PLAY FOR PERFORMANCE: September 2004

Editorial

Introducing Our Contributing Editor

Roger Greenaway is one of the geniuses in our field. In the specialized area of debriefing, Roger is the most prolific thinker, designer, and writer. I have only met him twice briefly, but he has had an enormous impact in my personal development through his books, newsletter, and website. (The only complaint I have about Roger is that what I call “debriefing” he calls “reviewing”.)

Something about Roger

Roger currently lives in Scotland—and conducts training workshops around the world. He conducted his first training course on reviewing (debriefing) skills in 1983 while he was working for an organization called the Brathay Hall Trust (which is a center of innovation in training youth and adults). Ten years later (in 1993), after the publication of his second book Playback: A Guide to Reviewing Activities, Roger decided to specialize in the area of debriefing. Since then, he has been training trainers and educators in this specialty in Hong Kong, China, Japan, USA, Canada, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Portugal and South Africa as well as his home country of the UK.

More about Roger

Three years ago, I interviewed Roger for our “Guest Gamer” section. Read this intriguing interview and a debriefing game in the September 2001 issue.

More recently, I reprinted an excellent article by Roger called “Four Suits and a Joker”.

Visit Roger's website ( http://reviewing.co.uk/ ) to discover how you can make learning even more involving and effective. Roger's Active Reviewing Guide provides free tutorials, articles and tips about active reviewing and experiential learning.

For more about this website, read the website review that appeared in the May 2002 issue of PFP.

Roger also publishes Active Reviewing Tips for Dynamic Experiential Learning (ISSN 1465-8046), a free monthly newsletter for re-charging your debriefing and facilitation skills. Typical contents in recent issues of this newsletter include

• practical features on debriefing tips
• links to sites about active learning methods
• tips, comments and ideas from readers
• what's new in the Guide to Active Reviewing
• dates for Roger's open workshops

To receive a free monthly copy of Active Reviewing Tips send a blank email to: reviewing-subscribe@topica.com.

Roger and PFP

I recently persuaded Roger to permit me to reprint some of his significant articles in Play for Performance. I am happy to announce that his recent article “Debriefing by Numbers” is included in this issue. Read it and use it. It could have an enormous impact on your facilitation and debriefing skills.

[Table of Contents]

Debriefing

Debriefing by Numbers
by Roger Greenaway

What is the best sized group for debriefing? 1? 2? 3? 6? 10? 16? 20? 24? 30? 100? This article looks at the problems and possibilities of debriefing with different group sizes—from 1 to 100.

Big Is Small

“Working in large groups” seems to describe situations in which people are working in small groups with lots of people nearby who are also working in small groups. Why is it that the larger the debriefing group, the greater the chances that people will end up in the smallest of groups—debriefing in pairs, or even on their own?

Debriefing For One

The presence of others can support individual learning in many ways, but it is also good to provide individuals with some personal time and space to reflect—away from the distractions of others. However, being alone is no guarantee of high quality reflection: when alone, attention can wander or people get stuck in a rut as they keep going through the same patterns of thought or visiting the same dead ends. But find the right setting or technique for individual reflection and you can help people see with fresh eyes, or lead them to “aha” moments, or help them break out of “same-old” thinking. Here are just a few options for “debriefing for one”:

• Unstructured reflective writing: using log books, diaries, journals, notebooks.
• Structured reflective writing: responding to a questionnaire or to a standard template of questions or headings following a particular sequence.
• Graphic reflection techniques: creating diagrams, charts, graphs, maps, patterns, drawings, collages or photos to capture reflections.
• Scavenger hunt: searching for symbolic objects that answer reflective questions.
• Solo: time alone without distractions and space to think, or to read feedback notes from other group members, or as a challenge in itself—to live alone and close to nature with time to reflect.
• Guided reflection: listening to a monologue that includes pauses for thought.
• Silence: context is all important, but well timed silences in suitable settings can result in deep reflection.
• Reflection time following a stimulating story, performance or experience.
• Thinking time before making a reflective statement about recent events.
• Preparation time before making a presentation about personal learning to the group.

Some of the above individual debriefing techniques can work surprisingly well, but often the best way to make a breakthrough is talking with another person…

Debriefing For Two: Roles For Debriefing In Pairs

Talking things through with another person can be more dynamic and productive than being left with your own thoughts. Sometimes the other person is just a listener, but there are many other useful roles the other person can adopt—such as a sounding board, a summarizer, a buddy, a coach, or even a devil's advocate. There is no guarantee that the other person will be good at assisting the process of reflection. The other person may be too intrusive or challenging, or may stumble into “no go” areas, or offer insensitive advice. There is always the risk that the other person (even a skilled facilitator) will spoil, distort or disrupt the process of reflection. The risk of ending up with an “unhelpful” listener can be reduced by providing clear briefings and by providing an easy way for the “speaker” to change the rules or opt out if they find the process is not working well.

