(About a 24-minute read. This is a migration and updated post. It was initially shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuilding to organize content.)

The What? & Why? Series (more to come), is my attempt to document the things I think about when programming and leading team building activities. (At this time there are three in the series moving over from FUNdoing.) 

I've been using Name Cards since teaching middle school. I initially wrote about how I use them in, Portable Teambuilding Activities (as one way to practice and learn names, among other things). I then starting doing team building activities with the Name Cards as a way to get more use from the prop. One of the activities is Name Card Exchange. (Another way is Name Card Scramble, used with groups who already know each other well.)

When I decided to try my hand at writing out my reasoning for the 'things' I think about, Name Card Exchange was my first choice. On one hand it was another way for me to document my thoughts. On the other hand, I was thinking, maybe those of you who train team building facilitators could use this format as a training exercise in the spirit of 'Purposeful Program Design' (a practice I've been flushing out for a few years now).
 
The idea is to first share 'what' you do - teaching the activity (not revealing 'why' you do it right away). Lead your trainees in a discussion about what they think the activity is about (the why) - the 'purposeful' reasons they might have for leading the activity in the way they were shown. Then reveal your 'why' as one professional's perspective (as we know there's more than one way to peel an orange). Let's give it a try. (Buckle up, this is an epic long-form post. My hope is that you find it worth the ride.)

Name Card Exchange is an activity for a group of 12 to 50 participants middle school age and older. (Younger groups can make it through the basics of this one as well.) I use it to start learning names and introduce the concepts of Team Building and Problem Solving - simple directions and lots to talk about. Typically it lasts about 15 to 20 minutes. 

What? - Name Card Exchange

1. Everyone is asked to make a name cards - "Only first names, nice big letters.". Supplies are on a table (I use 4 inch by 6 inch "unruled index cards and poster markers) off to the side. My name card, "CHRIS", is on the table with the supplies as an example of the expectations. 
2. As participants are finishing up their cards, I ask them to circle up in the nice open area we have for the program with their name card in hand. 
3. I welcome the group to the circle, and the program, and share my overview of what will be takling place - working together to tackle challenges in order to find out what we do well togther and what we might want to change about how we work together. 
4. I give the group my rendition of "challenge by choice" asking them to be a part of each task in some way - the bottom line being, to stay with the/your group and provide support and help during each task if they are willing. 
5. I tell my group, "As an example of what we'll be doing today, let's use the name cards you made. I'm calling this first activity the Name Card Return."
6. I continue with, "Part of the activity will involve The Perfect Circle. We are already standing in the perfect circle - this is awesome. So, look to your left and right - make sure you know the names of these two people. Whenever I call out 'Perfect Circle' please get into this circle standing next to the same two people to your left and right. Let's do some skill development - let's practice. Remember, the main rule is 'when I call out perfect circle' THEN you move into the circle."
7. At this point I move to another location in the activity area and then call out, "Perfect Circle!" I don't say anything else. It often takes a few seconds for some of the participants to catch on and start moving and helping others get into the perfect circle. 
8. After this first practice, I ask if there are any questions about forming the perfect circle. I also tell them at this point there is another rule to the perfect circle. "I will be the only person that can call a perfect circle - it could happen any time during the program." 
9. I then move to another place in the activity area and call out, "Perfect Circle!" After we've circled up again, I ask how everyone is doing. Do they have any questions about getting into our perfect circle? 
10. I move to a new location one more time and call, "Perfect Circle!" After this third time I congratulate their good work and tell them we are ready to learn one more thing before we play Name Card Return. 
11. "During this next skill development part" I tell the group, "Is to learn the Blind Shuffle". I continue. "Hold your name card in front of you with the written name on the card facing down towards the floor/ground. This is the 'blind' part of the shuffle - please keep your eyes open. Part of the challenge during Name Card Return is not to know the name on any card you have until we start the Return. When I say "shuffle" you can move around the area and exchange name cards with five different people - then stop moving around. You are allowed to exchange cards more than five times if someone is still working on his or her five exchanges, but you are required to stop moving around after you have exchanged cards with five people. Once everyone has stopped moving, I will give you the directions to the Name Card Return. If you 'accidentally' look at the name on your card after you have stopped moving, please exchange this card with someone near you so you don't know the name on the card you are holding. Are there any questions?" 
12. When everyone in the group has stopped moving, I quickly check in with them. "Okay, before I tell you how to play Name Card Return, if you 'accidentally' saw the name on the card you are holding please exchange your card with someone near you. It's okay if you peeked, it happens. Go ahead and exchange cards now with someone if you need to."
13. At this point I share the directions for Name Card Return. "This activity will be evaluated by time. During our program we might have some other activities evaluated by time, others might be evaluated by 'completion' - will you be able to complete the task in a certain amount of time. Other activities might be evaluated by a score - how many 'things' can you get in a certain amount of time. And there are some activities that we might not need to evaluate at all - we'll just have some fun with them. So, here's how Name Card Return is played. When I say 'GO' I will start the time and you can then look at the name on the card you are holding. As some of you might have already suspected, the challenge is to get each card back to the person it belongs to. In addition to that, you then have to get into a perfect circle in relation to where I am standing - I'm not going to say the words, 'perfect circle' during the activity, simply take it in stride that it's part of the activity. When we all have our name cards back in our hands and we're in a perfect circle I will stop the time." After sharing the directions, I spend a little time answering questions before starting the first round. 
14. When the group is ready, I say "GO". I do my best to get the card I have to the person it belongs to as quickly as I can and then I move to a place outside the clump of players exchanging cards. At some point my card is returned to me and then I wait until everyone is standing in our perfect circle. I then stop the time. 
15. Then I ask, "How did you do? Were you fast? Slow? Were you successful?" After some light discussion I let the group know that during the program I will be taking some time to open up space for us to talk about the experiences we're having. "These spaces might be before an activity, during an activity, or after. It will depend on what you need and what I think might be helpful to you at any time." I continue, "So, my responsibility to you is to provide you with activities that will challenge you and ask you questions about your experience to see what we're learning about each other and even about ourselves." 
16. Once the short discussions are over, I share the time the group achieved for the first round. Then I ask, "What do you think? Is this the best time this group can record?" Usually, they are ready to try again to improve their time. 
17. If they are up for another try, I'll say, "Are you ready for the blind shuffle to start round two?" If anyone says "NO" - I provide the time they need to talk. In most cases, in the beginning two rounds, most groups say they are "ready" to try again. 
18. I tell the group to "Blind Shuffle - exchange cards with five different people and then stop moving." I add, "Remember, it's okay to exchange cards with more than five people, just be sure to stop moving after you've exchanged with five different people. 
19. After all movement stops, I ask if anyone "peeked" at the name they have - if so, "please exchange cards with someone near you." 
20. Then I say, "GO" and start the time. I quickly find the person named on my card and then move to a new place in the area. While watching everyone I look around for the person who is looking for me - I get my card back. When everyone has stopped moving, I stop the time. 
21. I ask the same questions as before, "How did you do? Were you faster? Slower? Were you successful? I let these questions be answered for a while - not too long though. Then I share their second-round time. 
22. After any comments from reacting to their time, I ask them if they have done their best with this activity. Some groups do decide they have done their best and they want to move on. Most groups believe they can do better (especially if their second time is slower than their first time).  
23. If they want to try again, I tell them we have time for one more attempt. I then ask them to tell me when they are ready to begin their final round. 
24. When they are ready, I ask them to "blind shuffle - stop moving after five exchanges." After movement stops I ask again, "If you accidentally peeked, please exchange cards with someone near you."
25. When ready I say, "GO" - I return the card I have, move to another spot (unless otherwise instructed to do something different), accept my card from someone else and then stop the time when everyone is standing in the perfect circle. 
26. "So, how did you do? Was it faster? Slower? Were you successful?" I will spend a little more time with the discussion after this last round, maybe even asking some other questions specifically related to the group's program objectives.
27. To close, I say to my group, "So, this was an example of the process we'll be going through. I'll present you with a challenge. It might be evaluated in some way; it might not be. You might have multiple tries at a challenge, you might only get one try. We also might have some brief discussions about what's going on. We might talk a little before a challenge begins, we might talk a little during the challenge, and we might talk a little after the challenge. The discussions are times for you to consider what we are learning about each other and ourselves as we work together. You will never be required to share during the discussion, you are always free to choose how you want to engage at these times."
28. Finally, I tell and then ask the group, "Just so you know, during our time together, questions are free. So, before we move on do you have any questions for me at this time?"

The following will be the 'thinking' behind each step. To reiterate, there can be a wide range of thinking points related to Name Card Exchange depending on a facilitators goals and program outcomes. 

Why? - Name Card Exchange

​ 1. As participants are starting to gather, I can introduce myself quickly and ask them to do something for me - creating an opportunity for them to help me out. This is one way to start building a relationship with my group. Most people are used to making name tags, so the task is not new to them - they have prior knowledge. It's a bit different since we are making name "cards" but it's not too much of a stretch. I also provide an example and a simple expectation - "Your first name nice and BIG, like the example on the table." As the leader (or educator) of the program I can take a role of "expectation setter" for the group - often associated with leadership (as a group may see me initially). Participants still have a choice, and some exercise the choice, of not making their name nice and BIG. This might come up later when in the problem-solving mode of the activity. If the name was written with smaller letters, it's a bit more challenging to see the name on the card when others are looking at/for it. If this happens, I can point out that I did share an expectation early on that, as an educator, I thought might help them in the future. Part of my role, I tell them, (as a "teacher" educator) could be to offer up some information that might help during the program. (If you are reacting to me 'helping' my group, keep in mind, as I always say, "there's more than one way to peel an orange!")

