Shilpa Subramaniam
Overview
The Learning Gym focuses on upskilling learning professionals, and one of the open workshops we run is to showcase interactive tools and methods to train/teach specific topics. For one such session called “Driving Inclusion” we brought together trainers and facilitators from different organizations and industries.
Topic
The objective of the workshop was to explore how to use interactive tools to drive important conversations around unconscious bias, creating a level playing field, insider versus outsider group dynamics and other inclusion-related elements. The challenge was to drive insight and learning on the elements of inclusion through meaningful and enjoyable games.
Staging: FlyingCarpet
a. Preparation
I cleared out space in a part of the room and ensured that there were no obstacles nearby. I laid out the FlyingCarpet and kept the ball on the materials table so I could bring it out as an element of surprise.
b. Performance
“Welcome to our workshop on driving inclusion through Experience-Oriented Learning methods and tools. We are really excited to dive into this inclusion space with you and we’re going to kick off our journey with the FlyingCarpet! Could I ask all of you to stand according to how tall you are.” I divided the group into 2 teams, one with the tall(er) participants and one with those comparatively shorter participants. “Alright, now that we’re in two groups, please form a circle around the FlyingCarpet and stay in your teams. When you raise the carpet, each team should be holding one half of it.
You are both teams working in a large multinational company and I’m your boss. Both teams have to work hard to convince me to give you a promotion, and I base my decisions on performance. So I’m going to give both teams a series of tasks and then base my decision on how well you do on the tasks. I might also change up the teams in the middle, so don’t be surprised if I do.
For round 1, each team has to guide this ball (I held up the green ball) into your opposite team’s goals, which are the holes in the carpet. This line in the center of the carpet is the dividing line between the two team’s goalposts. You cannot touch the ball at any point – only use the edges of the carpet that you’re holding to guide the ball. Are there any questions before we start? Please ensure that you’re safe and don’t let the ball fall on you. Ok, let’s start!”
I let the two teams “battle it out” for 4-5 minutes. “Ok, so we have the results from round 1 and now we’re going to jump into round 2. In this round, we’re going to mix you up so you’re not grouped according to your height. Please divide yourself into two teams and gather around the carpet again. This time, you may not raise the carpet above waist height. Team 1, you can hold the edges of the carpet with both hands and Team 2, you will only be holding the edges of the carpet with one hand. Are there any questions before we start? Let’s get started with round 2!”.
Once again, I let the round go on for 4-5 minutes. “Now for our final round, and this time you can again divide yourselves into two random teams. And before you look at me with distrust, let me tell you that both teams can play with both hands. I’m assuming there are no questions here. I thought as much. Let’s get started.” I let the round go on for another 4-5 minutes.
c. Progression
The two groups jumped into round 1 with gusto and there was an immediate shift in the levels of energy and excitement. After a few seconds of getting used to moving the ball around on the carpet, invariably the carpet got lifted higher and here the team with the taller participants was at a natural advantage. As the facilitator, I didn’t interfere in how they lifted the carpet or how they played the game. In this case, the team with the comparatively shorter participants did tell the other team a few times to keep the carpet lower and, while it came down for a few seconds, it kept going up as the two teams got more caught up in playing the game. Eventually, the team with the comparatively taller participants won this round. The other team with the smaller participants felt they were at an unfair disadvantage and expressed their displeasure.
In round 2, the teams felt that they were now divided up more fairly since it was done randomly. But when they heard about one team using one hand while the other team used both hands, the former commented on how difficult it was going to be, but still played the game trying their best to score against the team playing with two hands. While the team which played with one hand “scored” a few goals, they commented on how challenging it was.
In round 3, the two teams played with unbridled enthusiasm and speed! Both teams scored goals against each other and, though they were still being competitive, there was a sense of fair play and enjoyment. It ended with both teams laughing out loud and congratulating each other.
Transfer to the real world (FlyingCarpet)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| FlyingCarpet | The organization |
| Ball | The task to be completed/project to be accomplished |
| Trainer | The leader or manager |
| Teams divided by height | People or teams who are at a distinct advantage or disadvantage because of certain diversity factors which we’re born with (ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) |
| Teams divided into those who are allowed to use one hand and those who can use both hands | People or teams which, on the surface, seem inclusive, but where there might be those who are at a distinct advantage or disadvantage because of biases (affinity, implicit) of the leaders and team members |
Reflection
My first question to the group was “how do you feel?” and this brought out the most powerful insights because every individual had experienced either an advantage or disadvantage, or both. So everyone was able to articulate how they felt and we captured it on a flip chart. I then followed it up with the following questions:
• How does round 1 relate to your organizational context?