Here are a few helpful roles that the “other person” can play when debriefing in pairs:

• Listener: just listens—giving the “reflector” the opportunity to think aloud.
• Sounding board: listens and responds to any questions the reflector may ask.
• Summarizer: repeats key phrases, summarizes, asks for clarification.
• Buddy: notices, empathizes, supports, and possibly advises.
• Coach: agrees with objectives, provides feedback, and asks questions that assist reflection.
• Interviewer (with a script): asks set questions or follows a certain debrief sequence.
• Child: just keeps asking “why?” The reflector can stop the process at any point.
• Devil's advocate: tests and challenges what the reflector says. This needs careful briefing to ensure that the challenges are provided and perceived as being part of a helpful process.

Debriefing For Two: Walking And Talking

Something that goes particularly well with paired debriefs is “walking and talking”—especially if you have a suitable outdoor location. “Walking and Talking” can be combined with any of the above roles. A classic problem in paired debriefs is that one person dominates and the time is not well shared. One solution is to divide the total time into two halves by having a clear “swap over point” at half way (see “Out and Back”). Another solution is to have a turn-taking system in which there is frequent swapping of roles (see “Chat Cards”). These and other variations of “walking and talking” are described next:

• Out and back: This strategy helps to ensure that the time is divided equally between each person. Pairs walk out to an agreed point, swap roles and walk back in their new roles. (See previous section for ideas about “roles”.) Ideally, each pair heads for a different point to avoid distractions from other pairs.
• Chat cards: Each card has a reflective question. Each person takes it in turns to answer as they walk. One question per card helps people to focus on one question at a time. Just one good question may be enough for some pairs, but other pairs may need a plentiful supply of questions to keep a reflective conversation going. It is better to have too many questions than too few.
• Scavenger hunt: Pairs work together to collect symbolic objects that answer reflective questions.
• Walking round the active debriefing cycle: As pairs walk through each stage of the cycle, they focus their reflective conversation on the stage they are walking through. In practice this takes two or three minutes in each stage, so you either need a huge cycle or people simply stop and talk until they are ready to move on to the next stage.

Debriefing For Two: Changing Partners

Another style of paired debrief is where people have a series of brief meetings with different partners. The speed of this process means that people do not get stuck in partnerships that are not working. There may not be very deep reflection during brief meetings, but a quick succession of paired reflective conversations can quickly add up to a lot of reflection from various angles in a short space of time. Your choice of methods will partly depend on how important it is that everyone meets everyone else.

• Milling about (for one-to-one feedback): Find a partner, give each other one positive statement about their contribution to the team exercise, find a new partner and repeat, etc.
• Brief encounters (questions and partners keep changing): Each person starts with a unique question on a card and finds a partner. Each person answers their partner's question. They swap cards and each finds a new partner.
• Surveys (small groups specialize in one question): Subgroups scatter throughout the whole group conducting brief one-to-one interviews on the topic in which they are specializing. Subgroups meet together again to collate the answers and report back their findings to the whole group.
• Mad hatter's tea party: Two lines face each other. People talk with the person standing opposite. At a given signal, everyone moves one to the left and starts talking with their new partner. The facilitator announces a fresh question at each move. If the group is too big to complete a full cycle, set up a suitable number of smaller groups.
• Concentric circles: This is much the same idea as the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, but is a little easier to set up and manage. This structure does not allow participants to have conversations with people in their own circle, but it does provide an effective way of meeting and learning one-to-one with everyone in another group.
• Matrix meetings: Each individual has a list of everyone's names. They place a mark beside the name of anyone they work with on a paired debriefing exercise of (say) five minutes or more. From time to time they also enter this information on a single group matrix that builds up a picture of who has worked with whom. A number or letter code can be used to give basic information about who took which role during the exercise (e.g. L=learner, F=facilitator, S= shared). If the target is to complete the matrix, remember to provide enough opportunities for paired debriefing for this to be achievable.

Not all pairings work well—one person can dominate, trust may be low, pairs may decide to take easy options, or just go through the motions or may even opt out. Group facilitators may try to avoid the risks of paired debriefs not working well by keeping everyone together under their own watchful eye for whole group reflection. But whole group reflection has its own risks and disadvantages (such as lack of personal space, less personal attention and less airtime for each individual). The challenge is to find the right mix (and sequence) of different group sizes (including reflective time alone) so that there is a good balance between these different “social settings” for reflection.

Linking The Flow And Energy Of Debriefing

Running debriefs in any size of event means that the facilitator will need a varied toolkit of debriefing tasks and activities that small groups of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can carry out independently.

The outcomes from these small group debriefing sessions will often be shared in the larger facilitated group, but sometimes the process will end in the smaller group. For example when the whole group experience leads stage by stage to individuals setting personal goals, it is not always necessary or appropriate for these individual goals to be shared in the whole group.

