Andreas Splett
Overview
During the planning of a large, international project for a biopharmaceutical company the question arose of how to prevent what was otherwise deemed to be standard practice in the company: poor communication leading to team conflicts and even project failure – or at least significant misalignments in terms of time, money, and performance. Most people only trust what they already know and are afraid of anything else, yet diversity could actually be used in projects to great effect.
As an in-house project manager, my task was to work with the project team to implement a new financial management system that would impact all areas of the company. The task was challenging as there were a lot of requirements from the international parent company which were sometimes not compatible with the statutory provisions in Germany. In addition, the ambitious timeframe was perceived with a degree of skepticism or even negativity.
The 16-member project team (including me) had not worked together in this setup before. Conflicts were almost inevitable – but we wanted to confront them proactively.
Topic
When you have conducted lots of lessons-learned workshops, you know that communication is usually high on the list of things that go wrong during projects. Stakeholders usually would have liked to have received the information at an earlier stage or in a different form. The challenges often develop into interpersonal conflicts. That’s why we confronted this issue head on at the kick-off workshop.
Staging
a. Preparation
The Maze and Tower of Power were used in succession in the kick-off workshop. The case study described here distinguishes between part 1 (The Maze) and part 2 (Tower of Power & blindfolds).
• In order not to waste any time, both The Maze and Tower of Power were set up in advance out of sight in an adjacent room.
• The Tower of Power blocks were labeled with stickers on one side, with tasks written on them that were to be worked through in an as yet undefined order. The expectation was that the participants would have differing views on how to go about this.
• Two flip charts with pens were on hand. One flip chart showed the rules, while the other flip chart was left blank to document the reflection.
Part 1: The Maze
b. Performance
After a round of introductions including asking the participants about their expectations, I introduced the first learning project as follows: “We face a challenging task together. In the introduction round, you made it clear that you attach great importance to communicating properly, taking a coordinated approach, and sharing information in an uncomplicated manner. Since these issues have always been challenging for project teams in the past, to help us carry out our project successfully, I have prepared a short simulation. The goal is to involve all employees in taking our financial system from the current state (gesture to one side of The Maze action area) to the future (point to the other side). But, instead of the 20 real weeks we have for our project, once the planning phase is over, you only have 20 minutes.”
I briefly explained the customary rules for The Maze, which were also written on one of the flip charts, and continued: “We will all make mistakes in this project – with such complex tasks and time pressure, mistakes are unavoidable. But we can support each other in not making the same mistakes again. Your planning time starts now.”
c. Progression
The group quickly separated into three smaller groups, each of which tried to come up with a strategy to complete the task. During the last 60 seconds of planning time, they then tried to turn it into a course of action. I counted down the last ten seconds out loud. One participant asked a clarification question, which, because of the rule on silence, I penalized by charging them 1,000 metalogs. The ensuing protest cost the group another 1,000 metalogs. After that, there were no further verbal discussions.
In my staging, the participants received 16,000 metalogs in proportion to the number of participants (16 people) and another 2,000 metalogs as a buffer. This made up for the 2,000 metalogs they lost at the beginning. The participants supported each other through hand signals and gestures in completing the task. In addition to repeated mistakes, financial penalties were also imposed for this active assistance and for simultaneously stepping into the working area.
The learning project ended in the 19th minute when the group successfully completed the task, prompting (silent) jubilation from the group.
Reflection
The team gained the following insights for themselves from the activity:
• We need each other to be successful.
• Lack of communication is hard to compensate for – better to go back and plan again (a second planning phase was paid for halfway through).
• Different approaches arising from different cultures in departments and also countries lead to misunderstandings (this is especially true when acronyms are used, but not in the same way).
Transfer to the real world
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Not being allowed to speak | Not all people are in the same location in the same time zone; not all speak English to the same high level of proficiency |
| 18,000 metalogs | Limited budget and hence limited resources |
| On first sight well-defined action area | Complex project task that cannot at first glance be completely grasped |
| Time pressure | Management expects fast, successful completion of tasks |
| Avoidable mistakes Entering the area together Repeatedly trying the same field, although already identified as the wrong route Not adhering to the correct order/sequence | Duplication of work – no coordination No attention paid to the previously completed results of colleagues – not learning from each other or even sharing of ideas No consideration for partners in the project – imposing one’s own pace |
| Unavoidable initial errors are not penalized | Be courageous, try new things out, rethink the status quo and whether everything is really as necessary as it has so far appeared |
• Agreements must be honored – being the loudest does not equal being right.
