meet necessary expectations for continued success. Witnessing Lencioni’s model revealed through these fictionalized characters, and a measure of suspended disbelief, enabled me to take up the concepts Lencioni presented more easily and immediately take stock of various commonalities in my own life and career experiences—without the sense of rote drudgery or preachiness that can readers can often experience when reading material such as this.

While I could offer myriad examples of where the concepts/circumstances presented within Lencioni’s model have borne out within my own, personal experiences, for purposes here, I will focus on two: (i) Fear of Conflict (False Harmony) and (i) Lack of Commitment. And while I am mining select, individual components of Lencioni’s model to frame this response, I do recognize the interconnectivity and running confluence of all five dysfunctions within an organization, noting that the author indeed cautions that “these dysfunctions can be mistakenly interpreted as five distinct issues that can be addressed in isolation of the others” (emphasis mine).

In examining “fear of conflict” and resulting predilection to sustain a sense of “false harmony,” I will first note I have been a frequent advocate for absolute—and if necessary, brutal—honesty when it comes to goal-setting, assessments of performance (including that of my own) and strategic decision-making. However, given our frequent and all-too-human inclinations, I certainly also recognize that it is easy for individuals (including myself) to take this concept and exercise too far, or at least fail in the delicate dance between In careless or less-than- trustworthy hands, unmitigated honesty can generate feelings of disrespect, consternation or outright anger among the various stakeholders within an organization. Conversely, in an effort to avoid such conflict, individuals can overindulge in polite decorum (and indeed, avoidance

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 79/83

behavior) such to create as Lencioni describes, a sense of “false harmony.” I find this phenomenon of false harmony to be particularly interesting, given the diversity of interests within an organization (both personal and enterprise-related), which as they naturally collide with one another, would seem to deft an organization’s ability to sustain such muted and non- natural pretense. However, this dysfunction—which is reflective of a fear of conflict--is frequently witnessed within myriad organizations, including many of which I have been a part.

That said, and perhaps paradoxically, I am also a very non-confrontational person by nature— and while I am willing to confront certain facts and realities, I can sometimes find it difficult to confront my fellow teammates with such data or evaluations, which of course still evidencing the point Lencioni makes regarding our seemingly frequent inclination to avoid interpersonal conflict so as to maintain some sense (as tenuous or superficial as it may be) of perceived organizational harmony. Of course, such sentiments, while valuable for the clarity and unaffected nature of their perspectives, must still be matched and presented with a sense of conscientious decorum by their agents, particularly (and obviously) when working with a team or within a team-based environment. And as with all things I suppose, these principles, while relatively easy to extol or examine within the “four corners” of an academic exercise such as these, are often (if not always) more difficult to execute in real-time, with real people, in a real- world setting.

How/where did you see his model play out in the leadership exercised by Juror # 8 in 12 Angry Men? How about psychological safety?

To borrow a phrase, in order for a team to be “greater than the sums of its parts,” its participants must engage in a way that encourages the equitable (and as close to equal as possible) participation of all team members. Moreover, teams composed of members with greater “social sensitivity” will likely achieve better or more efficient progress with respect to their contemplated purposes. As Charles Duhigg notes in his New York Times article reviewing Google’s research on team building, “the right norms…[can] raise a group’s collective intelligence, whereas the wrong norms could hobble a team, even if, individually, all the members are exceptionally bright.”

Each of these factors can contribute to a positive and underlying sense of “psychological safety” for teams in the workplace or other organizational environment, with Edmonson describing such collectives as ”characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable with themselves.” Such teams encourage an honest, open and reciprocal engagement between their members, with the inputs of each being given the opportunity for equitable consideration by the whole. This openly dialogic dynamic is further enhanced (and truly predicated upon) each member’s demonstrated cognizance of (and respect for) the emotions of their fellow teammates, as signaled by such markers as “their tone of voice, their expression and other nonverbal cues.”