On the other hand, when the final part of the debriefing process takes place in the whole group it tends to be more honest, insightful and significant if it is the result of high quality small group reflection rather than being the spontaneous ramblings of dominant individuals in the large group. Almost by definition, the first to talk are not likely to be reflecting much before they speak and are therefore unlikely to be setting the right tone for a reflective discussion. This is why preparatory work (alone or in smaller groups) can add so much to the overall quality of debriefing.

Wise facilitators appreciate the value of working in a variety of different group sizes, so they will often split a facilitated group into smaller unfacilitated units. The challenge is to link these processes together in ways that produce a bubbling flow of energy and questions and discoveries as learners move to and fro between the central arena of facilitated group debriefing and the intensive involvement of debriefing in smaller groups.

Further Reference:

(Thiagi's note: Roger uses the word “reviewing” to refer to “debriefing”.)

Reviewing by Numbers (a longer 6-page version dealing with other group sizes): http://reviewing.co.uk/articles/reviewing-by-numbers.htm

The Active Reviewing Guide: http://reviewing.co.uk

Reviewing with Large Groups: http://reviewing.co.uk/toolkit/large_groups.htm

Reviewing to Scale: http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/6_2.htm

The Art of Reviewing: http://reviewing.co.uk/articles/the.art.of.reviewing.htm

[Table of Contents]

Guest Gamer

An Interview with Lorraine Ukens

Thiagi: Lorraine, what's your specialty area?

Lorraine: That's hard to say, since I design and use games for everything I do—even in the academic course I teach! However, if I had to choose one area of focus, it would be team building. Since there are so many topics that fall into this category, I can gear the games to a variety of issues—communication, conflict resolution, decision making, goal setting, and so forth. Team building is the ideal situation for the use of games.

Thiagi: Why do you think games are so conducive to team building?

Lorraine: Team-building efforts should concentrate on how team members relate and how the work is accomplished. Because games provide a structured activity that contributes to both content (task) and process (relationship) objectives, it is an ideal way to examine team skills. Games also allow team members to interact with each other in a fun and unique way, presenting the opportunity to look at attitudes and behaviors in a safe, low-risk environment.

Thiagi: What is your favorite kind of game?

Lorraine: I like to use cooperative-competition games, especially for team building. Generating a constructive competitive spirit that motivates employees to maximize their contribution allows an organization to achieve its goals, and games can effectively teach this concept. The inherent structure of games is based on a goal and an accompanying resistance against its achievement. In most games, the resistance is supplied by an opponent who is trying to achieve his or her own goal. Your opponent, therefore, is your partner in the game. The activities are designed to challenge physical and mental capabilities and become lessons in determination, teamwork, and planning. Since a team's performance includes both individual and collective results, these tasks require participants to work cooperatively, taking advantage of each member's abilities.

Thiagi: Why do some trainers avoid games as a training technique?

Lorraine: Some trainers are still reluctant to use games during training events because they feel that the participants will view the activities as merely fun and not relevant to learning. However, if the activity is treated sincerely and professionally, the facilitator actually will find that games encourage openness and help break through participants' resistance. Joining in playful activities gives people a shared history and better sense of how to relate to one another.

Thiagi: What are the most important characteristics of an effective facilitator?

Lorraine: In addition to involving the players in the game, the facilitator must also assist learners in a process of inquiry and analysis. Being a facilitator of active learning requires the ability to work both in the physical as well as the cognitive area. An effective facilitator also helps participants make the connection between the experience and the intent of the learning. The facilitator must emphasize the instructional message, in addition to the fun, and that is why the debriefing session that follows any game is a critical component. Rather than telling participants the learning points, the facilitator takes a constructivist approach and guides them into realizing what occurred. There is a high degree of flexibility, since feedback during the debriefing may lead to areas of discussion not previously anticipated. This is especially true when “mistakes” occur during the game that may lead to new insights. Some of the most significant learning points occur as a result of things that turn out other than planned.

Thiagi: Can you explain what you mean by “constructivist approach”?

Lorraine: To me, it means allowing the participants to construct their own conceptual understanding of what occurred as a result of playing the game. It's not me just telling them what they have done and learned. Constructivism means taking all the pieces of the puzzle and putting them together in a way that has meaning for the participants.

As a facilitator, I have to be a good listener as participants talk about what they did. I must get them to verbalize this in terms of their own work environment. This really makes the game into an analogy of real-life situations.

Thiagi: What advice do you have for newcomers who want to use games?

Lorraine: They should keep in mind that no matter how well they plan, things can and do go differently in each session because a lot depends on the particular group you have. If you recognize this fact up front, it helps take away some of the anxiety that can occur when the trainer lets participants take charge of their own learning.

Thiagi: Who are your favorite designers of training games?

Lorraine: Well, I'm one of Thiagi's biggest fans! But, I have some other favorites. I think Glenn Parker produces great team games, Ed Rose has wonderful outdoor games, and Steve Sugar is an overall game master.

Thiagi: What is your prediction about the future of games?

