Overview

This roundtable explored the blockers within transformation teams that can stall execution. Based off the book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” by Patrick Lencioni, participants discussed the five common dysfunctions found in a CMO (change management office) or TO (transformation office), emphasizing that sustainable transformation results also depend on internal team dynamics: trust, healthy debate, commitment, accountability, and focus on outcomes.

A consistent theme: as in the rest of the organization, transformation friction shows up as behavior (avoidance, defensiveness, silence, misalignment), not as a lack of frameworks or standards. The discussion centered on practical ways to build the foundation first, then move upward, rather than trying to “fix everything” at once.

This roundtable was held on December 11th, 2025

The core model (the 5 dysfunctions, bottom to top)

The group worked through a pyramid structure where each layer enables the next. If the base is weak, higher-level execution (KPIs, OKRs, governance, operating models) won’t stick.

1. Absence of trust (foundation)

• Trust was framed as vulnerability-based: teams move faster when people can admit uncertainty, ask for help, and share concerns early.

• A key nuance: teams may trust their immediate peers but still lack trust across teams or toward leadership, creating invisible drag in execution. 

  
  

2. Fear of conflict (lack of healthy debate)

• Once trust exists, teams can engage in “healthy conflict”: candid, passionate debate about ideas without personal attacks.

• When conflict is avoided, issues stay hidden until they escalate, decisions become political, and teams default to surface-level “agreement”.

  
  

3. Lack of commitment

• Commitment was positioned as the ability to align behind a decision, even when it wasn’t your preferred option.

• Without commitment, transformation slows down through passive resistance, re-litigating decisions, and inconsistent follow-through.

  
  

4. Avoidance of accountability

• Accountability requires teams to hold each other to what they agreed was most important.

• The group highlighted that accountability often breaks down when priorities are unclear or when leaders resist being measured (when outcomes remain vague).

  
  

5. Inattention to results (top)

• Results focus was framed as defining what will be different after the transformation, not just stating broad ambitions.

• Measurement doesn’t need to be perfect or purely quantitative; teams can use a mix of objective indicators and structured, honest reflection to determine whether progress is real or performative.

Why this matters specifically in transformation work

The discussion repeatedly returned to the context of executing on and leading transformations: high uncertainty, constant change, and real career risk. In that environment:

• Trust erodes fast and teams become more cautious.

• Decision-making slows down because people don’t feel safe surfacing risks early.

• Credibility drops when changes happen “to” people without clear rationale (even within the team), which reduces alignment and execution speed.

The group’s practical stance was straightforward: treat people like adults, communicate earlier, and normalize hard conversations before problems become expensive.

Where dysfunctions tend to show up

A org-wide, cross-team pattern emerged through the session:

• Execution teams often struggle most with trust (especially trust in leadership or other teams, not necessarily within their immediate group).

• Leadership teams often struggle most with accountability and results clarity, particularly when success measures are ambiguous or overly generic.

This matters because interventions should be targeted: what “team health” requires at the top can look different from what it requires in delivery teams.

Practical interventions and best practices discussed

1. Start small: measure and improve the foundation first

• Instead of launching a full “team health overhaul,” begin by assessing and improving the bottom layers (trust and healthy conflict).

• Once those stabilize, expand to commitment, accountability, and results.

This avoids overwhelming teams and makes changes feel more gradual.

B. Use structured assessments + examples to make the invisible visible

• Use surveys/assessments to establish a baseline and track progress.

• Pair ratings with concrete examples (“why did you score it that way?”) to move from abstract sentiment to observable behaviors.

• Anonymity can help surface reality safely, especially early on.

C. Script the hard moments (so it’s not dependent on personality)

One team approach shared: define “what we do when we feel trust breaking” in advance.

• Create agreed language, phrases, and escalation steps for tense moments.

• This reduces reactive behavior and makes trust repair a team habit, not a heroic act that carries risk.

D. Build trust through intentional human connection (outside the work agenda)

A practical trust-builder: structured, cross-role connection conversations.

• Short, guided conversations that help people see each other as humans (not just functions).

• Particularly useful in complex organizations where people rarely interact directly but depend on each other for outcomes.

E. Practice in safe spaces using real scenarios (not generic training)

A training method shared: small-group practice sessions using real internal scenarios.

• People rehearse difficult conversations when stakes are lower.

• This builds muscle memory for when pressure is high and time is short.

F. Leader behavior is the lever: model it, then reward it

When leaders say “trust exists” but behave defensively, the organization follows the behavior, not the statement.

Two practical strategies were emphasized:

• Model the behavior publicly (leaders using shared language and naming when they’re making assumptions or reacting).

• Recognize and celebrate the right behaviors (highlight examples of candor, accountability, and constructive conflict). 

  
  

What gets attention at the top becomes the norm.

G. A simple coaching tactic for defensive leaders: “feedback first, response later”

One coaching exercise shared for leaders who react quickly:

• Receive feedback for a short, fixed time without responding. 

• Process it, then discuss in a follow-up conversation.

  
  

The goal is to reduce fight-or-flight reactions and increase thoughtful listening—so psychological safety becomes believable.

H. Don’t fear the baseline; celebrate starting

A recurring implementation barrier: teams avoid assessment because they suspect the results will be “bad.”

The group’s advice:

• Treat the baseline as progress, not a verdict.

• Celebrate transparency and the decision to improve, then iterate.

I) Keep energy fresh: rotate roles once the foundation is stable

As teams mature, stagnation can creep in. One practice discussed: rotate certain team roles to maintain engagement, broaden ownership, and prevent the same patterns from calcifying.

Key Takeaways

• Transformation execution breaks down most often due to team dynamics, not missing frameworks.

• Start at the base: trust (vulnerability) enables healthy conflict, which enables commitment, accountability, and results.

• Dysfunction patterns differ by level: delivery teams often struggle with trust across teams/leaders, while leadership teams often struggle with accountability and clear measures of success.

• Don’t boil the ocean: assess and improve trust & conflict first, then move up the pyramid.

• Make behaviors measurable and discussable through assessments, examples, and shared language. And then practice in safe environments using real scenarios.

• Leader modeling matters more than leader messaging; reward the behaviors you want repeated.

• Psychological safety becomes real when feedback is handled well, especially when leaders can listen without immediate defensiveness.

The Executive Council for Leading Change

The Executive Council for Leading Change (ECLC) is a global organization that brings executives together to redefine the landscape of organizational change and transformation. Our council aims to advance strategic leadership expertise in the realm of corporate change by connecting visionary leaders. It's a place where leaders responsible for significant change initiatives can collaborate, plan, and create practical solutions for intricate challenges in leading large organizations through major shifts.

In a world where change is constant, we recognize its crucial role in driving business success. ECLC’s mission is to create a community where leaders can excel in guiding their organizations through these dynamic times.