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 80/83

Of course, the actual labor of such enhanced teamwork can often be quite messy and thus might belie, to the casual observer, its efficacy. The ultimate effectiveness of such teams is indeed found in the perceived “muck and mire” of their collaborative habits, which encourages equal and explicit input from their members, and which gives respect and deference to oft- changing emotional cues of its participants. Other groups, who by contrast are ostensibly more rigid or formal in their deliberations, often fail to avail themselves of the “force- multiplying” effect that can be achieved when groups foster a sense of psychological safety for their members. Despite the heft of the esearch and analytical nature of the studies reviewed in Duhigg’s article, at the end of the day, the findings of the Google research team as the same that will, and have always, encourage basic human connection. As Duhigg notes, “the behaviors that create psychological safety — conversational turn-taking and empathy — are part of the same unwritten rules we often turn to, as individuals, when we need to establish a bond. And those human bonds matter as much at work as anywhere else. In fact, they sometimes matter more.”

Within the cinematic context of the movie 12 Angry Men, we can see these elements of Lencioni’s model of organizational dysfunction clearly evident within the dynamics of the 12- man jury (which dysfunction arguably represents the very premise of the movie itself). When considering Lencioni’s model vis-à-vis this collective, it could perhaps be expected that a group of strangers put together purely through fortuitous circumstance (i.e., jury selection) would likely have much to overcome in terms of their group dynamics. Add to that the acute and grave nature of the task that lied ahead of them—to render a verdict that would either result in the execution of an 18-year old man/child…or the freeing of a murderer. The level of stress inherent to their circumstances only likely enhanced their initial dysfunction, which continued but was ultimately assuaged during the course of their deliberations. Specially, I saw dysfunctions #1 – 4 on clear display during the movie: as a likely and predictable circumstance, the jurors, not having known each other prior to the trial, exhibited certain degree of mistrust with one another, despite the polite cordialities that were exchanged as they settled into the juror room; I think a fear of conflict largely influenced the distribution of the jury’s immediate vote and initially prevailing sentiment that the boy was guilty so that they could go about their other, personal business (as a matter of convenience and fear of conflict, most of the jurors wanted to avoid protracted deliberations); with respect to “lack of commitment” we also see this in the opening scenes of the movie, with the most conspicuous example perhaps been Juror #7, who presents himself as disinterested in the entire process, convinced of the young man’s guilt without need for further discussion, and ultimately eager to get on the evening baseball game; and “avoidance of accountability” is another underlying theme of the movie, with Juror #8 fighting against such reluctance on the part of his fellow jurors, resulting in the changing of their votes.

Is Juror #8 a Level 5 Leader?

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 81/83

I think this is an interesting point of consideration to return to as we examine different leadership examples throughout this course. I believe that Juror #8 could be considered a Level 5 leader. In both presentation and goals achieved, he clearly mirrored the characteristics of “deep personal humility” and “intensive professional will” that Collins ascribed to the notion of a “Level 5 leader.” Juror #8 took a quiet, but defiant, stance against the initial inclinations of his fellow jurors, keen to take pause and given due deliberation to the full scope of the case and evidence presented. In contrast to the personalities of the other jurors, Juror #8 was relatively calm in his demeanor, yet remained fully steadfast in his mission—which was not necessary to change the minds of the others, but to achieve justice through a careful and deliberation of the facts of the case. In many ways, Henry Fonda's portrayal of Juror #8 fits squarely with the many of the definitional iterations that Collins gives for Level 5 leaders, in that his character “[acted] with quiet, calm determination…[and] relies principally on inspired standards.”

Moving forward, what specific behavior will you adjust to help build psychological safety at work/on your teams -- and advance your Key Leadership Challenge?

As I imagine is frequently the case with others, while we often spend more time with our co- workers than we do with our family or friends, there can exist an underlying sense of disconnect (and perhaps slight distrust) with our fellow employees that prevent us from showing our true, full selves to others. Oftentimes, this is symptomatic of the general culture and prevailing mores of a particular work environment. I have certainly experienced this during my time working in “corporate America”; moreover, I have also had the opportunity to work for companies during the transition from their entrepreneurial and more “free-wheeling” startup days to larger-scale corporate enterprises, and the accompanying changes in company culture and employee decorum that can often soon follow as the organizations becomes, by necessity, more “institutional” in its ways and company ethos.