Lorraine: Experiential learning has gained increasing acceptance in all levels of training and education and in a wide variety of subject areas. Therefore, I predict that games will become a major component of training sessions, for technical as well as interpersonal skills. As trainers see the benefits of using games as a learning device, more will begin to use them. It doesn't matter if it's one brief game to open, close, or energize a program, or whether it's a comprehensive game that constitutes the entire session. Games utilize the concept of active learning. In the final analysis, experience is the best way for adults to learn.

[Table of Contents]

Playing Cards

Pile-Up
by Lorraine Ukens

Objectives

• To practice effective team problem-solving and decision-making skills in meeting team goals.
• To strategically plan for the utilization of available team resources.

Team Size

Participants will work together in teams of three or four members each.

Time

Thirty minutes.

Materials

• Twenty different playing cards and one envelope for each team.
• Flip chart and marker.

Preparation

For each participating team, randomly select twenty playing cards and place them in an envelope.

Process

1. Instruct participants to form teams of three or four players each. Assign a different team color to each group.
2. Explain that the goal of this game is to reduce an arrangement of playing cards to as few piles as possible—ideally, to a single pile.
3. Describe the rules as follows: A team decision is to be made for each move. You may pick up any card in the array and move it any distance horizontally or vertically (never diagonally) and place it on top of another card that matches it in either suit or rank. A pile of cards moves as a unit, with only the top card being relevant in determining where the pile may move.
4. Explain that the teams will have approximately 15 minutes to complete the task. The team that reduces the arrangement of cards to the smallest number of piles will be the winner.
5. Direct each team to place its cards on the table in a grid pattern consisting of five columns and four rows.
6. Before you begin the activity, ask each team to predict the final number of piles it will be able to produce. Record this number on the flip chart next to the appropriate team color.
7. Signal for the game to begin, then stop when all teams have finished or after 15 minutes have elapsed.
8. Direct each team, in turn, to report the number of remaining card piles it has, recording each number next to the appropriate prediction on the flip chart. Announce the winner as the team that has the smallest number of remaining piles.

Variation

Rather than giving each team a random set of playing cards, give each team a duplicate twenty-card set. You can decide to have each group arrange the cards in the 5 x 4 pattern, or you can supply all teams with the same pattern arrangement which you will display or distribute.

Discussion

• How close was your team to meeting the predicted goal?
• What factors affected the end result?
• Describe your team's decision-making approach to classifying the cards.
• What was your team's planning strategy? Did it change during the process? Why or why not?
• Because each card arrangement was different, how does availability of resources affect a team's ability to meet its goals? (This question is not applicable if you use the first option of the Variation above.)

[Table of Contents]

Classification Card Game

Three Sets

In the July 2004 issue of PFP we discussed the advantages of two-person training games and presented detailed instructions for a card game called Trumps. In the August issue, we presented another two-person card game, called Ginny.

Here's a third card game, called Three Sets. This game also deals with the stages in team development. It uses the same deck of classification cards.

Team Development

See the Four Stages of Team Development instructions to review information about the four stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing. (For your convenience, we have duplicated this handout from the July issue of PFP.)

Purpose

To rapidly recognize the behaviors, attitudes, thoughts, perceptions, expectations, problems, and strategies associated with the four stages of team development.

Participants

Two. Larger groups may be divided into pairs to play the game in a parallel fashion. If an odd player is left out, the facilitator can play the game with this person.

Time

2 - 5 minutes. The game may be replayed several times to determine the winner of a match.

Supplies

How To Play Three Sets Handout. This handout summarizes the rules of the game. Make a copy for each player.

Four Stages of Team Development Handout. This handout summarizes Tuckman's model. Make a copy for each player.

Feedback Table. This table is used for settling disputes during the game. The table lists each card number and the correct team-development stage (or stages) associated with it. Make a copy for each player. (For your convenience we have duplicated this from the July issue of PFP.)

A deck of Growing a Team Cards. This deck contains 99 cards. Prepare your own deck by typing the numbers and statements from this list on your own cards. (See below if you don't have the patience to do this.)

Getting Ready To Play

Assemble play groups. Organize participants into pairs. Give a deck of Growing A Team cards to each pair. Also distribute a copy of the Feedback Table to each player, but ask players to place it with the printed side down.

Introduce the four stages. Distribute copies of the Four Stages of Team Development Handout. Make a brief presentation, using examples that are relevant to the players.

Brief the players. Acknowledge that most players may not have a complete grasp of the four stages in team development. Explain that you are going to play a card game that will help them become more fluent with these stages.

Introduce the Growing A Team cards. Ask each player to pick up a card from the deck. Ask a player to read the statement on the card and invite everyone to identify the team-development stage associated with the statement. Announce the correct stage. Explain that this is the suit of the card. Demonstrate how to verify the suit by using the Feedback Table.

Explain the rules. Distribute copies of the handout, How To Play Three Sets. Walk the players through the rules.

