Short but sweet. Have not read Lencioni before, but he seems focused on large companies and specifically CEOs, not even just mere C-levels. Not necessarily what I was going for, but interesting anyway.
I've had a decent variety of managers, ranging between quite good and Machiavellian horrible. I think Lencioni is right about a few things, namely the premise of the book, which is that most actions an average executive does are for themselves, not for the company, and that a CEO's responsibility is mostly in managing and communication, and nothing else.
That said, there's a few things that I don't necessarily agree with (not being a CEO, so maybe I'm just wrong, but this is based on my experience of what works and what doesn't from the employee level):
1. I don't necessarily buy that employees are ever _really_ motivated by CEO speech and direction. You always know that the CEO has much more stake in success than you do, so of course they want buy-in, but an inherently imbalanced system. Personally I place much more value in what leadership values as a fair negotiation of labor -- if you treat me well as an employee, I'll have more motivation to keep it going. For example, if I worked at an airline, telling me about how important the company is and the direction you're going in is nice, but I more care that my salary is good, people treat me well, benefits are good, work is interesting, that kind of thing. I see the CEO motivational thing as disingenuous because yes, you want to make this company huge and amazing and impactful, but I generally stand to gain relatively little if that work is accomplished, barring handing out reasonably large shares of the company, but that never happens. I think it's more genuine to focus on direction and making the company interesting and fair to work for.
2. Team building -- not a fan. There's some theoretical value here but there's a lot of prerequisites that need to be in place for it to make sense. I suspect 99% of the time, the benefits the author describes would be seen even more by just giving your employees a free day off instead. There are some programs I do think are good ideas, generally in the social realm. Lunch programs, happy hours, social clubs, team outings, that kind of thing, are good for cohesion, especially if you split it up into smaller bits. Stuff like personality quizzes and trust falls, though... not a fan. Employees like it because they don't have to work, not because it helps the team.
3. Optimism. This kind of ties back in to #1 -- I think optimism is important when you have high stakes, and becomes increasingly saccharin as you get farther away from the stakes. You want to have vision and you want to feel like you're doing something good and going in a good direction, but I find most leadership is too aggressively trying to push that everything is awesome, which inevitably covers up the real issues. I've seen this one way too many times to count, where clear risks are ignored out of optimism of the future, and planning/work is wrong or not optimal because leadership isn't being clear about what is and isn't important.
In the end, a lot of this reads as someone who has been in leadership for a long time, and only communicates with other leadership.
Writing-wise, it's fine. The fable is a good idea to remember it, but it's long-winded in setup and the turnaround of the protagonist is way too quick. It's like the author wrote a full-length fable and editing told him to cut some out, and he just cut out the filler from the end part. The writing is quite black-and-white, some approaches are Bad and his approach is Good.
I agree with much of the premise in general: people who see their work as a responsibility as opposed to a reward will do better. The analogy of a newly drafted football player who either starts working out hard to live up to expectations vs the player who starts spending their new money, and where they end up long-term, is a good one. The bigger issue here is how to make those without heavy stakes in the system also feel that sense of responsibility, and that is largely ignored in the book.