2. I like circles. As we know, this formation allows for everyone in the group to see everyone else. It's also the best configuration to share your voice - sound waves move around within a circle much better than any other shape. I also remind everyone to have their name card in hand. There will be people in the group who will want to know what to do with the name card when they get done making it. 

3. My participants (no matter what age) will want to know what's going on. I use this time to share a VERY brief introduction and logistical information (e.g., where are the restrooms - ease some anxiety of the environment when possible) - no more than 90 seconds. If you dive into educational theory, "short boughts of instruction" are preferred over long boughts. It's all about keeping attention. Before I move on (to Step 4) I note that we will be doing our first activity in a moment, something that will help them understand, even more, what will be happening. 

4. When I change the topic to "challenge by choice" (or whatever you use to inform your group about choice), I get another 90 seconds of my group's attention. I use the example of making the name cards as a reference to some choices - I ask my participants to hold up their cards and look around (this engages some physical activity). Even with the expectation of making their first name nice and BIG, they made choices - I look around at the cards they are holding and point out the different choices made (e.g., color of marker, style of lettering, the position of the name on the card, etc.). In my "choice" presentation, I do ask everyone in the group to "stay" with his/her group in some way. "One of my responsibilities," I tell them, “Is for me to know where everyone is. If you stay with your group, it's easier for me to focus on the other parts of my job so you can have the best experience as possible. So, thanks for helping me with this." (Again, I asked for their "help" - continuing to build my relationship with most of the group - some might not be engaged by my invitation to help me out. Before moving on I do ask if anyone has any questions up to this point - and, of course, provide the answers I can. 

5. Again, I change the topic, letting them know we are going to do our first challenge together. Back to educational theory, I'm providing a brief "anticipatory set" (information) about what's to come. In adventure education we often call this "front loading". I want my group to know that what we're doing next is like what we'll be doing together for the program. Now, I don't say much here, I want to get my group moving by this time. [Note: We're only about five minutes into the program.]

6. In this step I emphasize that there will be times when we have to do some "skill development" before moving into an activity - "we'll need some particular skills to increase our chances of success." "For some of you, the skills might be easy to pick up, for others the skills might not be easy - they might be a challenge to work through. That's part of why we're here - to work through the challenges we'll be facing together." I want my group to know that there will be some unknown ahead and we're here to support each other. Before I move into Step 7, I remind my group of the perfect circle expectation, that they cannot move until I say "perfect circle". This is often forgotten when additional information is provided after directions are given - it's just how the brain works. 
 
7. I've moved to a location in the activity space that allows for the same size circle to be formed (I don't need to add a challenge here of adapting to a smaller space - not the purpose for the activity), THEN I say, "perfect circle." Again, I don't say anything else. I stay quiet (maybe look at them a bit with "questioning" body language), so the group has the opportunity to figure out what's next. I want to start transferring the "power" of decision making over to the group. At first, most (if not all) groups will look to the main facilitator (the person who often talks first) to lead the way. In our team building programs, we want the group to lead the way - right? So, again, I want them to start problem solving together. Every time I do this, no matter what age, at least one person will take an initiative to try something. 

8. Once the circle is formed (so far, for me, it always gets there), I ask if anyone has questions about forming the Perfect Circle. I ask at this point, and not during Step 6, because I want the questions to come from experience and not speculation, and I want them to get moving. Then I add the new rule to the Perfect Circle. As often as I can, I like to provide directions in increments. When I can first anchor, with some action, one (or two) direction(s) it's easier for the brain to take in new information. Note: I added the, "I can only call perfect circle" after one of my groups decided to "overuse" the term - you know what I'm talking about. 

9. Then, another call to action. This second attempt is always better (time and process) than the first. At this point I ask them how they're doing. I let my group know I will be asking this question throughout the program. I want to know how things are going for them. I tell them, “This helps me to know where to take you next - I want to give you good challenges, not overdo it." (You noticed, I asked for their help again - building my relationship with them.) With a little "group" experience under their belt, questions are easier to "see". This is the time where I often tell my group, "Questions are free today. So, ask away. Now, it's not my role to solve 'problems' that come up, that's your job. But don't be afraid to ask, clarification might lead to solving a problem." With this information I let my group know a little bit more about my role and "officially" let them know it's their job to problem solve - a point I then get to reiterate during the program.

10. One more call to action - usually fast this time. This physical action anchors some of the information we just talked about and opens the brain back up for the new information in Step 11. Some of you might not agree with my choice to congratulate my group. However, I believe "validation" is a good thing - validation is another way to build relationship. I am specific. I say something like, "excellent perfect circle - everyone is where they need to be." Or, I might say, "WOW, that was fast! Good job. As we move forward, this might be important." Again, Educational Theorists will say specific feedback can be internalized better. Then, I let my group know we have one more thing to learn before we play the game. This adds to the anticipation about what's to come.   

11. Here I teach the Blind Shuffle - the first part of Name Card Return. I call it "skill development" because I'm pretty sure everyone is about to do something they've never done before (unless they have been in a team building program with me before). So, "when learning something new we want to be nice to each other and ourselves - this might be very important to remember as we work together today." When I teach the Blind Shuffle, I let my group know that "part of the challenge" is not to look at their cards before I say "GO!" I set the expectation and tell them how it fits into the activity. I also let them know that if they "accidentally" look at their card after they stop moving, simply exchange it with someone. This lets my group know (or starts to anyway), that sometimes we'll do something we're asked NOT to do. "It's important to do our best, if we can, but know that mistakes are part of learning. Most mistakes are not done on purpose. The idea here is to recognize our mistakes and do something about it" - in this case, I've given my group the opportunity to fix the mistake - exchange cards with someone near them. Then we can move on - enough said. I also provide some time to clarify the expectation of "stopping" after exchanging with five different people. This is confusing for some people - somethings I give an example. I walk around the group, exchange with five different people (while everyone is watching me) and then stop. (I know this might sound silly, but it happens every time. Some get it. Some don't.) And I make sure they understand they can continue to exchange cards with others even if they have stopped moving. I tell them they are "helping" others finish up their exchanges. (This information is also difficult for some people to understand - they believe they must stop everything they are doing). 

12. When I see everyone has stopped moving, I give them one more opportunity to exchange name cards with someone if they accidentally peeked at the name on their card. Again, my purpose is to start/continue building a safe learning environment. Now, of course some people will not "admit" they peeked because of prior "shamed" experiences. If anyone does make an exchange, I'm sure to thank them for doing so. I don't make a big deal out of it (like, "thanks for having integrity" - this qualification takes you down another relationship path), I simply say, "Thank you." 

13. In this Step I've shared the directions to Name Card Exchange. This activity is what I consider to be an introductory challenge. It has only two parts (or, you might say, rules) - return the card to the person it belongs to and form a perfect circle in relation to where I'm standing. I also tell my group that the process will be evaluated by time. I then share that during the program there may be this or other types of evaluation processes. Here I open the floor to questions about the expectations. At this time, I don't bring up anything more about "evaluation" unless they do. And if they do, I'll ask them, "at this time, please hold that thought. I would love to bring this up again in a little bit." In most cases we can forego this conversation. If needed, open up talks. So, once the group understands they will be timed, as you can imagine, the energy begins to change. There's something on the line. For some it's exciting, for others, not so much. (All good things that can come up during the program.) Here again I'll say, "Questions are free. does anyone need help understanding what's about to happen?" It's also good to note here that I don't ask the group if they want some time to talk amongst themselves before this first attempt. I want to give them an experience, get them moving, give them something to talk about. When it seems like the time...

14. Once I say "GO!", I first start the time - DON"T FORGET THIS PART! (You know why!) I usually don't know many of the names of my group members yet, so I use, what I consider to be, a helpful behavior. I start calling out the name of the person on my card. By doing this, maybe I'm role modeling a positive behavior and maybe I'm continuing to build my relationship with the group - now, that is if anyone notices. (Here's the counter point. What do they notice if I'm standing off to the side? I like to "play" at first and then slowly step back.) As soon as I can hand off the name card I have I move to a place outside the clump of players who have often mobbed together in the center area of the original circle. At some point between handing off the card I had and stopping the time, someone has found me and returned my name card. Since I am part of the solution, I choose to move to my Perfect Circle spot instead of looking for my name card. I don't say anything during the "return" and "circle up" action. I just wait for movement to stop - then I stop the time. (Sometimes movement might start up again when players realize something is not right. I simply restart my stopwatch and stop it again when movement stops.  

15. I purposefully hold back sharing the time with the group until after I find out how they believe they did, and if they thought they were successful. This sense is more related to a "process" evaluation of how a task is done rather than the "product" evaluation of time. When I hear different answers about how they thought they did I like to point out that, "We will have differences of opinion during the program - this is part of being a diverse group of people." Often we talk about this for a while and why diversity can be a good thing and even why diversity could be a bad thing. Before sharing the time, I also like to share other responsibilities that I have, '...provide activities that will challenge you and ask questions..." Again, letting my group know what they can expect of me is another way to build my relationship with them. Throughout the program I will often refer to what I've told them about my responsibilities in order to curb any false expectations that might be showing up. Note: This step only takes a few minutes - I want to keep them in "action" mode but engage the mind a bit. 
 