Monitor the game. Ask the players at each table to select the first dealer and begin the game. Walk around the room, clarifying rules and settling disputes among players as needed.

[Table of Contents]

Handout 1

How To Play Three Sets

Deal the cards. Deal nine cards to each player, one card at a time. Set the rest of the deck aside, face down (these cards will not be used).

Assemble Sets. Study the nine cards in your hand and arrange them into three sets of three cards each. The object of the game is to create higher-status sets. Here are the three possible types of sets arranged in descending order of status:

• Triplet: All three cards in this set belong to the same suit (for example, all three cards belong to the Storming stage in the team development process). A triplet is the highest-status set. It beats all other types of sets.
• Pair: Two of the three cards in this set belong to the same suit and the third one belongs to a different suit. Example: Two cards belong to the Performing stage of the team-development process, and the third card belongs to the Forming stage. A pair has lower status than a triplet and higher status than a diff (explained below).
• Diff: All three cards in this set belong to different suits. Example: One card belongs to the Norming stage of the team-development process, another card belongs to the Storming stage, and the third card belongs to Performing stage. A diff is the lowest-status set. It loses to the other two sets.

The nine cards in your hand can be arranged into different types of sets. It is important for you to try to maximize the status of your sets.

Reveal the first set. You select one of your sets and place it face down on the table. Your opponent does the same. Both of you now turn your sets face up. Whoever has the higher-status set scores one point for this round.

Break the tie. If both you and your opponent have the same type of set, use this rule: The player with the card of the highest value (among any of the three cards) scores the point.

Reveal the second set. Repeat the procedure with the second set from your hand. As before, whoever has the higher-status set scores one point for this round.

Reveal the third set. Repeat the procedure with a third set from your hand. As before, you or your opponent score a point, depending on who has the higher-status set.

Determine the Winner. The player with the most points wins the game.

Play the Game Again. Play the game again using the same procedure. You may want to play a total of five games to decide who wins the match. Alternatively, you may play the game until one person scores a total of ten or more points.

Try these Variations. For a more challenging game, try the four- or five-card set variations described below:

Four-Card Sets. The game is played as before, except each player is dealt 12 cards. Players arrange these cards into three sets of four cards each and reveal these sets, one at a time.

With four-card sets, there are five possible sets, arranged below in descending order of status:

• Quad: All four cards in this set belong to the same suit. Example: All four cards belong to the Performing stage in the team-development process. A quad is the highest-status set, beating all other types of sets.
• Double Pair. Two of the four cards belong to one suit and the other two belong to another suit. Example: Two cards belong to the Storming stage of the team-development process and the other two belong to the Norming stage. A double pair is the second highest-status set. It beats a triplet, a pair, or a diff. But it loses to a quad.
• Triplet: Three of the four cards belong to the same suit while the fourth card belongs to a different suit. Example: Three cards belong to the Storming stage in the team development process while the fourth card belongs to the Performing stage. A triplet is the third highest-status set. It beats a pair or a diff, but it loses to a double pair or a quad.
• Pair: Two of the four cards in this set belong to the same suit and the other two belong to two other suits. Example: Two cards belong to the Performing stage of the team-development process, the third card belongs to the Forming stage, and the fourth card belongs to the Storming stage. A pair beats a diff, but it loses to a triplet, a double pair, or a quad.
• Diff: All four cards in this set belong to different suits. Example: One card belongs to the Norming stage of the team-development process, another card belongs to the Storming stage, the third card belongs to Performing stage, and the fourth card belongs to the Forming stage. A diff is the lowest-status set and it loses to any other type of set.

Break the tie. If both you and your opponent have the same type of set, the set with the card of highest value wins (as with three-card sets).

Five-card sets. The game is played as before, except each player is dealt 15 cards. Players arrange these cards into three sets of five cards each and reveal these sets, one at a time.

Five-card sets are somewhat similar to poker hands. Here are the six possible sets, arranged in descending order of status:

• Quint: All five cards in this set belong to the same suit. Example: All five cards belong to the Performing stage. A quint is the highest-status set, beating all other types of sets.
• Full House: Three cards in this set belong to one suit and the other two cards belong to another suit. (This is a combination of a triplet and a pair.) Example: Three cards belong to the Performing stage and the other two cards belong to the Storming stage. A full house is the second highest-status set. It loses only to a quint.
• Quad: Four cards in this set belong to the same suit and the fifth one belongs to a different suit. Example: Four cards belong to the Performing stage and the fifth card belongs to the Norming stage. A quad is the third highest-status five-card set, beating a double pair, a triplet, or a pair. It loses to a full house or a quint.
• Double Pair: Two of the five cards belong to one suit, another two belong to another suit, and the fifth card belongs to a different suit. Example: Two cards belong to the Storming stage, two others belong to the Norming stage, and the fifth card belongs to the Performing stage. A double pair beats a triplet or a pair. It loses to a quad, a full house, or a quint.
• Triplet: Three of the five cards belong to the same suit while the other two belong to two different suits. Example: Three cards belong to the Storming stage while the fourth card belongs to the Performing stage and the fifth card belong to the Norming stage. A triplet beats a pair. It loses to a double pair, quad, a full house, or a quint.
• Pair: Two of the five cards in this set belong to the same suit and the other three belong to three different suits. Example: Two cards belong to the Performing stage, the third card belongs to the Forming stage, the fourth card to the Storming stage, and the fifth card to the Norming stage. A pair is the lowest-status five-card set. It loses to a triplet, a double pair, a quad, a full house, or a quint.

