This document outlines an agenda for a workshop on building great teams. The agenda includes discussions of the importance of teams, models for team alignment and engagement, a bridge building simulation exercise, and strategies for effective cross-functional team management. Specific strategies covered are communication, building trust between team members, and helping teams add value. The workshop aims to provide team leaders with tools and frameworks to strengthen performance at both the individual team and organizational levels.
Activity: SNC Lavalin Team O Scope Document Self Assessment, Discussion and Role Play 15 minutes Step 1: Have participants rate themselves on the Team Effectiveness Quiz ( 2 minutes) Step 2: In teams of 3 or 4 have them share how they have assessed their teams and why. Identify where they believe their teams are doing well and where there is room for growth (10 minutes)
Thefollowing slides provide useful content and context for your own background or for use during the Module 3 team session(s).
This is a fun statement that you can show or share verbally with the group. It provides some levity and helps people understand that this is a core fundamental human barrier we all have inside of us to more or lesser degrees. It’s a very hard skill to shut off your own brain and truly listen. We all bring assumptions and filters to our interactions.
Ask where communication often breaks down.People often view communication as a very simple concept, when in fact, it is highly complex. There are many places where things can go wrong.You can show this slide or draw this simple diagram on a flipchart and ask the group to identify all the places communication can break down.More content/context?
This content will be useful if there are some challenges around having team members in remote locations.You can facilitate a conversation around what’s working, what’s not and discuss ground rules for how to interact virtually.It’s important to note that having meetings virtually has become a business reality in some cases, but is not ideal. If they must occur virtually, then it’s important to really involve all members of the team in an ongoing dialogue.Face-to-face is ideal for building trust and long, involved meetings. Video is preferable to audio - only when using virtual meetings.
The following activity is very quick to do, fun and energizing, and will be remembered by participants long after. It replicates on a small scale, an actual study that was performed at Stanford University.ActivityObjective: To help people understand what can get in the way of effective communication, listening, building of trust, etc.Timeframe: 10 minutesExerciseChoose one tapper from the group to come to the front of the roomTell the remaining team members that the volunteer will tap out a well known song. Their task is to guess the song being tapped.VERY IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS: It is important to get the sequence of these next steps correct. Tell the “guessers” not to yell out their answers, but to silently write down what they think the answer is.Show the tapper the song privately (use either Mary had a little lamb or Twinkle twinkle little star or Oh Canada. Do not use Happy Birthday as it’s too easy to guess).Next have the tapper loudly tap the song out on the table.Then ask the tapper to guess what percentage of the room they think will get the answer correct.Ask the audience for their answers and determine how many people (what percentage of the room) got the song right.See how that relates to the answer given by the tapper – almost always, the tapper will think that more people will get the song right than actually does.Ask the room why they think that is?
Activity ContinuedThis was an actual Stanford study conducted in 1990 where tappers received a list of 25 well known songs and choose one’s in which to tap out.120 songs were tapped out in all and only 3 in 120 (2.5%) guessed the right songThe tappers got their message across 1 time in 40, but thought they were 1 time in 2.The unintended outcome of the study which the researchers were not looking for was that the tappers thought the listeners were “stupid”. This finding very much interested the researchers and they continued to probe for meaning.What they found was that the tappers had what was coined the “curse of knowledge.”
Activity ContinuedOne of the main barriers to successful communication is the lack of a shared information, vision or language. Part of that barrier emerges from your assumption that the other person understands your motivations and what you’re trying to accomplish. With this assumption as the foundation of the interaction, it is much easier to imagine that, when the other person doesn’t give you what you need, it’s because they are trying to create obstacles or are being “difficult”. This can make you feel defensive, another barrier to communication. In fact, as this exercise indicates, it may be that they don’t really understand what you’re trying to accomplish, or what’s driving you in a particular direction. Ask people when they have experienced this?