16. At this point, after our quick discussions, I share the time achieved and ask if this is the best they can do? Be mindful here of your voice intonation. I keep my voice neutral; I don't use my voice to imply that they can do better. The way we ask questions can be just as powerful as the question itself. In research interviewing terms, we don't want to "lead" the interviewee (group) into an answer we want to hear - we want to be as neutral as possible. Since it was only the first attempt at the activity most of the groups I've worked with believe they can do better. They want to try again. Now, be ready for one or more participants ready to voice their desire to move on. They, for any number of reasons, what to do something else. If this happens you have a wonderful opportunity to talk about, "How do we move forward when we don't have a consensus within the group?" Now, again, I don't spend too much time here at the beginning of a program to teach about consensus building or compromising. I like to put this on the group - what ideas do they have for moving forward? At this point I've done one of two things so far. I've asked those who do not want to try again if it would be okay with them if we could try again to see how it goes. This usually is okay with them. I've also proposed that it is perfectly okay to choose not to try again - those who do not want to try can step out to the side and observe the process and offer feedback during the discussion. This is an example of offering choice. However, I have yet to have any takers on this option. Think about it, what kind of choice is it? Most people will not choose to step away from the "safety" of the group even if they don't want to do what everyone else is doing. They will choose to stay with the group. (Now, if anyone decides to step out before the next round, ask everyone to look at their name card. The player(s) stepping out switch cards with the player(s) who have their card. Then, cards are turned back face down before the shuffle. Also, the perfect circle will include empty spaces left open by those who have stepped out - it works just fine.)

17. Before we begin the process of Name Card Return (and any activity in the future), I ask the group if they are "ready" to start the process again? The Ready Check is meant to "suggest" they can take time to talk about the activity - do some problem solving and planning. I don't tell them at this point what I'm suggesting. I want to see if anyone steps up and says, "No, we're not ready yet." Sometimes players will ask, "Can we talk a little before we start?" The answer is always, "Of course!" (Note: Be prepared for ready check responses from participants that might sound a bit rude - some "reactions" from the group/individuals come across in different ways. All good things to talk about.) In most cases, my group will tell me they are ready to try again without any discussion. 

​18. Here we start the process again with the Blind Shuffle. I simply repeat the directions again - "Exchange cards with five different people, then stop moving." Sometimes, I also need to remind the group that this shuffle part is not timed - some players tend to jump to this assumption, creating an environment that's not necessary. Another nice discussion topic if the behaviors show up.

19. After movement stops and before time starts, I invite them to change cards with someone near them if they happened to peek at the card they are holding. I assure them that, "there is no penalty - it's just part of the challenge not to know what card you are holding." I what my group to know, again, that mistakes will be made from time-to-time. It's our responsibility to learn from them and do something about them if needed. (This is working on the "safe" environment aspect of the program.) 

20. Here I start the second attempt of Name Card Return. (Don't forget to start the time once you say, "GO!") I personally follow the same steps from the first attempt - I want to stay consistent with my process. I hold up my card, showing the name on it to the crowd as I call out the name of the person on the card I'm holding. Once I get this card back to the person it belongs to, I find a new place to stand on the outskirts of the crowd. Once I'm at my new spot I look for the player with my card - the player looking for me. Once I take back my card, I quietly watch the group finish up their card returning and movement into the perfect circle. When movement stops, I stop the timer. Here I (still) quietly wait just a bit to see if anyone recognizes anyone out of order. If movement resumes, I start the time again. When everyone believes we are all in the correct place, time is stopped. 

21. Again, I ask the "How did you do?" questions, keeping the process consistent for the group - they begin to know what to expect from me at this point, in this process. Hopefully, we begin to feel a bit more comfortable with each other and more participants share in the discussion. At this point my group realizes I will not "call" on people or expect any answers to the questions proposed - there is a degree of safety and freedom to participate. This tends to make people more comfortable and willing to share. After some brief sharing I tell them the second time they achieved. 

22. When the group finds out their second time, we will discuss their reaction to a better time or their reaction to a slower time. During either of these discussions, I let my group know that we will be experiencing these possible outcomes during the program. Then we might talk a bit more about how we might use these experiences throughout the program - "What can they teach us?" Then again, I ask the group if this is the best they can do? If they agree it's their best, we can recap the process and how it relates to the program ahead. Then move forward into the program. 
 
23. If they choose to go for another attempt, I let them know we have time for one more try. Since we are still just getting started, I don't provide endless attempts - I want them to get into the program. This "last attempt" information tends to motive more problem-solving behaviors. At this stage of the process, I change the way I suggest the Ready Check. I say, "Let me know when you are ready to start your final attempt." Putting it this way often leads them into the idea that they have space to talk about the activity. If someone in the group speaks up right away and says, "We ready!" I will ask everyone, "So, is everyone ready to begin?" This provides another opening for someone to step up and ask for time to talk. 

24. I call out the Blind Shuffle here - reminding the group of the procedure. Again, being consistent, telling them the same information about the shuffle as before. I don't want to introduce the "concept" of change at this point in the program. Change behaviors might be part of the program later, but this beginning is about an introduction to the program not behavior awareness or working on any of their other objectives. Once the group knows more about the structure of the process it will be easier for them to focus on the specific reasons for their participation in the program. (This is related to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - basic needs met before any complex learning can take place.)
 
25. After everyone has stopped moving and any final exchanges are made, I do add one more ready check. This opens one more chance for the group to do any last moment problem solving. Be sure to let them know, they cannot move until "GO!" is called (part of the rules) - some players might consider solving a problem by moving before "GO!" is called. On another note, there have been times, for me, when groups have determined my movement is a "problem" to solve. Some have asked me to tell them where I'm going. Others have asked me to stay right where I'm standing so they know where I am. In either case I honor their request. This brings up a little discussion about another role I can take within the group. There are times when I can be a resource. As noted earlier - there are certain questions I might not answer, but in many cases I can be a resource. Interestingly enough, educators are often overlooked as resources in the learning process (don't get me started). So, when the group is determined and ready, I say, "GO!" and follow my same card return, move, and look for my card procedure - unless I was asked to do something different. Once all the movement stops, I stop the timer. 

26. As before I ask how they did before I share their time. Since it was the final attempt, I might spend a little more focused time here on the discussion points. I might also bring up some of the specific goals the group is here to work through and how they will fit into the activities ahead. 

27. Before closing I'll do a little review of the program points - reiterating what the group can expect in the time ahead. Before answering any questions, they have (the final point), I bring up the concept of challenge by choice, so, moving forward they have this at the forefront of their mind. 

28. Finally, I remind the group that, "Questions are free." I make sure to spend some time answering any questions they have - if I can. I have been known to ask participants to, "Hold that thought - I'll be asking you to bring this up again soon." In this situation, I know we'll be covering the answers to certain questions soon - I'm waiting for a more "experiential" moment to provide new information. ​

Yes. A long journey. Was there value in it for you?

I'm going to guess, most of us simply move through our programming efforts using our historical knowledge about what works and what doesn't, from one group to the next (I certainly do, most of the time). This What? & Why? practice is not for everyone. But what if we did it more often? What if we talked out the thinking? Would our programming be better? Would our facilitation bring about more meaning? I wonder.

If you decide to try a What? & Why? I would love to see it. And would be happy to discuss it with you. Drop me an email. 

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D.  

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About a 5-minute read.)

If you are anywhere near social media I'll assume you heard about the AI wave and how we can "chat" with it to explore topics and concepts. I didn't dive into it like some other team builder friends did to explore how we can enhance our work by chatting with AI until one of them said to me, "the idea is to start a conversation, chat with it - it's fun." Well, if something's FUN... I trust the source, so I spend a little time having some fun. Here is one of my chats with ChatGPT (from Open AI - the free version has worked well for me).

I've been using quotes in my programming for a while and recently I've been running into the idea of 'Thought Experiments' and thought, "can quotes be used as Thought Experiments?" So I went in for a chat with AI that you'll find below.

NOTE: Now that you know AI is providing information to this post, what are you thinking about? Resistant? Curious? Do I, as the 'prompter,' have any value in the conversation? Will the information be more or less credible? Will you be more or less prone to use the ideas shared by the AI? Would you consider this: AI is pulling from information that has been contributed by 'humans' in an ever-growing digital ecosystem - are AI responses less or more valid? 

Chris: What is a Thought Experiment?

Chat: A thought experiment is a mental exercise, or an imaginary scenario used to explore and illustrate a particular concept or hypothesis. It involves the use of the imagination to visualize a situation, and then examining the consequences that arise from it, without actually physically carrying out the experiment.
 
Thought experiments are often used in philosophy, physics, mathematics, and other disciplines to explore the implications of a particular idea or theory. They allow for the testing of different hypotheses, the exploration of alternative possibilities, and the clarification of complex concepts.

[Note from Chris - sounds like what we do as team builders, but we experiment with the thoughts.]


Chris: Give me five bullet points on the benefits of thought experiments.

Chat: Certainly! Here are five potential benefits of thought experiments:
 
1. Promoting Creativity: Thought experiments can help individuals generate new ideas, perspectives, and approaches to problem-solving by challenging conventional thinking and assumptions.
 
2. Testing Hypotheses: Thought experiments allow individuals to explore the consequences of different hypotheses or theories without having to perform physical experiments. This can be especially useful in fields where it is difficult or impossible to conduct experiments in real life, such as in astrophysics.
 
3. Clarifying Concepts: Thought experiments can help to clarify complex concepts by presenting them in a simplified, concrete scenario that can be more easily understood and analyzed.
 
4. Encouraging Reflection: Thought experiments often require individuals to reflect on their own values, beliefs, and assumptions, leading to a deeper understanding of themselves and their worldviews.
 