(In case you are curious, you cannot have a five-card diff because there are only four suits.)

Break the tie. If both you and your opponent have the same type of set, the set with the card of highest value wins (as with three-card sets).

Optional Rules

Use of the Feedback Table. When you are a beginning player, you may refer to the Feedback Table whenever you want. Later, when you have become familiar with the four stages of team development, you should play the game without using this “cheat sheet”.

Strategy

Remember that the object of the game is to score two or more points by playing the highest-status set during each round. A lot of bluffing is involved in deciding when to play your weak set or strong set.

[Table of Contents]

Handout 2

Four Stages of Team Development

In 1965 B. W. Tuckman, who had been studying the behavior of small groups, published a model that suggests that all teams go through four distinct stages in their development:

Forming. The first stage in a team's development is forming. During this stage, the team members are unsure about what they are doing. Their focus is on understanding the team's goal and their role. They worry about whether the other team members will accept them. Team members frequently look for clarification from their leader.

Storming. The second stage in a team's development is storming. During this stage, the team members try to get organized. This stage is marked by conflict among the members and between the members and the leader. Through this conflict, the team attempts to define itself.

Norming. The third stage in a team's development is norming. This stage follows storming, after the team members have succeeded in resolving their conflicts. They now feel more secure with one another and with their leader. They effectively negotiate the structure of the team and the division of labor.

Performing. The fourth stage in a team's development is performing. During this stage the team members behave in a mature fashion and focus on accomplishing their goals. This stage is marked by direct, two-way communication among the team members.

[Table of Contents]

Handout 3

Feedback Table

Card. Suit	Card. Suit	Card. Suit	Card. Suit	Card. Suit
1. P	21. F	41. P	61. S	81. F
2. N	22. P	42. F	62. N	82. P
3. N	23. S	43. S, N	63. F, S	83. P
4. P	24. S	44. S	64. S	84. N, P
5. F	25. N	45. N	65. F	85. P
6. P	26. N	46. N, P	66. N	86. F, S
7. F	27. P	47. P	67. F	87. P
8. P	28. S	48. F	68. P	88. P
9. F	29. N	49. S	69. P	89. N
10. S	30. S	50. F	70. P	90. F
11. S	31. S	51. P	71. P	91. S
12. N, P	32. S	52. P	72. F	92. S
13. F	33. N	53. S	73. N	93. F, S
14. P	34. F	54. F	74. P	94. P
15. F	35. N	55. P	75. N	95. F
16. N	36. N, P	56. F	76. P	96. S
17. P	37. F	57. F	77. N	97. P
18. F	38. N, P	58. P	78. P	98. N, P
19. F	39. N, P	59. S	79. F	99. N
20. N	40. N	60. P	80. N, P

[Table of Contents]