Activity ContinuedThis video can be a way to end this segment.Show Canal Plus – Penguin/Napoleon video as a fun example of the curse of knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG9k6nj8zwYExplain that in the video the man did a great job of explaining the movie and what transpired, but never did he say that the movie was about penguins. As a result, the woman painted a completely different picture in her head of what the story was about. This is another great example of the importance in ensuring you and your audience are speaking the same language, without making any assumptions about what the person already knows.
The following slides provide useful content and context for your own background or for use during the Module 3 team session(s).
FOR FACILITATOR USE ONLY!The following is intended to provide background on trust in general and help assess what challenges the team is experiencing.TrustEsteem: Differences about how respect is shown ie. miscommunications simply due to differences in style.Advantage: Differences around trust vs competition, differences in competing vs vulnerability on issues of advantage.Challenge: Can be driven by different perceptions about credibility, optimism and pessimism.
Ask: What do you think of when you hear “trust”? The word trust is used frequently in a team context, often with different meaning for different people. It is important as the facilitator to help people explain what they mean when they use the word trust. The strategies for addressing trust issues are different depending on the nature of trust they are referring to.You can show this slide or simply capture on a flipchart all the words that come to mind for people when they hear the word trust.
Why do we care? What is the role of trust in a cross functional team? What does trust get us? What happens in the absence of trust?
Discuss the different levels of trust.Trust builds from a basic level of connection with a person all the way up to complete faith that the person will not let you down, even when you’re vulnerable.Ask:When you talk about “trusting” a member of your team, what level are you most commonly talking about?What levels do you think come into question in this team?
Explain that to build trust with someone new or in a new team, start at the bottom and work your way upConnection: team building exercises, casual interactions, chances to get to know one another as peopleConfidence: building credibility around your skills and capability. Point out to participants that counter-intuitively, sometimes it’s better to build your credibility by asking good questions and listening well, rather than by talking. Reliability: don’t just say “yes” to everything. Increase trust by having conversations about what can and cannot be achieved. Ensure that what you commit to you actually deliver on. Be honest and straightforward about issuesIntegrity: Obey a strict no-gossip policy. If you see or hear things that impact the other person, have the courage to share with them. Show vulnerability yourself, and show empathy when they are vulnerable with you.Ask: What level is the trust at in the team today? What level should the team be working to build trust at? [Facilitator, you can then design discussions and action planning around the level at which the team wants to focus]
To restore trust once it is damaged, ask questions to identify the level at which it was damaged and then take appropriate action.Connection: If your trust has eroded because you have let the relationship lapse, find ways to re-connect. Share what has changed for you and inquire about what has changed for them.Confidence: If the person has become concerned about your competence, talk about it with them. Ask questions to help you understand where they felt you weren’t capable. Help them to understand the rationale for any differences in opinion. Where appropriate, take responsibility for mistakes you have made. Perhaps find someone with complementary strengths and skills to bolster yours.Reliability: If you have damaged trust by not living up to your commitments, you might still have the opportunity to deliver on the original commitment. If not, you will need to put clear tactics in place to help the person trust your reliability the next time. Make sure expectations are very clear. Put in place milestones or other tools to restore the person’s confidence that you will deliver what you say you will. If there are multiple occurrences where there is no shared expectation, the RACI tool might be an effective process for the team to use.Integrity: If you have destroyed trust by showing you didn’t have integrity, it will be a very slow and difficult road back. First, you need to understand for yourself why you violated the person’s trust. Did you compete with them? Did you gossip or put them down behind their back? Why? Once you understand for yourself, you have some chance of talking with them about it. You will need to apologize and to fully understand the impact of your actions. It might be useful to apologize in front of the whole team.
