Source-linked AI summary
Quantifying the Relationship Between Team Dysfunctions and Performance in Capstone Projects
Luciano Pereira Soares, Luciana Campos Lima, Rafael Corsi Ferrão
TL;DR
The paper addresses limited evidence on whether team dynamics predict measurable performance in educational Capstone projects. It quantitatively analyzes Lencioni-based team-dysfunction survey data against multidimensional project evaluations and finds a positive but limited association, strongest for results orientation. The findings emphasize goal alignment while retaining technical and contextual factors as part of performance evaluation.
Problem
Empirical evidence linking Lencioni’s team-dysfunction framework to measurable performance outcomes in educational project-based settings remains limited.
Method
The study uses group-level student survey data to quantify Lencioni’s five dysfunctions and correlate them with multidimensional Capstone performance evaluations.
Results
Team dynamics show a positive but limited association with performance; inattention to results is the strongest and only statistically significant dimension.
Takeaways & Limitations
Capstone programs should promote goal alignment, clear expectations, and shared responsibility while considering team dynamics alongside technical and contextual factors.
Takeaways & Limitations
The study relies on self-reported data from one institution and program, and its correlational design does not support causal inference.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
This paper investigates the association between team dysfunctions and performance in the context of an engineering Capstone program. Capstone programs are considered fundamental in assessing the readiness of engineering and computer science students for professional practice, evaluating not only technical knowledge but also essential competencies such as teamwork, communication, design, and organization. Despite the recognized importance of team dynamics in such settings, their relationship with project performance remains insufficiently understood. Using survey data collected from student teams, we quantify team dynamics based on Lencioni's model of the five dysfunctions of a team, with all measures reverse-coded so that higher values indicate more positive team behaviors (i.e., lower dysfunction). The results indicate a weak-to-moderate relationship between team dynamics and performance. Each dysfunction score was computed as the sum of three corresponding survey items. All items were coded such that higher values indicate more positive team behaviors (i.e., lower dysfunction). Therefore, each score ranges from 3 to 9, where higher values reflect healthier team dynamics. This study analyzes empirical evidence on team effectiveness in project-based learning environments and offers insights for the design of Capstone programs. In particular, it highlights the importance of goal alignment and focus on deliverables while emphasizing that team dynamics should be considered alongside technical and contextual factors.
I. INTRODUCTION
Capstone programs connect technical education with professional practice while requiring teamwork and other transversal competencies. This study examines whether perceived team dysfunctions are associated with project performance in Insper’s Capstone program.
- Capstone projects bridge theoretical knowledge and real-world application through complex projects, often conducted with industry partners.
- Teams of three to four students depend on coordination, shared responsibility, and collective decision-making, yet internal team dynamics are less systematically studied than technical outcomes.
- Lencioni’s model identifies five barriers to team performance: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results.
- Empirical validation of Lencioni’s framework in academic project-based environments remains limited.
- The study uses group-level student survey data to quantify dysfunctions and analyze their correlations with project grades across multiple evaluation dimensions.
- The findings provide empirical insights intended to inform team formation, mentoring strategies, and evaluation methods in Capstone courses.
II. RELATED WORK
Prior research links team performance to communication, coordination, and teamwork quality, but findings are mixed. Evidence validating Lencioni’s model against measurable educational performance outcomes remains limited, motivating this study’s quantitative Capstone analysis.
- Capstone courses develop technical and professional skills through collaboration on real-world projects.
- Team performance has been associated with communication, coordination, and teamwork quality, although empirical results range from moderate correlations to limited or non-significant relationships.
- Structured activities and mentorship are used to support teamwork in Capstone experiences, requiring careful pedagogical design.
- Lencioni’s model describes trust as the foundation of teamwork and other dysfunctions as barriers involving coordination, decision-making, and outcome focus.
- Applications of Lencioni’s model in educational settings have been largely qualitative or case-based, with limited empirical validation against measurable performance outcomes.
- This study addresses the gap through quantitative analysis of the relationship between team dysfunctions and performance in a Capstone program.
III. METHODOLOGY
The methodology combines team survey collection with construction of dysfunction measures and analysis of team-level performance. Data came from 40 student teams working on externally proposed projects during a Capstone semester.
- The methodology comprises data collection, construction of dysfunction metrics, and statistical analysis.
- Each team consisted of three to four students collaborating on a project proposed by an external organization.
- Students completed a 15-question team-behavior survey approximately midway through the semester before a teamwork mentorship session.
- Survey questions used a three-level Likert scale—Low, Medium, and High—and were adapted to address communication, accountability, and collaboration.
- Data from 40 teams in a single spring-2025 cohort were aggregated at team level for comparison with group performance.