Facilitator Job Aid

Card Numbers and Items

1. All members participate in all team activities.
2. Disagreements become more civilized and less divisive.
3. Feeling of us-them increases.
4. Ground rules become second nature to team members.
5. If there is a formal leader, team members tend to obey him or her.
6. Leadership is shared among different members.
7. Cautious
8. Leadership role is rotated among appropriate members.
9. Members are anxious and suspicious of the task ahead.
10. Challenging
11. Members are more committed to their sub-groups than to the team as a whole.
12. Members are more friendly toward each other.
13. Members are not committed to the group's goal.
14. Collaborating
15. Conversation is polite and tentative.
16. Each team member decides what his or her role should be.
17. Everyone begins to experience success.
18. Members are not fully committed to the team goal.
19. Members are proud to be chosen for the team.
20. Members are relieved that things are progressing smoothly.
21. Everyone is wondering, “Why are we here?”
22. Members are satisfied about the team's progress.
23. Members argue with each other—even when they agree on the basic issues.
24. Everyone wants to have his or her say.
25. Facilitator encourages team members to critique their behaviors.
26. Members attempt to figure out their roles and functions.
27. Members begin to enjoy team activities.
28. Facilitator encourages team members to discuss their negative feelings.
29. Facilitator helps team members uncover and discuss hidden agendas.
30. Members challenge, evaluate, and destroy ideas.
31. Members choose sides.
32. Members compete with each other.
33. Facilitator points out violations of ground rules and helps team members revise the ground rules, if appropriate.
34. Facilitator uses an icebreaker to help team members to get acquainted with each other.
35. Members deal with each other with greater confidence.
36. Members develop great loyalty to the team.
37. Members don't have enough information to trust each other.
38. Members feel comfortable about their roles in the team.
39. Members feel confident about disagreeing with each other.
40. Team members decide on the appropriate level of risk taking.
41. Members feel empowered. They take initiative without checking with the leader.
42. Members feel excitement, anticipation, and optimism.
43. Members form subgroups that get into conflicts.
44. Members freely ask questions and express their frustrations.
45. Members have a better idea of whom to trust and whom to distrust.
46. Members have a realistic sense of trust based on their experiences with each other.
47. Members have clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each other.
48. Members take a “wait-and-see” approach.
49. Members tend to avoid the tasks and argue about ground rules.
50. Members tend to be polite to each other.
51. Members tend to become complacent.
52. Members understand the team processes.
53. Members' feelings and attitudes keep fluctuating.
54. Most conversations are to and from the team leader.
55. Most discussions are about getting the task done.
56. Most discussions are shallow.
57. No ground rules established. Members depend on their previous team experiences to decide how to behave.
58. Regular team meetings are replaced by a variety of as-needed communications.
59. Several conflicts develop.
60. Some members become bored with the routine and begin looking for new challenges.
61. Some members demonstrate passive resistance.
62. Team members decide who should do what.
63. Some members dominate team discussions.
64. Some members still dominate team discussions.
65. Team members depend on the facilitator to explain what is going on.
66. Team members experience this stage after storming and before performing.
67. Status of members inside the team is based on their status outside.
68. Team activities become more informal.
69. Team becomes creative in accomplishing its goal.
70. Team begins celebrating its success.
71. Team begins to receive payoffs.
72. Team members feel frustrated.
73. Team members list their ground rules on a flip chart.
74. Team demonstrates greatest levels of flexibility.
75. Team establishes ground rules for interactions among the members.
76. Team generates solutions that are acceptable to all members.
77. Team members negotiate with each other to decide how the team should be structured.
78. Team members participate in a balanced and supportive fashion.
79. Team goal is unclear.
80. Team ground rules are clearly established.
81. Team holds abstract discussions of concepts and issues.
82. Team is able to prevent potential problems.
83. Team members share the leadership role.
84. Team members trust each other more because they have established clear guidelines for interaction.
85. Team is likely to suffer from groupthink and lack of objective evaluation.
86. Team is not very productive.
87. Team members are committed to the goal and to the task.
88. Team members are more natural and less self-conscious in their interactions.
89. Team members attempt to understand their goal and task.
90. Team members complain about organizational barriers.
91. Team members disagree and argue with each other.
92. Team members disagree with the leader.
93. Team members don't participate fully.
94. Team members resolve conflicts easily.
95. Team members seek clear guidance.
96. Team members talk and argue with each other.
97. Team spends more time on task and very little time on ground rules.
98. The team becomes increasingly productive.
99. The team has a better understanding of the goal, but still needs guidance.

Don't Want To Prepare Your Own Deck of Cards?

We will sell you a deck of ready-made printed cards with team-development items, along with the Feedback Table. Currently selling for $18, we will give you a 50 percent discount of $9 and throw in free shipment (for USA orders only)! Order your decks through our secure online store.

[Table of Contents]

Richter's Reviews

The Absurdity of It All
by Matt Richter

In our research on management and leadership techniques, we have come across two provocative and wise books.

Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership by Richard Farson, ISBN 0684830442.
Whether it is the newest change initiative, or the latest leadership intervention, executives and leaders have gone crazy with buzz words and absolute “ways to do business.” In Management of the Absurd, Richard Farson offers 30 paradoxes that exist in business today. Farson acknowledges the complexity and often irrational challenges managers face. Through his paradoxical scenarios, he illustrates ways to cope with the groundless and illogical directions many management programs are taking. First comes understanding the dichotomy and complexity of a situation, then comes developing solutions that actually match the level of intricacy. Situations, and therefore solutions, are not black and white. For instance, he opens with “The opposite of a profound truth is also true.” In this chapter, Farson notes that healthy organizations need open, accurate, and comprehensive communication among members. He calls the following phrasing “overly harsh,” when he says organizations also need distortion and deception. Behaviorally, deception may manifest as diplomacy and tact, which imply less than truthful or open communication. This paradox could mean a conflict. But successful managers and leaders flourish because they can reconcile those paradoxes.

This book can easily be frustrating. It can irritate through its lack of black and white prescription. Paradoxically, this is what makes the book great. Its in-your-face, blunt approach focuses on the complexity and gray areas of management intervention. He does so in a very brief and simple book (172 pages). Another paradox is that it is both very philosophical and practical. I agree with several of the reviewers on Amazon when they say that this book should be handed out to all managers as a general handbook.