5. Enriching Discussions: Thought experiments can be used to spark engaging and thought-provoking discussions in group settings, encouraging individuals to share and explore different perspectives and ideas.

Chris: Give me five quotes on leadership that could be used as thought experiments.

Chat: Certainly! Here are five potential quotes on leadership that could be used as thought experiments:
 
1. "A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way." - John C. Maxwell
Thought experiment: Imagine a leader who knows the way but fails to go the way or show the way. What are the consequences of such leadership?
 
2. "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
Thought experiment: Imagine a leader who inspires others but fails to follow through on their own actions. What impact does this have on the motivation and performance of their team?
 
3. "The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." - Ralph Nader
Thought experiment: Imagine a leader who prioritizes the development of their team members, rather than focusing solely on their own accomplishments. What benefits might this have for the team and the organization as a whole?
 
4. "The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things." - Ronald Reagan
Thought experiment: Imagine a leader who achieves great success on their own but fails to engage and inspire their team. How does this impact the sustainability and longevity of their success?
 
5. "Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge." - Simon Sinek
Thought experiment: Imagine a leader who prioritizes their own interests or ego, rather than the well-being and development of their team. How does this impact trust, loyalty, and performance within the team?

What are you thinking about chatting with AI now? (Any changes from your initial thoughts?)

• Can the information provided by this sort of chat enhance what we do as team builders?
• If you are reading other sources of information, how will you know if it's from the person (or people) listed as the author(s)?
• Should content providers reference the use of AI if it helped them find (or wrote) information about the subject?
• As team builders, could you ask AI to design an experiential activity for a specific group if you prompt in the relevant details? 

​We'd love to hear your thoughts. Leave us a Comment. 

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. 

(About a 5-minute read.)

If you've been around the team building world I'm sure you've used various thumb gauges. A simple 'thumbs up' gets a lot of use (hopefully more than the thumbs down). I frequently use (and share) two thumb gauges with my groups - they are TOOLS to transmit information quickly. One is Thumb Voting and the other is the Thumbometer. ​

Thumb Voting
I learned Thumb Voting from my friend Tom Leahy. He uses it as a 'Consensus-Building' tool. When faced with a decision where consensus is desired (meaning everyone agrees to something at some level), groups can use this tool to quickly see everyone’s position on a proposed decision.

For example: A group works together before a particular challenge to come up with a plan. When a plan seems to be formulated, someone verbalizes the plan to all group members. Then (knowing about the Thumb Vote tool), they take a Thump Vote - everyone votes at the same time with one thumb so everyone can see.

A thumbs up indicates the person understands the plan and is ready to support the plan. A thumb to the side means the person may not be completely clear about the plan but is ready and willing to do their part and figure out how to help as they go. A thumbs down indicates the person needs some clarity about the plan in order to understand what's going to happen and how they can be a part of the group's success. In other words, this person has a question (or two) about the plan.

(Note: I use this tool with groups who possess some average communication skills - willing to let everyone share information and willing to listen to each other. If used too early, Thumb Voting can be used by someone to hold the group 'hostage' by using a thumbs down vote to indicate they don't like the plan and they want their own plan put in place.) 

In most cases, Thumb Voting is a quick way to 'see' who has questions and then answer the questions in a way to help the group move forward. Using our example above, after someone asks a question the plan might change. Then another Thumb Vote is needed to see if everyone is on board, at some level of consensus, before implementing the plan. 

Thumbometer
The Thumbometer tool is used to gauge how much someone liked (or likes) something or how much someone valued (or values) something. After I show my participants what the Thumbometer scale is ("10" is a thumbs up, "0" is thumbs down, and the other numbers in between) here are some questions I might ask using the Thumbometer: 

On a scale of Zero to 10, 10 being the highest score...

• how fun was the activity? 
• how much did you like the activity? 
• how well did you all follow through with your plan? 
• how was the leadership during the activity? 
• how well did you communicate with each other during the activity? 

This shows participants, with one sweeping look at the thumbs, the different perspectives they have about the question. (Rarely have I seen 100% agreement on perspectives.) 

As a way to enhance understanding and group improvement you can follow up with this question: If you're not at a 10, what would you like to see from the group in order to bump your score up one point? We find out where people are at and then determine where they want to go. 

Thumb Gauges are quick ways you and your group can check in with each other in order to determine next steps. 

What other Thumb Gauges are out there? Leave us a Comment below. 

I could use your help spreading the knowledge. If you know someone who could benefit from OnTeamBuilding information, please forward them this email. Thank You!

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About a 15-minute read. This is a migration and updated post. It was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content. Thanks for being here!)

The following conversation about muting participants was initiated by my friend (and fellow team builder), Floyd. He is a deep thinker so I love picking his brain. 

Floyd: I'd like to take some time and delve deeper into a topic I've been thinking about and see if I can't get some thoughts from more experienced folks I trust and respect. It is about muting people who speak the most or the loudest in a community. If you are up to it, I would love to get your input. 
 
Often when I see facilitators muting individuals it is with hope that the people who don't speak up as much will have their voices heard by the folks that talk a lot, and the ones who talk a lot will develop skills in listening and communicating in new ways. Do you have thoughts on this topic, or ways you have used it as a tool?

Chris: Thanks for reaching out Floyd! First, I agree with your initial assertion. I too believe, in most cases, people are muted by the facilitator  with the "hope that the people who don't speak up as much will have their voices heard by folks that talk a lot." (I wonder, where a group would be if they muted the talk-to-muchers? And what would this look like in a safe environment?)
 
So, we both agree that the hope is others will speak up. Now, as we ultimately find out, muting someone (or more than someone), does not guarantee others will speak up. (We could start with the whole extrovert/introvert dynamics here as just one reason why.) So, as an educative practice, it's not the best tool to use to get others to speak up more. However, when you are newer to facilitation muting can be an introductory tool. And, you never know. I'm sure there are success stories after implementing the basic mute. To this day, I still threaten to mute when it seems like a "heads up" might nudge the group (or particular person) into a way of behaving (e.g., listening more). I will say something like this: 

Most of the time this light-hearted information gets the point across in that moment. 
​ 
Let's go to the second assertion you mentioned, "...and the ones who talk a lot will develop skills in listening and communicating in new ways." Here's my reaction to this. If someone is talking so much that you must mute them so that others in the group can get some space to talk, it is "inconceivable" (to quote my favorite movie) that this person will make the leap to changing their behavior to be a better listener or communicator. It is more likely, when muted (if they stay muted) that they are simply formulating and rehearsing what they will say when they get the chance to talk again. 
 
Now, my response (after some thinking) to this assertion. If a facilitator uses the muting tool, on purpose, to encourage better listening and better communication behaviors it would be educationally prudent to frontload the expectation.  Here's what I would say: "If I end up muting you during the activity, meaning you cannot talk, it does not mean you did anything wrong. It simply means I would like you to turn on your listening behaviors and soak up the information that fills the room while you're muted. Combine the information you hear with the information you have in your head about the situation. Blend this up and see what you get. When you are ready to jump in and verbally share with the group again, go right ahead." 
 
I see this way of muting as specifically inviting someone to experience a particular behavior - listening - at a specific time. Also, when I use this tool I don't use it only with the over-talkers. I use it with different people over a progression of activities. Then, we have another talking point to bring up during the processing experience. "What was it like for you going into listening mode after I muted you? Was there any benefit to you or the group when you went into listening mode?"
 
Why do I mute in this way? When I share my process and say you have done nothing wrong, it (tends) to reduce the defensiveness from participants. They are not embarrassed after being muted (in most cases!) it is simply a part of the experience. The group knows someone in the group is practicing a particular behavior and are often very supportive. As an educator, I want to encourage (and sometimes require) a certain behavior, letting the student practice  to see how it works for them.  ​

Floyd: Thanks for getting back to me Chris! First, to answer some of your questions, I am a long-time user (abuser) of the mute tool. A few years ago, however, I was placed in a position in a group where I was the only one not muted. This was a facilitator training at a course in the Midwest I had no experience with, but training as a contractor. The lead facilitator knew I had a lot of facilitation experience. The rest of the community I was working with knew each other (worked together in a residential treatment facility), but were unaware of my experience. As the day progressed, I realized that the lead was using a lot of "one right answer" methods and activities but, instead of encouraging an answer collaboratively devised by the community, he kept looking for me to "speak up" and solve the challenge. Finally as the group was working to come up with [their] answer to an activity, he muted everyone except me and expected that I would then bring the group to a good answer. This on-the-spot feeling has since then challenged my philosophy on its use.
 
Currently I use muting in a general way. I offer it as the consequence for stepping in the muting river, or as the theme of one of the islands on a triangle tension traverse, or use a half-blind half-mute twist to a challenge adding some unique dynamics. I have, however, stopped using muting on the loud ones. My hope with discontinuing the practice is that I can come up with something that offers groups some tools when they leave. I have come close to something I like, but it certainly needs to be refined. That is, I use an activity as a sort of pathways or grid. We get to the initiative and I will introduce safety concerns that must be addressed during the challenge, but it is up to the group to figure out how to complete the challenge, and by the end, they know all or as many of the rules of the activity as they can figure out.

As they experiment with things I will let them know when they have done something outside of the rules of play. So far I have had some good success with this and have noticed that the [talkers] might start out speaking loudly, but when the rules are nothing like they expected, they have to rely on listening to other people for ideas to experiment with, and as the community starts running out of solutions they then find themselves asking the quiet ones to speak up. As an introvert myself, I’ve noticed this invitation from my peers is often what motivates us [me] to share ideas. These ideas might still not be the solution, but everyone sharing and being heard, and everyone experimenting with ideas always gets people further. Again, needs to be refined, but something I am using in place of the mute.
 