Background: Many people believe that the existence of in-groups and out-groups or “us” and “them” are destructive to teams. This is true. Unfortunately, humans are wired to create in-groups and out-groups and trying to deprogram millions of years of self-protective behavior probably isn’t going to work. Instead, this exercise helps people to understand that there are an infinite number of dimensions on which the team can be grouped into “us” and “them.” By better understanding what team members have in common with one another, you can reduce the impact of the most dominant groupings.Activity (refer to binder -> “Tools -> “Us and Them”)Objective: To help people confront the issues that divide the team into sub-groups and to think more broadly about what they have in common with each otherTimeframe: 10 minutes + time for conversation about the perceptions of in-groups and out-groupsTechnical note: This is a customized activity. You will need to prepare these page-size posters in advance.
The following slides provide useful content and context for your own background or for use during the Module 3 team session(s).
ActivityObjective: The Unique Value Add activity is a very powerful activity to assist with a number of team issues. If you have heard any of the following themes, the Unique Value Add activity would be a good use of time: micro-management, unclear expectations about quality work, poor delegation, lack of role clarityTimeframe: 1 HourExercise: The Unique Value Add exercise focuses on the contribution or “value” that each level in a hierarchical team or department needs to add, both as work is delegated and as work is reviewed for qualityFor each participant to complete the worksheet…Start with the second row from the top. In the centre, write the title or job level (e.g., Vice President). In the second box from the top on the left side, fill in the different ways that the role adds value (e.g., explains where work fits into departmental priorities, shares past precedents on similar projects, describes scope of the project and what is and is not under consideration).Next, move to the top box on the left side. This box represents the individual’s boss. Fill in this box with the value you need your boss to provide for you to be able to add your value. (e.g., share the strategic context from the business, provide budgetary limitations, share context from other departments/divisions)
ActivityObjective: The three buckets exercise helps teams manage the volume of work and shift the focus onto higher value workTimeframe: 30 to 60 minutesExercise:Hand out one worksheet to each participant. Refer to your “Activities” folder on your USB key.Ask each participant to complete the first three pages of the worksheet. Page 1 asks them to think about the high value work that they do (spend less time on this one). Page 2 asks them to think about the lower value work. Page 3 asks them to think about all the things they could be doing (if they had more time) that would add significant value to the team.It can be useful for participants to look through their calendars to get an accurate view of how they are spending their time.Once participants have had approximately 20 minutes to complete pages 1-3, have a discussion with the group about what they observed. Did they have any surprises? Next, they can move to pages 4 and 5 to build action plans for how they will shift the focus from low value to higher value work. This can be done individually or as a team. If done individually, give time for people to share particularly challenging ones with the team to get assistance.
These are the instructions for participants.
This slide is meant to debrief the Three Buckets exercise and talk about how to deal with conflicting points of view. How will they decide what to focus on? If conflict is outside the team, how will you resolve it?
The Four D’s are four methods of reducing the impact of low value work. First described in The Leadership Gap by Weiss and Molinaro, the 4Ds are a simple and effective means of starting a conversation about workload.Delete: Although it’s not the most common tactic for reducing low value work, deleting an activity that is no longer beneficial can be very effective. Do you have a standing project meeting even now that the project was over? Do you still generate a report that isn’t required?Delay: How many times have you returned to the office to find two voice mails…the first one a panicked message looking for your immediate assistance, promptly followed by another message saying “don’t worry, we don’t need you.” Sometimes, just delaying the work makes it go away, or makes it less important or urgent. Are there things that you could delay to stay focused on other, more important, work?Distribute: Sometimes the issue isn’t that the work is low value, it’s just that you aren’t the right person to do the work. In this case, can you distribute the work to someone who is better suited to it? Is there work you can outsource more effectively than doing it yourself? Diminish: This can be the most valuable of all the strategies. Our work can snowball over time and become bigger and more cumbersome than it needs to be. Do you have a meeting that has grown to 2 hours, when a half-hour would do with concentrated effort? Is there a report you write monthly that could be paired back to a more focused set of information? How can you get at the heart of an issue and the reduce all the less valuable activity that has grown up around it?
This final stage of the activity is about action planning for change.
