We find ourselves in daily conversations with organizational leaders struggling to navigate the acute uncertainty brought on by the current federal administration. Questions about tariffs and finances, immigration and refugees, and the safety of LGBTQIA+ friends and family members are overflowing, most of which have no clear answers. In fact, perhaps this moment is less about creating answers and instead engaging in solidarity and advocacy with those whose lives have been so profoundly impacted by the actions of the federal administration.
But some folks are trying to respond, and their efforts make clear how perilous these waters are. On April 15, 2025, The Table Group, led by Pat Lencioni (best known for The Five Dysfunctions of a Team), rebooted their podcast, “At The Table.” In addition to a change in format (they offered a video version for the first time) and a reduced “on air” team (limited now to Pat and Cody), they decided to tackle an issue that was related to budgeting and efficiency but not necessarily a conventional business question: their topic was DOGE.
They made clear that they did not intend to be partisan on this topic, but they wanted to reframe the discussion, focusing on DOGE’s efforts to foster accountability and reduce waste.
Of course, that is not how DOGE describes their work. They claim to have a mandate to “eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse” in the government. Before Pat and Cody even started, they were misaligned with the topic.
In the podcast, Pat and Cody try to set up the conversation as a constructive look at the work of DOGE. They assert, “The goal is to explore waste and accountability without partisan heat, looking instead at structure and culture.” Further, “The federal government is not set up to be a team like private sector organizations.” At no point do they acknowledge the intense volatility of DOGE’s actions; instead, they try to create a meaningful reflection on that work. They conclude with the following statements:
- Even a well-intentioned cleanup will result in some regrettable losses.
- Without a willingness to risk minor mistakes, the entire system remains unsustainable.
While these two statements make sense, their tone-deaf miscalculation of the larger context is simply baffling.
Because of their misalignment, they presented a topic that seemed to contradict some of the core principles they have taught for years. For example, the first “dysfunction of a team” is the absence of trust. While the DOGE team may have the trust of their particular leaders, there has not been and has yet to be any effort towards the establishment of trust within the organizations that have been the targets of their efforts.
They also seemed to contradict the dysfunction of an avoidance of accountability. In their efforts to rapidly and aggressively cut budgets ( and thus programs and people) from multiple federal agencies, DOGE has made serious errors, having had to backtrack on multiple efforts and claims. And yet, to date, no one has been held accountable for these mistakes. Instead, the efforts continue with chaos as usual.
Finally, Lencioni’s last dysfunction of teams is an inattention to results. Most estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan entity that tracks federal spending, indicate that the federal government is actually spending more this year than in previous years. Some of this may be expected in terms of the buy-out packages individuals have been offered in this season of downsizing. But the depth and breadth of these disparities lead this citizen to think these efforts have very little to do with increasing efficiency and effectiveness and instead are a part of an effort to reshape government – and perhaps democracy – as we know it.
Let’s be clear: it is important to discuss efforts like those of DOGE and to try and discern the intent, not just the impact. But we must also acknowledge how intention, application, and culture play a major role in any organizational initiative. As Simon Sinek writes, you start with why, then explore how, then explore what. If you want a successful result, you need buy-in from leadership, and in the case of government work, you need that buy-in from the larger population as well, something that might begin to look and feel bipartisan.
We love the work of The Table Group. On this occasion, however, they more than missed the mark. Our lesson: stay true to what you know. Don’t swim in shark-infested waters just because they look calm.