B. Mapping to Team Dysfunctions
The study maps positively phrased survey responses onto five dysfunction dimensions and summarizes project performance across six competencies. Correlation analyses then relate dysfunction scores and an overall team-health index to performance.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: Dysfunction scores range from 3 to 9, with higher values indicating more positive behavior and lower dysfunction.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: Scores of 3–5 indicate a serious problem, 6–7 a potential problem, and 8–9 that the dysfunction is unlikely to be a concern.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: Team performance was evaluated at group level across six competency dimensions using numerical scores converted from letter grades.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: Overall performance was computed as the average of the six competency scores, balancing technical and professional performance.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: Pearson correlations related each dysfunction score to overall team performance, while Spearman correlations accounted for potential non-linear relationships.
- Mapping to Team Dysfunctions: An overall team-health index was calculated as the average of the five dysfunction scores and correlated with performance.
IV. RESULTS
The analysis uses 40 matched teams, summarizing team dynamics and project performance through aggregated indices across graded competencies.
- 40 matched groups provided complete team-dynamics survey and project-grade information for the analysis.
A. Descriptive statistics
Team-dynamics scores were generally high, while average project performance was also high across the six competencies. Correlations were strongest for inattention to results and teamwork-related outcomes.
- Fear of Conflict averaged 8.36 and Lack of Commitment averaged 8.14, the highest team-dynamics scores.
- Inattention to Results had the lowest average score at 6.72, while Avoidance of Accountability had the greatest reported dispersion at SD = 0.98.
- 8.02 was the average grade across six competencies, with Teamwork highest at M = 8.08 and Organization lowest at M = 7.82.
- Inattention to Results showed the strongest aggregate association with average project grade, r = 0.323, p = 0.042.
- Teamwork grades were positively associated with Absence of Trust, Lack of Commitment, Avoidance of Accountability, and Inattention to Results.
D. Overall performance
Team health had a positive but limited relationship with performance, with the clearest associations appearing for teamwork rather than technical artifact quality. Inattention to Results was the strongest and only statistically significant dimension-level association.
- Positive but limited relationships were observed between team health and project performance.
- Teamwork showed the strongest outcome alignment, while Technical, Design, and Entrepreneurship had weaker links to team-dynamics measures.
- Inattention to Results had the strongest performance association and was the only variable reaching statistical significance.
- Absence of Trust did not show a strong or statistically significant relationship with performance in this dataset.
- Fear of Conflict and Avoidance of Accountability showed weak associations, whereas Lack of Commitment had a moderate but non-significant association.
B. Alignment with Lencioni’s Model
The findings provide only partial support for Lencioni’s model: trust was not strongly or significantly associated with performance, while inattention to results showed the strongest relationship. The model’s proposed cascading structure was not tested, and its applicability may depend on contextual factors.
- Trust showed no strong or statistically significant association with performance, despite its foundational role in Lencioni’s model.
- Inattention to Results was most directly related to performance, suggesting that goal alignment and focus on deliverables may matter more than foundational interpersonal dynamics.
- The model’s expected cascading structure was not directly tested and therefore cannot be empirically confirmed.
- Lencioni’s model may not fully explain performance in project-based learning environments, where evaluation criteria and project structure may affect its applicability.
C. Educational Implications
The findings support emphasizing goal alignment, clear outcomes, and shared responsibility for deliverables in Capstone programs. Team cohesion remains relevant, but team dynamics should be considered alongside technical and contextual factors, especially given the study’s limitations.
- Instructors should emphasize goal alignment, clarity of expected outcomes, and shared responsibility for deliverables.Structured milestone tracking and explicit performance criteria may reinforce this focus.
- Trust-supporting activities should not be neglected, but they may not be sufficient on their own to ensure high performance.
- Team dynamics should be treated as one component of a broader system that also includes technical and contextual factors.
- Self-reported perceptions, concentrated upper-range scores, and analysis within one institution and program structure limit interpretation and generalizability.
- Correlation analysis identifies associations but cannot determine whether improved team dynamics directly lead to better performance.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
This paper examines whether Lencioni’s team-dynamics model explains variation in Capstone project outcomes using group-level survey data and multidimensional performance evaluations. It finds a positive but limited association, with results orientation showing the strongest significant relationship, and recommends emphasizing aligned goals while considering technical and contextual factors.
- The study uses group-level survey data and multidimensional performance evaluations to examine whether Lencioni’s model explains variation in team outcomes.
- Results show a positive but limited association between team dynamics and performance.
- Inattention to Results has the strongest and only statistically significant relationship with performance, while the remaining dimensions show weaker or non-significant effects.
- Goal alignment, clear expectations, and shared responsibility for deliverables should be promoted alongside consideration of technical and contextual factors.
- Future work will extend the analysis across cohorts, incorporate longitudinal measurements, and evaluate targeted pedagogical interventions.