• How does round 2 relate to your organizational context?
• How does round 3 relate to your organizational context?
• What was the leader’s (in this case played by me) role?
• What are the key insights this activity has given us that will help us to create a level playing field in our organizations?
Staging: Team²
a. Preparation
I set up the 3 tables with masking tape – dividing each table into 8 sections. I also ensured that on a “materials” table placed away from the participants, I removed the Team² pieces from the box and mixed them up. I repeated this for two other Team² sets.
b. Performance
“We’re now going to be working on a team project in smaller teams. Please divide yourself into 3 groups and take your places around one of the tables with the masking tape. Each group will be working on your own project. Once seated at your table, claim one of the sections marked by the tape. You will be working only in your section and cannot reach out to your team members’ sections.”
“Now that you’re seated and have your section to work with, I will be distributing some pieces to each of you. Some of you may get more pieces than others. Once I finish distributing all the pieces, you can touch the pieces placed in your section and work as a team toward creating ten squares of equal size. The task is only complete when you have 10 equal size squares at your table. You can only work with your section, but any pieces in the center square can be picked up by anyone at the table. Any questions before we begin? Let’s get started!”
c. Progression
Most of the participants grabbed their pieces and started working on creating their own squares. Some participants figured from the start that they would need to work together so they put their pieces in the center and waited for their team members to do the same. There was at least one participant at each table who created a large square with their pieces and one of them refused to scatter his square to help others by saying “we each need to make a square, so I’ve made mine.”
There were also participants who forgot all about the rule on working only in your own section, and grabbed pieces from others to try and make squares for everyone. They were convinced that the only way to do this project was if they got everyone’s pieces in the center and then a few people at the table worked on creating the 10 equal size squares while the others just looked on.
After about 10 minutes when I saw the teams still struggling, I called 2 people from each of the tables aside and gave them a copy of the solution (with the design for the 10 squares). I told them that they could use this information, but they could not under any circumstances show anyone else the solution sheet or draw out the solution for their team members. They could, however, verbally describe what was on the solution sheet.
In two of the groups, those who had the solution sheet jumped right in and told the others that they could take over and created all the remaining squares. At one table, the team members with the solution verbally communicated where the mistakes were and involved the other team members in building the squares. They finished a little after the other two teams, but every single member of the team was involved in the solution.
Reflection
We began with the question of “What happened during this project?” and that elicited a range of responses from:
• I was happy when I was done with my square and it took me a while to realize that, in order for us to succeed in the project, I had to scatter my square and give away some of the pieces and wait for others.
• It only worked when we stopped hoarding our pieces and put everything in the center.
• I feel like I didn’t have much of a role to play since others took over and were working well, so I kept quiet.
Transfer to the real world (Team²)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Team2 | Segments of the project |
| The masked sections at each table | The individual roles/jobs of each team member |
| The participants who were given the solution sheet | “Insider” group members |
| The participants who weren’t given the solution sheet | “Outsider” group members |
I then asked the group how the activity and the behaviors they experienced could be connected to inclusion. They were able to make strong connections between the behaviors they themselves showed or observed in others (grabbing others pieces, those with additional information completing the project while excluding others, feeling like an outsider, etc.).
The conversations moved on to how insider versus outsider dynamics were related to inclusion. When you’re a part of the insider group, you could be privy to certain information, be considered for opportunities and get more confidence and visibility. We discussed some examples of insider and outsider groups that they had observed in their organizations, such as:
• The informal “smokers’ club”.
• Those who come from the same university/school.
• Those who come from the same region or speak the same language or dialect.
• Those who share a common interest like a specific sport.
We discussed the fact that it is human nature for us to connect with those like us, but when our connections end up creating an insider group whose members are only people who are like us and the members of this group end up gaining advantages (often unintended), this goes against what inclusion stands for. Oftentimes, we don’t even realize how much we’re perpetuating these insider groups, especially when we are in positions of authority, because our intentions are good (“Oh we’re just having a smoke and discussing the current project; we’re not intentionally keeping this discussion from those team members who haven’t joined us for a cigarette”). However, it is important to remember that it’s a question of impact (negative impact on someone) and not intent (no matter how good/innocent they may be).