Much more to the point, I stopped using the mute because I feel communities are performing at a level they reached through storming and norming in their every-day environment in one way or another. When I mute a person I feel like your description is exactly what happens. That person is not likely to spend time listening (if they stay muted at all), but instead, will be trying to figure out what to say when they get a chance, or how to communicate their idea above all else happening in the group anyway. When they go back to their community environment, the loud ones will continue to be loud and heard, the ones with perceived power will continue to have the perceived power, and the quiet ones will continue to keep their ideas to themselves.

​This takes me back to my years working with kids. We would take kids out of the pool to teach them lessons about behaving in the pool. In my experience, I have not seen either strategy work. It is not my responsibility as an educator to remove the challenges or to remove members from the challenge while I'm working with communities. ​My responsibility is to help the community identify problem areas occurring in their community, and then work with them to come up with actionable solutions they can use back in their own environment.
 
I agree with you that muting can be a tool for new educators. My hope for these types of tools for facilitators is just as everything with facilitation; That they will be considered often, and from other points of view. (Today I may not like using the mute, but in conversations with others I am shown that it is a useful tool when we know why and how to use it).
 
I used to work with a fellow that challenged me daily to know why I did what I did, how it affected the group, if the group walked away with the outcomes they were looking for and then some, and to find new ways to interact with groups and initiatives. This has been paramount to my growth as a facilitator. While I know this is the environment with many experiential programs, I know, and have worked in those situations, where those early tools just become the rule, and no one really knows why. 

I like your ideas about offering muting and listening as tools to the group. I want to write "LISTEN" on a polyspot, and frontload it at the beginning of the day:

Likewise, if someone is feeling like they aren't being heard, or feel like someone's idea isn't being heard, this spot can be used here as well. The person can use the resource as a way of getting the attention of the group to share their ideas. While in the experience you can then process through why a community would need such a resource, and what this resource could look like back in the community environment. Man, I really like the LISTENING spot! I can see so many opportunities for communities to take advantage of this.
 
I fear I have grown long winded here, and running all these sentences together may be causing the muting bees to get to buzzing!
 
Thanks again for your time!    ​

(Chris here...) What a journey! Floyd loves to build dendrites. Where do you sit with the idea of muting? How have your experiences been with this tool? Leave us a Comment below. 

All the best, 
Chris & Floyd

Podcast Listeners, interested in the topic of consequences? Check out Using Consequences During Team Building Activities at the "Ask Michelle & Chris About Team Building" podcast. Want to build more dendrites with Floyd, listen to my OnTeamBuilding Podcast Interview with Floyd.

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About an 18-minute read)

Are there benefits to 'long-form' team building activities? 

If you've been around the OnTeamBuilding (ideas) and FUNdoing (activities) for a while, you know I like to take deep dives into ideas and activities. Over the last two years in particular I've been encouraging team builders to revisit the concept of 'less is more' and to consider a Stoic practice of 'do less better.' Think about these two ideas for just a moment. What do they mean to you? Less is more. Do less better.

I know, and have lived the argument, that if we do a lot of activities we have done a lot and can justify our time together with our clients - we gave them 'a lot' for their money. (Have you ever been in that position where you want to get that "one more" activity in and then you run out of time to reflect over the program in a meaningful way? So then it's, "Oh, we have time for the 'One Word' Whip." I've been there. I've done the Whip. And what did I miss? What did my clients miss?)

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this? Before we continue the exploration, let me frame my thinking about activity 'form' (in other words, the length of time it usually takes to go through an activity). I've recently begun using the terms 'long-form,' 'short-form,' and 'mid-form' activities when talking about program design with team builders (it sounds more methodological). Long- and short-form are common terms in journalism, blogging and publishing. Mid-form I made up to designate an amount of time between long and short. In my mental model, short-form activities take 10 to 15 minutes (e.g., energizers and warm ups). Mid-form activities take 20 to 50 minutes. And long-form activities can take 60 minutes or more. 

​As I mentioned above, we are very familiar with short-form and mid-form activities. We like 'changing it up' to keep everyone's attention and meet different learning styles and 'kinds of smarts' - the more we change it, the more people we can connect with - so the argument goes. And it's a good argument. And it works. And what else can we do? I'm suggesting here, more long-form programming. 

How about an example? I invited my friend and colleague Bill (Ph.D.) into my "College is an Adventure" course when I was teaching in higher ed. (The course was for college freshman - I taught college success strategies using team building activities.) I heard about his multiple-session "Swing-To" activity and wanted to learn how to facilitate it. He joined us for three 50-minute class periods and it was well worth the time. The experience was, without a doubt, a genuine example (metaphorically speaking) of getting through college. 

The Swing-To is a version of 'Prouty's Landing' - a swinging rope to a platform activity. Bill used Hula-Hoops as safe landing areas and the apex of our swinging rope was about 25 feet high which gave us a lot of room to swing. The goal was the same for each of his three meetings, "Get everyone into a hoop. Each hoop needed at least one person in it." The only way to get into a hoop was to swing. 

• Day 1: The hoops were at varying distances from the swing-line - one hoop for every two people in the class (a total of 12 hoops). Everyone had to start behind the swing-line. If the ground was touched beyond the swing-line that person went back to the start. During this first day we all found out about our swinging abilities. Lots of touches and returns. Some helping behaviors occurred, but it was really 'every-person-for-themselves' day. By the end of class about half the students were in a hoop, not all the hoops had a person inside. The 'college-related' reflection was focused on individual progress - they worked hard, they tried, but not everyone succeeded. 
• Day 2: The hoops were scattered differently to start - most of them were pretty close to the swing-line. They looked achievable. However, there was apprehension and the class members were talking out their plans in fine detail. However, as time went on Bill started moving hoops further away from the swing-line. The landscape was changing. A sense of urgency overcame the group. They abandoned their planning (and the plans they were making - because now everything was changing). In their haste touching beyond the swing-line occurred. Another change. If someone touched beyond the swing-line, anyone standing in hoops had to return along with the swinger - it was now a group-focused task. The focus began to changed. There was more communication. Much more helping and planning to get the 'less-abled' swingers to the few close spots. Some hoops moved even moved as someone started to swing, which forced a swing back across the line. There was a conscious effort to help  catch swingers and and guide them to spots and catch them to be pulled back behind the swing-line to avoid touches and returns. I remember clearly, near the end of class, one of the students asked Bill if he could move one of the hoops closer to the line. He agreed and moved the hoop. Then others asked. Denied. The class ended. Less than half made it to the hoops this time, but they were actually more positive than Day 1. The 'college-related' reflection was clearer to the students. They were getting and sharing the metaphorical connections more freely - they were 'getting it'.  
• Day 3: The hoops were in a diagonal line across the swing area on this last day - the first one really close, the last one very far away. And there were bowling pins - everywhere. "Things in the way!" Bill said. And these pins........they moved throughout the class. I also took note of what else Bill said (he didn't say much at all the first two days until the reflections). His advice for the day, "Remember what you learned during the first two attempts." (NOTE: Within this advice he was hoping the students would ask him to move hoops again, but they didn't - something that came up in the final reflection.) The swings had to change into arching movement to avoid the Pins. Touches resulted in the toucher going back - not everyone. Lots of catching and now pushing to get momentum. The energy was spectacular to watch, each student wanted to do better and they wanted to help each other do better. The planning was quick (they thought the hoops were going to move, until they saw the Pins moving). They got the less-abled swingers into the close hoops (after learning the arched swing). Then the better swingers maneuvered into the middle hoops. The 'super-swingers' (I called them) tried and tried to get to the farthest hoops without success. Then, with a nudge from Bill, the group figured out a way to get some super-swingers into some of the farthest hoops (I don't want to give away the answer!). By the time Bill called a stop, only two of the 12 hoops were unoccupied and two people were behind the swing line. The reflection about the journey they went through over three days of class and the college journey ahead of them was one of the most memorable experiences in my facilitation career. (A respectful hat tip to Bill, one of my greatest teachers.)

The insights these students had and the connections/transfers they made to life as a college student was exactly why Bill designed Swing To. And designing it to take a long time was on purpose. It takes a while to 'get it' - challenges in life are not always in short-form. It's good to practice for the long-form challenges every now and then. 

I left out a number of the finer details of the activity, but I hope you can see my intent. Over those three classes, think about the 'obstacles' the students had to navigate. Just like college. Think about how they evolved into a group to achieve more success on one particular goal. How does this relate to college? (It's much harder to do it alone.) What are all the things they had to overcome. What was ahead of them, what did they need to overcome throughout their years in college. How long does it take to 'see' and 'feel' what's possible? Can we help our learners practice what it takes? Which leads me to my current interest in long-form team (human) building activities.