Organizing Genius by Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman, ISBN 0201339897.
Speaking of buzzwords, two of the words we hear all the time are collaboration and connection. Both have been over-applied and misappropriated into the business lexicon. I have seen organizations adopt collaborative work environments without actually connecting the value of working together with the output of performance. In Organizing Genius, Bennis and Biederman distill the attributes of successful collaboration. They focus on what real-life collaboration looks like when successfully applied, connecting the collaborative effort to the end-result. The authors use case studies to explore how teamwork helped propel these groups toward stellar achievement. Some of the stories they tell include those of Xerox PARC Labs, the founders of the Disney Studio, and the Clinton War Room. However, because the case studies are based on real world experiences, the 15 lessons derived are not always what one might expect. For instance, the final lesson, Great Work is Its Own Reward, implies that group members strive toward the group objective because of the passion they have for the task. They are intrinsically motivated and many group members say they would have done the work without pay. Another key point is that often members galvanize, sometimes obsessively, behind a charismatic leader. And without their leader, the group can stumble, if not fail entirely. The leader is practical, but synthesizes the group together through a clear, unique, original, and attainable vision. Another feature is that the members of the group tend to be young and see themselves as underdogs who can come from behind and win the day. All in all, this book uses these stories of great groups to explain some of the fundamental processes of teamwork. What makes it useful is that not all groups thrown together have the potential for great work. The attributes and components of successful collaboration have some basic requirements. As companies continue to co-opt the values of collaboration and connection, they need to also be sure that their groups have the capacity, the competency, and the drive to achieve together.

[Table of Contents]

Trip Report

Origin's '04
by William Wake

The Origins '04 International Games Expo (http://www.originsgames.com/) is a game conference sponsored by the Game Manufacturer's Association (GAMA). It was held at the Columbus (Ohio) Civic Center, June 23-27, 2004.

Origins is a huge conference; Origins '04 used a lot of small conference rooms, ballrooms, and three cavernous rooms (each the size of a football field). Two of these large rooms were full of tables for gamers; the other was host to a sales floor with about 225 vendors.

As you might expect, there were a huge number of simultaneous events (more than 100 in certain hours). Events were divided into several categories: special events, CCGs (Collectible Card Games, e.g., Magic the Gathering), LARPs (Live Action Role Plays), Miniatures (including the "Origins War College"), RPGs (Role-Playing Games, e.g., Dungeons & Dragons), Seminars, and Tabletop (board and card games).

I tried many games, and had fun with each, including: Freight Train (an easy-to-learn train game), National Security Decision Making (a LARP, though the organizers perhaps wouldn't like that label), Hex Hex (a “hate your neighbor” card game), Bridge (the classic), Aquarius (a domino-style card game), Cargo (a strategy board game), Yu Yu Hakusho (a CCG), and others.

I took advantage of the vendor's area to pick up a bunch of games (not all new, but mostly new to me). So far, my family has enjoyed all the ones we've played: Aquarius (Looney Labs), Bang (Mayfair), A Dog's Life (Euro Games), Early American Chrononauts (Looney Labs), Hex Hex (Smirk & Dagger), Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot (my high-schoolers' favorite) (Playroom), Sherlock (Playroom), and Trans America (Rio Grande).

WizKids had huge lines for their click-base miniatures. (These build formulas into the figure's base in a very clever way). But their Pirates of the Spanish Main was even more popular: it's a miniature “wargame”, but you first punch your ship out of a plastic sheet and assemble it.

There were a number of party games (ala Cranium or Pictionary), but none appealed to me very much. There were almost no word games, except Palabra (a rummy-style word card game) and Super Scrabble (with a bigger board and quadruple-score tiles). CCGs and RPGs seemed to be the dominant categories.

This was a good conference. Some of the logistics were tricky for a first-timer, and it was too big to have an intimate feel. But I had a lot of fun, and I learned a lot about the breadth of games that are out there. I'd consider attending again next time: June 30-July 3, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio.

[Table of Contents]

Pithy Saying

Magic and Training Games

Houdini, the famous magician and entertainer, once said, “It is not the trick. It is the magician.”

The mechanics of a magic trick contribute only part of its surprising effect. You probably know how several magic tricks are done because their secrets have been revealed on TV by the Masked Magician and in several books by knowledgeable authors. But knowing how a trick is done does not guarantee that you can impress your audience. What transforms a simple trick into an extraordinary feat is the magician's presentation, misdirection, showmanship, and patter. I am a magician and I know how several tricks are done. But I still enjoy watching other talented magicians perform the tricks that I know.

Let's use magic tricks as a metaphor for training games.

The mechanics of a training game contribute to only part of the learning outcome. You know the rules of several training games because there are hundreds of books explaining thousands of games. But knowing how a game is played does not guarantee that you can engage and train your participants. What transforms a training game into effective learning tools is the facilitator's skill in positioning the activity, briefing the players, modifying it during the play, coaching the players, and debriefing the experience to highlight the lessons learned. I know how several training games are played (having designed some of them myself). But I still enjoy—and learn from—watching my talented colleagues conduct the games that I know.

[Table of Contents]