Increasingly, the work of KP is being done in teams. But teams at every level, in every organization, sometimes produce more frustration than results. To find out why, Hank recently spoke with business writer and consultant Patrick Lencioni, whose 2002 book "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" has sold more than 1 million copies, according to a Wall Street Journal profile. Here are highlights of the conversation.

What are the signs of trouble in a team?

There are many telltale signs. You'll see a lot of politics, and people saying things behind closed doors or in the hallways or in the parking lot that they're not willing to say during meetings. You'll see a lot of competing interests that ought to be working together—a lot of politics and confusion. You'll see turnover among good people. And ultimately you'll see results suffer.

You say trust is the foundation of team performance. Why?

When a team can truly establish trust, it has an advantage in overcoming everything else. And if it doesn't have trust, it doesn't have a chance.

Trust is essential because when people can be emotionally vulnerable about their strengths, their weaknesses, the mistakes they make, when they need help, everyone on the team knows they are not positioning with one another, they are just being human. It sounds touchy-feely but it is very pragmatic.

Trust also allows us to overcome the second dysfunction of teams, which is fear of conflict. Conflict without trust is politics and manipulation....Trust is necessary so people can disagree, knowing that they're pursuing the best possible answer, not playing politics.

What can teams do to avoid becoming committees? How can they focus on producing results?

One reason teams fail to act is they're afraid to be wrong. But the old military adage is "any decision is better than no decision." When you make no decision, people down the line are standing around idle and start to worry. Much better to make a decision, learn from it, and change course later than to waffle.

Another reason teams don't commit to action is that they haven't figured out how to get people to weigh in. People don't really buy in on a decision if they do not weigh in on it first. When decisions are made without them, they will just sit back and wait for it to blow up or blow over. [That's why] teams require a manageable group of people, usually 10 or under.... People have to advocate, and they have to inquire of each other. When you get too many people in a group...they don't ask one another questions, they just state their case.

Once decisions are made, team members have to hold one another accountable for stepping up and doing what's necessary to make the decision work. When one team member sees another member not doing that, and calls them on it, you have peer-to-peer accountability, which is any company's best friend.

Your most recent book is about job satisfaction. What's the connection to teamwork?

It's huge. People don't generally leave organizations where they feel part of the team. Ultimately, managers have to take responsibility for creating that kind of environment.

When it comes to individually managing someone, there are three simple things a manager has to do: Take a personal interest in the people they manage, because anonymity is the first sign of a miserable job. Second, help that person understand why their job is relevant to some other person's life, because when there's irrelevance in a helping profession like teaching or health care, people get especially bitter. And third, give people a way to gauge whether they're succeeding. Be it a patient survey or a quota for a salesperson...you need some way of saying "I'm having a good week," achieving what I need to achieve to make a difference.