Concepts we can dive into with long-form activities: 

• Growth Mindset: In her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Dr. Carol Dweck says that a "growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts, your strategies, and help from others...the passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even (or especially) when it's not going well, is the hallmark of the growth mindset." Sticking together with a group through a long-form activity, overcoming obstacles and helping each other to keep going fosters a mindset that will get us through difficult times and learn from them. This brings us right to....
• Grit: Angela Duckworth, the author of Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance tells us, "Grit is passion and perseverance for long-term goals...it's holding steadfast to that goal even when you fall down...even when progress toward that goal is halting and slow." With long-form activities we can practice some of the behaviors in grit - what do we do, say and think about as we move through an extra long task? And how do we use this practice to prepare for times when it really matters? 
• Self-Talk: Long-form activities can really help us explore self-talk - that dialogue in your head when you're doing things. The longer we are involved with a task or project, the more time our brains have to talk to us. People who focus on the idea of self-talk are usually working towards internal dialogue that is more positive in order to get through difficult situations or see things on the 'brighter' side or see (say) the good things about people instead of focusing on the negative. During long-form activities I will take check-in breaks to ask, "What is going through your mind right now - what is the self-talk in your head?" After some sharing I'll ask if their self-talk is making this experience better or worse and would changing this talk change the experience? In my experience long-forming, "this is really boring" is the most common internal dialogue. I respond, "It can be, or you can see this experience as helping you in some way" (a growth mindset). What are the ways it can help?" Then we're off on the exploration. I also bring up 'getting used to boredom'.... 
• Getting used to Boredom: High performing people, goal oriented people, those passionate about helping others all get used to boredom. The growth mindset says, "This is what I want to be doing and some of the things that need to be done can get boring, if I let them. Or, I can view the repetition and monotony as the steps it takes to get to where I'm going. I find satisfaction in getting closer to my goals." James Clear (author of the bestseller, Atomic Habits) claims that, "Mastery is never an accident...whether we are talking about athletes, artists or academics, the story is the same. If you want to fulfill your potential then you must practice specific skills for a long time with remarkable consistency." And skill building can get very boring, if you let it. So, how do we practice with boredom? Long-form activities? 
• Helping: This is my favorite concept to explore. If we can learn to help, ask for help, and receive help we can accomplish anything we set out to do. And helping, as Edgar Schein says in, Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help, is a relationship. So building strong relationships in a foundation of trust will lead to helping behaviors. I have seen long-form activities bring out the best and worst in people and during this process we get to learn about the needs of others, discuss how we can help each other and then constantly provide the help that is asked for which builds trust and more willingness to help.  

Long-Form Activity Ideas: 

• Pipeline - Rolling a round object down 'channels' to a specific destination. I've done this one several times over 90-minutes. The outside course was fraught with twists, turns, obstacles, ups and downs. And drops? We had to go back to the last obstacle, do it again, then keep going. 
• Stepping Stones - One wooden block for each person. We had to get from one place to another - the course I used during my higher ed days was through campus about 1.5 miles (I measured the distance on my bike). Leadership (the front person) had to change every five minutes and we took 'thinking' breaks every 20 minutes. It usually took two 75 minute class periods. (Adventure Education Curriculum Design class). The 'Why'? Developing positive human behaviors. 
• Moonball - This is hitting a beachball into the air, not letting it touch the ground. I did this one a few times during multiple day trainings with team building facilitators and camp staff. The 'Why'? Sticking with something and realizing the benefits. The task is called "5 by 100." A group has to get 100 beachball hits in a row, five different times. After a successful 100 there is a learning (reflection) session. Then, it's off to do something else. Then, back to 100. Then something else and back to 100. Some of the learning was about how they approached to reality of coming back to the task. Did they look forward to it? Were they dreading it? What was their 'mindset' for the redundancy? 
• Key Punch - A set of 24 numbered spots scattered around inside a boundary area. The numbers have to be touched in order, one person going into the boundary area, touching one number and then exiting so the next person can go in to touch the next number. When I go long-form with this one, I have my group perform the task 15 times (which is often about 25 starts because of the restarts after fouls). With the learning discussions it takes anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes. The 'Why'? Mindset! "You can make this the worst experience ever or the most amazing ever, it's up to you."  
• Memory 100 - This activity is relatively new for me, so I've yet to try it long-form (I've done it several times with 36 numbers - lasts about 30 to 40 minutes with good take-aways). It was shared by a FUN follower a couple years ago (thanks Fletcher). Check out the FUNdoing Blog post for complete details. Fletcher shared with me that this one can take over an hour - there are lots of restarts. 

I'd love to add more activities to my long-form list - what do you/would you do in long-form? Please share in the Comments. 

If you made it this far, you just experienced a long-form blog post. Worth it? Waist of time? Benefits? Drawbacks? Did it make you think or roll your eyes? Both? Needed? For what? 

Keep doing the good work out there!

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About a 10-minute read. This is a migration and updated post. It was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content. Thanks for being here!)

Fast Ball is published in, Portable Teambuilding Activities (Cavert, 2015). (I've also posted the full description at the FUNdoing Blog site.) It's a challenging "mental model" activity where groups initially define (via Groupthink) a word (or direction) in one way and in order to be more successful they need to redefine something to break through a barrier or problem. (One of the strategies to innovate is to redefine something you believe is true in order to discover a more beneficial solution.) 

​After using this activity a few times, Jeremy, a fellow FUN Follower (and good friend) wrote me, asking: 

I have a question for you about the game Fastball. I have facilitated this activity mostly with college and adult groups and it does tend to take a while 30 min – 1 hr. for groups to complete. When the group finally gets it and is able to complete the challenge, there has been a common reaction of great let down and almost the look from participants like “You tricked us”. How have you led this activity so that it does not take so long that group members check out or become so frustrated by the end? It doesn’t bother me to frustrate a group or to raise the tension, but I’ve found it hard to bring the processing back around and be productive because the group is just done with it.
​
Early on in my team building career, I struggled with this same issue when learning about and working with activities like Fast Ball. (Group Juggle to Warp Speed comes to mind - you create a tossing "order" standing in a circle but remaining in a circle is not a rule - forming a line in the same tossing order can lead to a faster time.) 

I tend to lead activities like this with adult groups (college age or older) in one of three ways: 

​1) When I have time (like Jeremy) I let the activity play out until the shift is made. And, as Jeremy found out, it can take up to an hour. I have experienced group reactions of success and powerful learnings, and frustration and projected blame on me, their facilitator. (Lots to talk about in both situations.)

There have been times during the 'blaming' reaction where the group felt tricked and it was difficult to get them to focus back on any learnings that could be surfaced. These groups were not ready to see the learning(s) underneath the challenge. I'm sure I did my best, at the time, to move forward, but these (or any) reactions cannot be predicted. We do the best we can to program activities that will meet the objectives of our groups. 

(Here is another interesting topic to explore at another time: What are some strategies to bring a group "back" from a "negative" experience?)

2) Here is the way I lead Fast Ball most of the time (mostly because I don't have the time to let this play out). I frontload the activity with some information that might move the group to the shift in thinking quicker. I tell them:

"On the surface, this activity might seem relatively easy to accomplish. And it could be. You might "get it" right away. However, I've seen a lot of groups struggle with this one for one reason or another. The activity is designed to make you think. Remember, when approaching a challenge or task be mindful of the "problems" you encounter. Solve one problem at a time and keep moving. If you reach an impasse see this as an opportunity to be creative and innovative. I will hold you accountable to the rules and you are free to clarify my expectations about them at any time."

After this frontload I let them play. I usually will remind them of some of the points in the frontload when they seem to be "stuck" - but for the most part, groups will make the shift and produce their fastest time within 30 minutes.

3) When I program experiences involving objectives related to mental models, paradigms, phantom rules, or simply making assumptions, I will use Fast Ball as one experience of many, to touch on the learning points. I will move into the "Educator as Teacher" role from time-to-time. I will ask more pointed questions like: 

• Are you stuck?
• Define (or 'name') the problem(s) you are facing - what's preventing you from moving forward?
• What's your current plan? 
• What part of the plan is not working? 
• Can you accomplish the objective with the plan you have in place? (This question usually helps to shift the way of thinking.) 
• How have you defined the words that are used in the rules of this activity? 
• Can you redefine any of the words - still playing within the rules - in a way that can move you to a solution? (Provide discussion time for this question to evaluate some assumptions and/or redefine one or two things that can get them into another mental model.) 

Depending on your experiential philosophy, asking these types of questions will not be your preference. As I've learned, there are a wide range of tools we can use, as educators, to reach our objectives (i.e., the objectives you have for the group or the objectives a group brings with them), other than giving a group the answers (there is less experiential learning in this method, but it could serve a purpose from time-to-time). However, I don't want to limit the tools at my disposal. 

Again, if I choose to point the group in a direction with Fast Ball (or another other mental model activity), it is by design. I've planned a number of these 'shifty' activities with the hope that my groups will move to different ways of defining and thinking on their own - a skill or behavior I want them to pick up and practice. 

A BIG thanks to Jeremy for sending me the inquiry. I hope I've provided some insight. 

Let me know what you thinking about these approaches. Leave a Comment below. 

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About a 12-minute read - plus a little thinking time if you have some. This is a migration and updated post. It was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content. Thanks for being here!)

Preface: This post is a bit of a journey. And if I may say so, an important one. It relates to diversity. Diversity is never going away - nor should it. We need it. I'm guessing you've heard this before, "Diversity makes us stronger!" The challenge is (and this is where team builders can help), we have to do some work, to make it work. Grab a warm beverage and let's dive in...

I received this question from a fellow team builder, let's call him John:
 
John: I was wondering if you have come across/created any activities for groups that are interested in exploring generational issues/awareness?
 
(I didn't have any specific activities to share with John, but I countered with a question and some reflection.)
 
Chris: John, let me ask you this: What problems (or concepts) do you want to dive into with such activities? (I have a pretty good idea, but I'm interested in your perspective.) When I know what I'm working on, or towards, it's easier for me to find activities that may surface the desired behaviors and outcomes. 
 
