Exam Practice - Team Cohesion - Lencioni and Tuckman Flashcards
(8 cards)
What is a good introduction around high performing teams / team cohesion etc
This Board paper evaluates the Board’s team dynamics and cohesion at Beddy Buys plc using Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Tuckman’s team development model.
It applies both frameworks to diagnose behavioural and relational weaknesses, and recommends sequenced interventions to support trust, shared ownership, and high-performance governance in line with the UK Corporate Governance Code.
define / explain Lencioni’s model
A high-functioning Board operates as a cohesive team, capable of open challenge, shared accountability, and joint purpose.
Lencioni (2002) identifies five interdependent dysfunctions that undermine team effectiveness:
Absence of Trust
Fear of Conflict
Lack of Commitment
Avoidance of Accountability
Inattention to Results
These stack like a pyramid: when trust is missing, higher-level functions such as challenge, ownership and performance fail.
define / explain Tuckmans model
Tuckman (1965) outlines five developmental stages of teams:
Forming – polite but uncertain roles
Storming – emerging tension and conflict
Norming – shared norms and cohesion
Performing – high-functioning collaboration
Adjourning – task completion and closure
This model describes how teams evolve over time and the challenges they must overcome.
Why are these frameworks beneficial?
Together, these models provide a powerful lens for evaluating Board behaviour:
Tuckman highlights where the Board is developmentally.
Lencioni exposes why it is stuck and how performance is being constrained.
Both are underpinned by the importance of psychological safety – defined by Edmondson (1999) as the belief that one can speak up without fear of embarrassment or punishment – which is foundational for trust and learning
Apply the models to the case study.
The Beddy Buys Board is entrenched in the storming phase (Tuckman),
where roles are unclear,
conflict is poorly managed, and
progress is stalled.
Tensions between the Chair and CEO are unresolved and emotionally charged.
NEDs remain disengaged and silent, suggesting a lack of shared identity or behavioural norms.
Diagnosed through Lencioni’s lens:
Absence of Trust: Psychological safety is absent. CJ withholds staff feedback, and directors avoid vulnerability. Informal rapport is minimal.
Fear of Conflict: Debate is avoided or mishandled. The Chair and CEO’s exchanges are emotionally reactive rather than constructive. NEDs default to silence.
Lack of Commitment: Strategic decisions lack buy-in. The Board has not co-owned any recent initiatives, and meetings often end without resolution.
Avoidance of Accountability: The Chair distances himself from risk decisions, while the CEO mocks his input. NEDs fail to challenge executive behaviour.
Inattention to Results: The Board has deprioritised ESG, succession, and stakeholder concerns. Collective performance is not tracked.
Underlying these issues is a lack of shared purpose and onboarding structure. New directors have not been effectively integrated, and there is no behavioural agreement or team development plan. As a result, the Board has not progressed into norming or performing, and instead remains stuck in conflict and inertia.
What could a Cosec do to assist?
To rebuild cohesion and move the Board from storming to performing, a structured development plan should be implemented using both models.
Short term
Facilitate a workshop using Lencioni’s model to identify specific dysfunctions and build awareness.
Introduce a brief reflection segment at the end of each Board meeting (e.g. “What went well? What needs work?”).
Use confidential tools (e.g. pulse surveys) to assess psychological safety.
Medium term
Develop a Board Charter that articulates shared behaviours, expectations, and values.
Create opportunities for informal interaction between Board members, such as site visits, roundtables or strategic off-sites.
Offer mentoring for new NEDs and encourage the Chair to model openness and inclusivity.
Long term
Review progress biannually using Tuckman’s model, supported by external facilitation.
Integrate behavioural expectations into Board evaluation and succession planning processes.
The Company Secretary is well positioned to coordinate these efforts, ensuring that behavioural development is embedded into governance structures.
Why is it important
Team dysfunction critically undermines Board effectiveness. A Board that lacks trust, shared ownership and behavioural discipline cannot meet its duties under the UK Corporate Governance Code, including:
Principle A (leadership and purpose)
Principle C (Board composition and challenge)
Principle D (decision-making and accountability)
A recent and high-profile example is the Post Office Horizon Inquiry (2023–2024), which revealed deep failures in Board behaviour. Despite multiple warnings from whistleblowers and independent reports, the Board failed to challenge executive narratives, ask probing questions, or reflect on the human impact of their decisions. Evidence presented in 2024 showed that some directors actively avoided uncomfortable truths, while others were overly deferential to management or siloed from key issues. This lack of psychological safety, shared accountability, and cohesive scrutiny enabled the continuation of one of the UK’s largest miscarriages of justice.
In contrast, Boards that invest in team development—like Unilever’s, which uses behavioural charters and structured reflection—demonstrate stronger performance and stakeholder trust.
At Beddy Buys, embedding team development through Lencioni and Tuckman’s frameworks would help move the Board beyond dysfunction, restoring trust, shared purpose and effective challenge.