Staging: RealityCheck 1 + 2
a. Preparation
I mixed up the cards from the RealityCheck 1 set and spread them out face down on the materials table. I did the same for RealityCheck 2. The plan was to run both simultaneously in two different groups. I set up two circles made up of chairs on either ends of the room. The chairs were placed in the circle, but not too close together, so that there was enough space between each of them, and of course, enough of a gap between the two circles themselves.
b. Performance
“Thank you for sharing all your great insights and learning so far. We’re now going to jump into our final activity for today. This time you will be playing in two groups of 12 each – could you please divide into two groups and each group go to one side of the room and take a seat on one of the chairs you see in the circle. Please don’t move the chairs closer to each other.
Each group will be playing a different version of the game, but the instructions are the same for both groups so I’m sharing them with all of you. Each group will be simulating a team meeting and each participant is a team member at the team meeting. The objective of this meeting is that you’re working on an important project and each of you in this group has some information about this project. You need to put all this information together in a way that makes sense.
In a moment, I will come over and hand over some information cards to each of you. On each information card, there is a picture and all the information (by that I mean the pictures) has a specific correct order and your task is to find that correct order for cards and place the information cards in this correct order within a specific time period.
You cannot under any circumstances show your information cards to anyone else, so you must keep them close to you at all times. You can describe what’s on your information cards to others in your team, but you cannot show them the cards or exchange cards with anyone. Each group will have 30 minutes to complete this task and then I’ll give you 2 minutes to set the cards in the right order face down on the floor; so, until we get to the 2 minutes, you cannot move from your places. Remember that we’ve got two teams playing in the same room. So, in the spirit of inclusion, let’s try not to be too loud.
Alright, looks like you’re set. The next 30 minutes are yours to sort out the information.”
c. Progression
The groups jumped in and in each group one person started describing what they could see on their card(s). For the first 10 minutes there was generally chaos in both groups – a few people speaking over others to try and figure out a process and then decide on rules (“we will go in a clockwise order to describe our card and no one will interrupt”) and breaking them (by constantly interrupting each other). In one group, a leader emerged naturally without any discussion on leadership, and in the other group a leader was nominated. In both groups, there were those who took charge and who were speaking the most and sometimes checking in with others, but not everyone was contributing.
With about 10 minutes to go, one of the groups (RealityCheck 1) realized that the picture that they were trying to put into order was zooming in and zooming out. This helped them in their search for the correct sequence, and they quickly called out their discovery to the other team. This gesture of sharing information between the two groups was interesting to see.
The groups placed their cards in the order they thought was the correct sequence – both groups made a few errors.
Transfer to the real world (RealityCheck)
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Picture cards | Information or tasks given to us when working on a team project |
| Participants | Team members in a meeting |
| Time constraint | Project timelines, deadlines |
Reflection
We began with a simple: “What happened?” and collected responses about the process, the communication, the teamwork, and the challenges they faced. Having been in the inclusion “space” all day in this program, the group themselves started recognizing the connections between this activity and the elements of inclusion.
Two points we discussed in detail were:
• Diversity of thinking preferences, situations, environments and, of course, picture cards
• Diversity of communication styles
We brought out how some participants viewed their card from a big picture perspective and described how they saw the whole, while others thought of their card as a collection of details and described every one of those details. While neither was right nor wrong, were we equally respectful of both? Did we give preference to one over the other based on our own preferences?
Since thinking preferences is an often-ignored factor of diversity, we listed out the ways in which thinking preferences could impact inclusion in organizations – in recruitment, for positive feedback, for getting better opportunities etc. We also spoke about communication styles and how it was mostly those who were comparatively louder who ran the show compared to those who took time to speak up or weren’t as outspoken. We also discussed how this could have cultural connotations and how different cultures use different techniques to get their voices heard (for example, in some cultures, it is perfectly fine to interrupt and make your voice heard, while, in others, this is considered rude and disrespectful). There was one person in one of the groups who had figured the “zoom in zoom out” in the first 5 minutes, but waited his turn to speak and the others just kept talking. So, by the time it came to his turn to speak up, a lot of time had been lost. Had a more inclusive process been put in place to hear everyone’s voices equally, the solution might have been shared a lot earlier.
Conclusion
We used ScenarioCards for the final reflection on the entire workshop. Each participant picked 1 card to relate their key insights from the workshop (all 3 activities). The group mentioned that we had had deep and meaningful conversations around inclusion without assigning blame and stereotyping. Participants also felt that using games to have these conversations about inclusion was incredibly powerful since it allowed people to have their own “Aha!” moments without seeming like they were being lectured. The group reported that this was what they needed in their organizations.