I've had clients in the past expressing concern over the dynamics between the "older" and "newer" (i.e., younger) employees. When I worked with them, we explored the behaviors that were showing up (things seen and heard) during the program activities. I would ask which behaviors were working for them and which ones where not? Then, it was all about deciding what the group wanted to keep doing and what they wanted to change (or start doing). Some behaviors (good or bad) did relate to different ways of thinking, which could have been attributed to generational differences - but is that the REAL issue? ​

John, you and I know diversity is an important topic in the workplace and in educational settings around the world. Age gaps (that might include different ways of thinking, acting and being) are, as I have experienced, diverse groups of people challenged to find ways to work together.

Thoughts? 

John: I am not trying to solve any problem per se. I look at generational stuff as generational intelligence, like emotional intelligence with four categories:

1. self-awareness
2. self-management
3. social awareness
4. social management
[Note from Chris: See the CASEL website for more on EI.]

I would like to raise "generational intelligence." [from Chris: I love this term!] Is all this generational stuff just different behaviors as you mentioned? Is it different cultural dimensions? Is it a hoax? Or is it more?

My leaning is toward more. I've worked with groups (7th graders, MBA students, etc.) for decades. I am getting older, and they remain the same age. So, it could be me being different/older but I see a difference in these groups. For one, they all seem nicer. And less strategic. And they jump to a solution...I call this firing...and they keep on firing without any sense of ready or aim (their world is one of velocity). They also do not seem strategically interested in going in a straight line from A to B and would rather go out in some tangential direction away from B but thinking that it still leads to B (don't know if I am clear here?). Do you see any of this?

So, I am big on raising awareness and managing that new awareness for a different result.

I was recently taught two new words. Ethnocentric (believing that your way is the only way or the best way) and ethnorelative (believing that there are many ways/thoughts/cultural preferences which are different than yours yet valid and important for you to master in order to be a great leader). This has changed my thinking immensely. My awareness and management of self and others has shifted because of this. I have moved away from binary thinking to dialectic (AND)...that multiple ways are both/all right. I would like to investigate generational issues with the same light. 

I am not a researcher [but I do] like to test things and collect data. Which ties into the experiential activity field we are in. Why not divide groups by generations and see how they solve problems/think? Is there any correlation across generations?

Chris: It just so happens that (based on a recommendation from Michael Cardus) I started reading the book, Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help (2009) by Edgar Schein. So far, it's been an engaging read since I can correlate a lot of the teambuilding I do directly to helping behaviors. Here are a few points from the first two sections of the book that, I believe, can relate to our generational issues/awareness discussion: 

• "Helping" is a fundamental human relationship...[it] is a basic relationship that moves things forward. (Preface). [Note: cites are from a Kindle reader app in portrait mode on an iPad 2.]
• All relationships are governed by cultural rules that tell us how to behave in relation to each other...in any given culture there will be a set of universal rules that, if violated, cause the person to be ostracized or isolated (p. 8)
• "Social economics" is part of cultural relationships - it involves the "face" that we build, the reputation we have (or think we have and deserve), and our interactions with others. If the rules of social economics are violated [possibly because the rules are not understood across cultures and generations] then friction occurs. [This point can be linked to "norming" in group development or "Full Value Contracts" we develop with groups.] (pp. 11-13)

This social economics concept (or social theory) struck a chord with me in relation to generational issues/awareness. Let's consider a group of multi-generational participants (e.g., co-workers). If one generation thinks ethnocentrically and the other thinks ethnorelatively the communication between the generations may not mesh with the social economics expectations of each generation thus causing friction. 
 
I'm sure it's also possible for two different generations within a group to be the same types of thinkers. What if both groups (generations) had an ethnocentric point of view - each thought their way was the best way. How would we work with that situation (or those behaviors)? What if both generations were ethnorelative thinkers? Maybe the group doesn't have any problems? (Other than maybe, deciding what to do because everyone has a good idea!)
 
Questions arise: How do we know what kind of thinkers we're working with? Is this about generational issues or is it about diversity? Where do you choose to focus?

For reasons of time, my conversation with John is on hold - but still on the table. I am grateful for his inquiry and the conversation. Our thinking helps us expand our understandings. Do we ever find the answers? Sometimes. At other times we just need to keep talking, staying in dialogue with the curious. 

I'd like to invite you into a little reflection:

• What is bubbling up in your mind right now? What are your thoughts telling you?
• What would you add right now to this conversation? (Maybe even throw these thoughts into the Comments.)
• Did an activity or two come to mind that could surface generational awareness (build generational intelligence)?
• Did any emotions turn up for you? What stories fuel those emotions?
• What are you inspired to do right now in relation to generational awareness?
• Has this discussion between John and me inspired any sort of change in your thinking?

 
It's easy to understand this discussion of generational awareness and the work we do to foster its awareness is an ongoing journey. For now, I'd like to let these ideas take some hold and see how they grow.
  
Discussions or dialogues like this can help us learn and grow in ways we might have never considered. I believe it's vital to bring up the questions that matter to us and engage in conversations with 'like' and 'other' perspectives to gain deeper understanding of different points of view and the people who carry them.
 
I believe this to be true: It's not about against, it's about together.

How do we help make this happen?

Please, keep doing the good work. We need you!

​All the best, 
Chris Cavert, Ed.D. ​

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​

(About a 15-minute read. The Channels Project is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.)

NOTE from Chris: This is an example of some 'Deep Work' programming - not meant to be quick and easy. The Channels Project combines team building behaviors and learning to understand the New Bloom's Taxonomy and how it can influence mindful experiences. 

Those of you familiar with the original Bloom's Taxonomy know that it is a "classification of learning objectives" divided between the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor learning domains. The intended goal of the Taxonomy, "is to motivate educators to focus on all three domains [and the different "levels" or "ways" of thinking], creating a more holistic form of education."

Using this New Taxonomy as a teacher (over the last 20 years), helped me focus on designing test questions that touched on the all the "orders" of thinking - including some basic "fact-based" questions like defining terms (lower-order thinking), up to "creating" something like a skills-based drill to practice throwing a ball (higher-order thinking). 

What I like the most about this revision to Bloom's is the inclusion of the "creating" process - something we like to do in adventure education. Creating is at the higher order thinking skill level in this new model and as an evaluation focus helps me to see what a student can put into practice. (Here is an 8-minute read for more, from Dr. Robert Talbert: Re-Thinking Bloom's Taxonomy for Flipped Learning Design.) 

​A similar article (no longer available), back in 2012, inspired the Channels Project. Shortly after this 2012 read I set out to create an activity that could move a group through the ways of thinking to help educator groups understand and remember the areas of the revised (or 'new') Bloom's. The interesting discovery was that the ways of thinking are also obvious question prompts for the reflective process throughout the activity and during the processing session after the activity.

The final twist to exploring the New Bloom's here is the notion of 'flipping' the model. We don't always have to start with lower-order thinking experiences (e.g., easy team building activities) and move up to something more complex. It's completely doable to jump into the complex and then back-track down the orders to uncover the learnings. 

So, here we go!       

The Channels Project
Needs & Numbers (for each group in play):

• One handout of The Channels Project Directions, which includes the Required Actions of each Vital Resource and a diagram of the New Blooms (find the PDF Download below)
• One channel for each participant in the group (see this Pipeline post if you are not sure what a channel looks like - and see below for a number of FUNdoing Blog posts related to Pipeline)
• Four small rollable objects (e.g., marbles or small bouncing orbs)
• Four plastic cups (or bowls)
• Four cones
• Four chairs - the four-legged kind
• One wide-mouthed container
• Three pieces of blank 8.5 by 11-inch paper
• Two pens or markers
• One timing device

(FUNdoing 'pipeline' post to give you more channel options to consider: Pipeline: Variations; Bridges & Traits; Immobile Chopsticks (with video); Paper Transporter (with video).)

The Channels Project Directions

The Channels Project works well with 8 to 10 in a group. Multiple groups can work through it at the same time. (Maybe some collaborative interaction can happen?) 
 
Time: This one has the potential to go for 30 to 90 minutes depending on the group(s) and the time you spend with discussions (and collaborations with multiple groups). Consider the possibility of spending two class sessions on this one if you are working in a school context. 

Set-Up: (For each group of 10 to 12 participants.) Mark the corners of a 25-foot sided square boundary area (can be indoors or outdoors) with the four cones. Place one chair inside the boundary area about 5 feet from each corner and an equal distance from each side. Place the wide-mouthed container directly in the center of the boundary area (wide-mouth up). Place one rollable object, that has been placed in a small cup (or bowl), at each of the corners of the boundary area - just outside the boundary area. Set down all the other supplies somewhere near the outside of the boundary area.

Objective: (Here is one possible script to introduce the activity):
The objective of The Channels Project is to create a transportation system of channels inside the boundary area designed to move all the 'vital resources' (small rollable objects in the cups) from their place of origin (the cups can be Factories ) to the central container (the Warehouse).

Procedure:
The expectation is to move all the vital resources available to you into the warehouse in 20 minutes.

At some point during the movement of each vital resource, it must include the following action steps while inside the boundary area [read from 'The Channels Project Directions' handout you will be giving the group]:
 
Each vital resource must 1) STAY OFF the ground (or Floor), 2) roll OVER something, 3) go UNDER something, 4) move AROUND something, 5) travel THROUGH something, 6) go BETWEEN two things, 7) travel HORIZONTALLY outside the channels, 8) drop DOWN through the air, and 9) move UPWARD.
 
