Roger Schlegel
Overview
My clients and I were motivated by the following question: How is it possible to transform the way the complex social system of a bank’s 25-person HR department works into a tangible lived experience?
Perhaps you are wondering who wants to know this, and why? Well, over the past two years, this same HR department had intensively examined and optimized its scope of services, its processes, and roles. Work at the corporate locations was harmonized. The core change involved focusing HR work more strongly on supporting management in their transformation activities, while at the same time standardizing the services provided to the bank’s employees.
Topic
I was invited to facilitate the regular departmental strategy meeting, which reviewed, among other things, the results of an internal customer satisfaction survey. The results of the survey were mixed, and the change in the scope of services was not universally well received, particularly by the bank’s employees. Many felt services they had grown to like were missing. In addition to examining the effects of HR optimization, one of the aims of the strategy meeting was to look at the inner workings of the team. The two guiding questions were “How do we experience ourselves as a team?” and “How do we manage – over and above our different roles – to be a high-performance organism?”
Staging
a. Preparation
In this scenario, I defined myself as a “site supervisor.” This would allow me to intervene, invent new rules, or provide assistance without having to interrupt the activity. The aim was for the team to build a tower eight blocks high. To add an extra intervention layer, the team was simultaneously required to continue to work on “projects”: different, sometimes unwieldy objects (ball, pointer, briefcase, etc.) had to be passed around the circle in both directions. On the one hand, the team had to be flexible in its day-to-day work at internal customer meetings and workshops, and on the other hand, it had to ensure that it could always be reached at the HR office. For this reason, three people had to be appointed to build the tower while remaining seated and not leaving their seats.
Where work is carried out, mistakes also occur. Therefore, the question arose as to how I could intervene in the Tower of Power. Providing a “rescue” option for blocks that had fallen over had proven to be very useful. This could be accomplished by having a team member perform a dexterity task. For example, one of the participants had to throw a frisbee into a marked area. If the participant succeeded, the block could be “rescued.”
b. Performance
I introduced the group to the activity: “Imagine that I am your site supervisor and I am going to give you your work instructions for the day on the site:
• As a team, build a tower with as many blocks as possible.
• The blocks may only be touched/moved with the crane.
• All ropes must remain taut at all times.
• The instructions issued by the site supervisor are to be followed immediately.
• Projects are to be completed “at cross purposes” to daily business: pass items quickly, make sure you pass them in the right direction.
• Lost terrain must be reconquered: one team member is the shooter; 5 throws – 3 hits, and construction continues.
• Three chairs at the same place must be permanently occupied.
• Eight minutes are available for the construction.
• The rules have additionally been written on flip charts.
c. Progression
The team quickly agreed on who would carry out the different roles. The fixed positions were filled by the employees who were also the contact partners for the employees in everyday life. The head of the department took on the task of rescuing the lost blocks, in keeping with his role in the company of mediating conflicts and ironing out problems.
At first, construction of the tower progressed quickly, the mood was good – perhaps too good. A stone fell over, the mood briefly flagged. But, no problem, the boss saved the day; building continued.
Transfer to the real World
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Tower | Represents the core task of the team |
| Passing objects around in a circle (e.g. ball, pointer, briefcase) | Projects involving HR staff, meetings, in-house workshops, etc. |
| Fixed positions | Fixed requirements such as the accessibility of the HR service, which must be ensured |
| Frisbee | “Ironing out” handling errors, etc. |
| Telephone call | External disturbances that cannot be influenced, management |
The mood picked up again. The team positioned itself well around the “requirements,” the seated employees.
The team managed the “projects” to be worked on simultaneously (passing different objects around the circle) with astonishing self-confidence. This did not interfere with the construction of the tower.
After seven minutes, the team had stacked seven bricks, and they were also eager to place the eighth block, but it toppled over while it was being lifted. The area manager rescued the block again. The team had 25 seconds left and was about to successfully place it on the tower, when something completely unplanned happened: The area manager’s phone rang (for real!). He answered the call: the CEO. The team was distracted, the block hovering above the tower fell onto the tower and caused it to collapse.
Reflection
The team could draw the following inferences about itself in its daily working life:
• The experience of how well they worked as a team under challenging circumstances had a highly reinforcing effect on the team.
• While in everyday life there are occasional discussions between the HR roles about who is most important, here the focus was on the collective task.
• The team is flexible enough to position itself around the fixed requirements so that the tasks can be completed successfully.
• They can deal with – and resolve – errors and issues on a day-to-day basis seamlessly and without agitation.
• The last-second telephone call highlighted a thoroughly relevant issue: unpredictable disruptions can sometimes throw the team off-balance.
Conclusion
The team experienced the process – despite the crash at the end – as a success. After all, as estimated, everything went according to plan up to the seventh block. The team worked and the high level of complexity of the task was managed well. The crash was rationalized as “externally-induced.”