Under any of these circumstances, I think it is important to continually foster (within its proper boundaries) a sense of openness, connectivity and mutual respect between individuals that creates a sense of “psychological safety” for all within an organization. As noted earlier, much of this can simply be achieved by bringing into the workplace some of the same, basic social habits that help nurture a sense of human connectedness between any of us.

I think I have always been accommodating to the needs, opinions, and emotions of those around me on a particular team or in various work environments—and in that sense, don’t see a need to necessarily change my habits in order to encourage a sense of psychological safety for my reports or colleagues. However, that is not to say that I can still find ways to improve the manner in which encourage such engagement…or help train others (whether formally or through my own explicit example) in such cause. In the current leadership roles that I hold, both working for a company, as well as a small business owner, I try to find ways to personally connect with each of my reports, as well as my lateral colleagues and even my superiors, and

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 82/83

L Reply

encourage the same in others. I also consider it to be a cardinal rule to show public respect for all of my teammates, regardless of the circumstances and remain agile in my reading of and reactions to their emotional signals. Of course, balancing all of this is not always an easy task, and as with any social endeavor, a delicate balance must frequently be struck between operational execution and giving due respect (and when necessary, deference) to the emotional dynamics of your team.

(https:// Daniel Lepore (https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/users/1683) Wednesday

M

Discussion Week 3 - Dan Lepore

I had several ah-ha moments while reading The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. I have worked on teams that lacked trust and those teams failed to achieve success as a unit. Those teams did perform though, but mostly out of individual contributions. While working for a smaller company, my division (of 5 people) relied heavily on individual contributions. Each person had their own job to do, and most goals could be achieved without much reliance on teammates. When we did have cross-functional projects, the leadership called in consultants to manage the project which negated the need for true teamwork. Patrick Lencioni’s model, rooting the team in trust, seems like a commonsense approach to leadership. Without trust, your team will be unable to have honest dialog and therefore be working as individuals. The book pointed out how without trust, people will politick and steer conversations and responses to achieve their desired results or to avoid conflict. I have seen this type of communication in every organization I have worked in, and I have participated in this behavior myself. In my current role, my division leader specifically asked all his directors to speak up and speak the truth, and we are better for it.

Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men had to contend with all five team dysfunctions. As a level 5 leader, he started with a firm commitment to his goal and he worked to form the group into a team that could think through the evidence. Some team members lacked trust in the jury process, others simply wanted to go home to watch the ball game. Few felt comfortable to speak up, and when Juror #8 brilliantly called for a secret ballot vote, he established trust with the first person who voted not guilty. Juror #8 got the group taking and opening up about the case, the evidence, their individual biases, and their reason for voting. The results were productive arguments, and the group held each other accountable when the conversations became pointed towards any one individual. Once the group began to trust each other and they

7/2/2021 Topic: Week 3: Leading Teams, Winning Followers

https://hooslearning.instructure.com/courses/1731/discussion_topics/21446 83/83

L Reply

committed to achieving the best possible verdict decision within a defined time limit, the group ran through all the evidence and arrived at a well-thought-out decision.

Moving forward, I need to create more opportunities for productive conflict. While my team does trust each other, which is evident in the way they ask for help and admit when they make mistakes, they don’t always trust the overall organization. This leads them to be quiet in cross- functional meetings and they hold back helpful information and criticisms. Since reading The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, which I finished before the semester started, I have started making it a point during my weekly operations meetings to say “Now is not the time to be silent, if you have a risk, concern, or idea, please speak up, we want to hear what you have to say.” This has already brought forward risks that otherwise would have gone unreported. I will continue to encourage my team to be active participants and I plan to use my weekly team meeting to foster healthy conflict. I am planning an exercise where the team will debate the priority of our current goals. I will use it to encourage the team to debate the importance of each goal to the team’s overall success, not just their individual unit’s success.