These actions do not need to go in the order listed on the directions I have for you; they simply need to be included with each vital resource. [Even though my groups have asked me to clarify some of these requirements, I've simply said, I will leave that up to you, as a group, to decide how you integrate these actions.]

During the activity I will also ask you to adhere to the following Rules of Play: [Reading from the handout again, I share these Rules of Play before letting the group(s) start their work.]

• The cups, cones, chairs and central container must stay in their current locations. 
• Each participant must always be in possession of one, and only one, channel while working in the boundary area.  
• If a vital resource drops to the floor (or ground) somewhere within the boundary area it must be put back into its original place of origin.
• Each vital resource is only allowed to touch the channels when it is within the boundary area (or unless it's dropping through the air). 
• If a vital resource is touching a participant's channel, this participant must keep their feet planted on the floor (or ground). Other parts of the person's body are free to move.
• A designated timer in your group will start the time as soon as a vital resource enters the limits of the boundary area - inside the coned square. The timer, keeping track of the time, will stop the time when the last vital resource is dropped into the warehouse (wide-mouth container) or when the time reaches 20 minutes - at which point the group must stop all action.  

​Continue with the following information before the group is allowed to begin:

Please use the blank paper found in your supplies to diagram your plan of action.  Included in The channels Project Directions, there is a graphic called, Bloom's Taxonomy. Reference this list attributes as you work through the planning of your transportation system.

Here's the idea...

After creating your transportation system plan evaluate and analyze how it works - you can practice your plan outside of the boundary area. Think about possible improvements to your system and apply changes if needed. After you reach your objective (or not, due to time limitations or loss of supplies), we'll take some time to talk about what you've come to understand and want to remember about your experience.

If you were unable to meet the objective in 20-minutes, you can plan and implement another attempt today or the next time we meet.

I'm now ready to answer any questions you have before starting the activity.

Reflection Questions: 
As you can see, this experience will take time to work through. Use some of this time to check in with you group(s) and prompt some thinking and discussion about what's happening during the process , as well as the end. Here are some questions to consider: 

• Think back on when you were first introduced to the Project. What was your initial reaction? Did it sound interesting? Did you have any initial concerns or feelings? Did you wonder why you had to do this Project? Did you start out right away thinking about some solutions? Did you start thinking about when this Project would be over? 
• Describe what you remember about how you and your group started to plan. Did anyone jump right in and start making suggestions? Did everyone have an opportunity to share their ideas? How did you decide what ideas to use? How did you use the resources provided? Did you use the attributes in Bloom's Taxonomy to guide your approach to your system? Did planning go on too long? Was planning too short? Did everyone agree to a plan? How do you know? 
• If your group did decide to practice some skill building before jumping in to be timed - like moving around a vital resource - how did that go? Did ideas change after you started practicing? Did everyone agree to the changes? How do you know? 
• ​What about leadership? Was there any one leader or was there more than one? Did leadership change over time? Why do you think this change happened? What did the leader(s) do well? What could the leader(s) have done better? If there wasn't any noticeable leadership, how did that work out for you? Were you successful without a leader? 
• How did your group manage the failures you encountered? How did you talk to each other after a failure? What happened after a failure? Did anyone want to give up after a failure? How do you know? 
• What successes did you experience personally and as a group? On a personal level, what did you contribute to the group that influenced some success? Did you celebrate after a success? Would you call your transportation system a success? Why? Or, why not? Would you call your teamwork a success? Why? Or, why not? 
• If you have an opportunity to do this Project again, what would you want to do differently? What would you like to see your group do differently? 

I believe programming 'projects' like this can help our students (and other clients) dig into Deep Work. Life is not alway about 140 characters. Diving into a longterm endeavor builds tenacity and resilience. We can forge relationships because we get to know our group over time, through failures and success. We'll disagree but find common ground. We'll get to the end and determine what we did well and what we need to improve. Then, together, we'll take on the next project.  

What other Deep Work can we program as team builders? We'd love to hear your ideas - leave us a Comment. 

All the best, 

​Chris Cavert, Ed.D.

(About a 7-minute read)

Over my career as a team building facilitator, I have gravitated towards resources or tools that are made up of three parts. For example, the "What? So What? Now What?" processing model. The Traffic Light norming tool, "What do we want to stop doing (red)? What do we want to be cautious of (yellow)? And what do we want to go for (green)?" The typology of team interactions - Team Bonding, Team Building and Team Development. I've found threes are easy for me to remember and they are simple to introduce but hold a wonderful complexity when we dive in.
 
I recently found another threes tool, a little different than some of my others. It's not a three-parter, but a three-word phrase, "What's Important Now," or W.I.N. - The acronym is what I'm practicing to remember. I've put this W.I.N. in my toolbox as an in-the-moment assessment tool. Let me share a little information from the source to lead you into how I connected this tool to my work as a team builder.

W.I.N. is from the book, Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, by Greg McKeown (2014). The acronym is found in the section titled "Focus." McKeown credits, "What's important now?" to Larry Gelwix, a High School Football coach. Gelwix and McKeown share some insights about W.I.N. in relation to individual and team applications. As you read these insights, consider how they can relate to a team builder and even to the group a team builder is working with. (NOTE: If you find yourself 'reacting' to some of the words included in the insights, try to consider other ways the words can be interpreted.)

• Players apply the question [W.I.N.] constantly throughout the game. Instead of getting caught up rehashing the last play that went wrong...[players are] encouraged to focus only on the play they are in right now [What's important now?]
• What's important now? helps [players] stay focused on how they are playing...By focusing on their game in the here and now, they can all...unite around a single strategy.
• To operate at your highest level of contribution requires that you deliberately tune in to what is important in the here and now.

Below I share how I made the connections between the insights and team building. But before you read what I'm thinking, what are you thinking right now? If you're struggling with the semantics (e.g., game & playing), what else can the words mean? (Recently I heard Tim Farriss say, "We want to know what game we're playing, so we know how to play effectively and efficiently." If you're holding the word 'game' in your mind as a negative thing, consider a metaphor meaning.)
 
From my facilitator perspective, if I get too focused on something that didn't just work (first insight), I will miss the next opportunity to do a better job. "What's important now?" snaps me back to the moment - to "right now" (second insight) so I can "operate at my highest level of contribution" (third insight). By focusing in on the "here and now" my group and I can continue to make headway toward their desired outcomes - sticking to the strategies we're learning to meet the outcomes (third insight).

​From a group's perspective, after I introduce the tool to them, they can also use the W.I.N. reminder. Individuals can self-reflect 'in-the-moment' to determine what's important at any given time (first insight).

Now, as team builders, we know that working out a problem that just took place might be the most important thing to do in that moment - using W.I.N. prompts the reflection to make the choice to stop or move on without dwelling on past behavior.

For individuals, using W.I.N. can help remind them about how they are "playing" in the moment (second insight). Is what they're doing helpful to the group or not helpful? And what choices do they want to make moving forward. How can individuals unite in ways that contributes to the group's strategies for success? Finally, how does each person operate within their "highest level of contribution" (third insight) to the group? And how does the group find out about, encourage and support these contributions?
 
W.I.N. is a new tool for me. I'm ready to experiment with what it can do. At times when his groups are 'stuck' unable (or unwilling) to move forward, my friend Tom Leahy likes to ask them, "Would you like a tool?" If they are interested, he provides them with one he believes could help them overcome their barrier. I've learned to use Tom's question with my own groups. Now I'm excited to share this one at the right time, with the right group.

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D.

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. 

(About a 5-minute read.)

I first read about 'lagging indicators' from a new-year focused (2023) blog post from Ryan Holiday (author and Stoic thought leader - I created the activity, Obstacle Reflection using quotes from one of his books). A lagging indicator is an "output measurement" (according to a quick Google search). As Holiday puts it, "All success [or lack of it] is a lagging indicator." Lagging indicators give us vital data. 

Specific to team building, what does success look like to you? What personal success do you consider? What contextual success do you measure? More often than not, I measure success in relation to the goals I set for myself. For example, one of my ongoing goals is to try a new activity (or a unique variation of an old favorite) during each program I facilitate. My lagging indicators (outcome measurements) show up in relation to how well I prepared for the new activity. I've found that the more time I spend thinking about and writing out the activity the better the outcomes - I've taken the time to prepare myself. I put in the work.

In Holiday's post, he says:

Using lagging indicators as data is important to our growth as team builders. It's why there is a lot of advice about taking time to reflect on your facilitation immediately after a program (intraspectively and/or with other facilitators). Here are a handful of after-program reflections:

• What lagging indicators showed up for you? For your co-facilitators?
• What went well? And why? (Be sure to recognize the work you put in)
• What could have been better? And what kind of 'work' do you need to put in to get better?
• What is one thing you want to do differently the next time you facilitate? 

After-program reflection does not need to take a lot of time (unless you want it to). Use indicators to identify  what's working - recognize and repeat. (Don't forget to celebrate the goodness!) Then determine what didn't work well (maybe just one thing) and make a plan to change it for next time. 

In most cases, based on my experience, when I've planned well with purpose, programs go well. When I put in the work and create of program I believe will lead my groups' to their outcomes, I see more 'success.' (It's that old saying, "You get out of it what you put in.")

Moving Forward
What are some of the lagging indicators you want to work on? How are your processing skills? How are you feeling about 'opening' programs? How are you at wrapping up or 'closing' a program? Do you know enough activities ​to plan for a wide range of diverse groups (if you want to work with a wide range)? How are your online team building facilitation skills? How much work needs to go into meeting your goals? Can you (will you) put in the time?

Lagging indicators will show you where to focus the work. 

All the best, 

Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 

P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted. ​