• Time pressure increases the likelihood of making mistakes.
• Hints and tips should not be criticized as coming from know-it-alls, but you should take a step back and first reflect on what you can learn from them.
• Documentation helps to understand what has been achieved so far.
Tip: Immediately document the results of the reflection on a flip chart for all to see.
Conclusion
Despite the strong team dynamics and verbal/non-verbal disputes, the team was proud to have all reached the goal together. We now used this positive mood to examine what else needed to be done in the project in order to successfully complete it as a team.
Part 2: Tower of Power
b. Performance
Now that the launch workshop was in full swing, it was time to remind ourselves of the results of the first activity and gain more experience. We moved again to the second room, where the structure of The Maze gave way to that of Tower of Power. The blocks were distributed around the room and were labeled with important project-related work packages.
“We have already accomplished a lot as a group today and I look forward to working with you to really get on top of this project. In the discussions, we established that we collectively have a solid understanding of the steps that need to be taken. But let’s be a little more specific.
We have another joint project task ahead of us that needs to be completed. We are going to build a tower together as a team. The height is determined by the eight differently shaped wooden blocks. They are to be stacked using the crane, which can only be controlled by the strings. And, just like in real life, you are not allowed to simply exert more influence on the crane by shortening or letting go of the strings. You have half an hour to use the crane to stack the work packages on top of each other in the pre-defined order. Your time starts now.”
c. Progression
Due to the different hierarchies present, the managers – as expected – assumed the leadership role in the team. I disrupted this by putting a blindfold on particularly dominant or prominent employees. This immediately stopped them asserting themselves as leaders. I had enough blindfolds with me so that I could also bring people who were not happy to willingly assume leadership into this role.
Tip: Keep at least two clean blindfolds per participant in order to be able to react flexibly to the team dynamics. Used blindfolds are always put into a laundry bag immediately so that previously used blindfolds are not accidentally re-used.
The learning project generated a great deal of discussion about the sequence in which the work packages were to be completed. This made it clear that good coordination is indispensable for complex projects – but also that not all attendees are always of the same opinion.
Ultimately, the learning project was successfully completed, much to the relief of the participants.
Reflection
When we reflected on the learning project together, it quickly became clear that emergent issues were not only a question of group dynamics, nor were they solely a matter of work-flow. The project team identified the following insights:
Transfer to the real world
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Long string | Only indirect influence on the project results |
| Tilted blocks | Difficult work packages, the sequence of which is disputed |
| The crane can only be moved by the whole team | A project only succeeds when the team works together |
| Mixed hierarchies | Responsibility and trust has not been clarified between individuals |
| Blindfolds | Lack of an overview when it comes to detailed questions |
| Assumption of leadership role | Assumption of responsibility without necessarily being the solid/dotted line manager – anyone can take on this role |
| Lack of stability | Risks in projects |
• If necessary, individuals can take the lead who would not normally do so of their own accord.
• We need to listen closely to each other to be successful.
• We need to ask questions when something is unclear.
• There is a difference between urgency and importance.
• Opinions may vary depending on the viewpoint of the participants.
• Diversity of views and approaches can present a great opportunity.
We then expanded and extended this second reflection part by examining this second activity in conjunction with the first activity. The following conclusions were drawn:
• If a “normal” communication channel is disrupted (not being able to talk or speak), this must be compensated for. This involves effort.
• Active listening involves asking questions. It is not important what your position in the company is.
• We need a good filing system so that we can find information that others have already filed.
• We don’t all have the same view of the project, so we need to understand the different perspectives.
• We’re not all the same – but diversity can help us if we capitalize on each team member’s strengths.
• Everyone can assume responsibility and will also do so in future (small-scale leadership).
To bring the two learning projects to a conclusion, we drafted team rules on how we wanted to work and interact with each other. These rules, signed by all of the kick-off workshop participants, were put on display in the project room as a team rules poster.
Conclusion
The use of the two METALOG tools in the project kick-off workshop helped us to experience the consequences of impaired project team communication before the project really got started. Focusing on this weak point right at the beginning of a strategically important project helped us to share information very openly and freely. When conflicts nevertheless arose that could not be avoided, however, the shared experience gained in the kick-off workshop enabled us to quickly find solutions through mediation provided by a third party. Another repeatedly useful aid was referring to the joint team rules for the project.
The diverse points of view were embraced by all core team members during the course of the project, opening up new perspectives and resulting in genuine improvements.
The participants repeatedly drew on the two learning projects to make their point. This led to greater acceptance in the project team, even if they did not always agree.