Debrief: Assemblage
I hope that everybody has had a chance to maybe go over this with a couple friends and that the explanation made sense. Once you start working through it - everything becomes quite clear.
I first experienced this activity with a management team from work. We went to a day long cooperate team building session. I struggled to get much out of it beyond this activity. I think what I learned that day was that cooperate team building is a very different beast than team building with youth. Youth have a greater ability to change and adjust to their situations - which sounds a little backwards because you'd think that as adults who have developed faculties and a greater vision for their environments would be able to make the changes necessary to be more efficient and more successful. When I look at my own experiences working in and with adult teams - this is not the typical case. We're more set in our ways of doing things and we really, really don't like to be told we're wrong.
When I did this activity that day - there were a couple different shapes that we were making that were more complex than a "square". We were also using about 15 individual geometric shapes. So the task was a little more difficult. But all the same rules applied to us. I'll go through my experience and then talk about how I typically debrief it.
My Experience...
So there was me, Dan, and Bob. We did the activity twice. I started out as the Builder on the first activity so I could only work with the shapes and speak to whoever was the Architect, in this case, Bob started out as the Architect. When we started the activity - communication sucked. I mean - Bob could have been speaking Japanese and I would have understood him just as well. Through some detailed question asking on my part - I was able to start figuring out what shapes he was talking about but there was a big disconnect in knowing where to put them. Dan tagged Bob out almost right away and even though I couldn't see the two...I could hear that Bob was not ready to be tagged out. Dan sat down and started talking to me...of course, he had just seen (he started as the Manager) where I had all of my shapes so Dan immediately started to get me to organized all of my shapes. No fault to Bob, but Dan spoke "my language". He let me know what I was building (a running man) which was a huge help. I think the problem with that is I started to make guesses to where the pieces went.
Dan and I were going on at a good pace when Bob tagged back in. I don't think it would have been a problem but Bob was speaking another language again. Confusion ensued. Dan tagged in again almost immediately. I could hear tension rising. Dan and I kept going and finished the task. There might have been a couple more switches by Dan and Bob but essentially that's how it went.
We did the activity again with Bob being the Builder and Dan and I switching on and off as the Architect and Manager. This next time I think Dan and I switched back and forth three or four times more often unless one person was making lots of progress. The second time went a lot more smoothly.
What I learned from it...
Without much thought at all...I could tell you right off that Dan and I had similar communication styles. We naturally organized our geometric shapes similarly and we shared information back and forth more effectively during the activity. Maybe it was that Dan and I knew each other better but ultimately - I don't think that was a factor. I also know that when it came to switching back and forth as the Manager and Architect - we did it quickly and without attaching anything personal to it. Essentially we placed the task first and didn't pay attention to each other.
Though I don't think Bob's communication style was wrong. I do think that if, as a leader or someone who works with people, are not getting your message through to your people, something has to change. It's a matter of clarity. As a person receiving a message I have the responsibility to ask questions to gain a better sense of clarity. And if you are delivering a message or instruction - you need to work at making sure that your delivering method is effective. Simply put --> If you're speaking english to a non-english audience...what needs to change?
What was a little frustrating was that the facilitator's didn't debrief our group (small group or entire group) well enough after the activity. We just hit the main points pertaining to clarity and communication and moved on. Looking back on it - the tension that our group experienced needed a bit of mashing through. Why did Bob react poorly to being switched out? Was there something that Dan or I needed to do or say to not make it seem like it was 2 against 1? In the moment, I felt like Bob was taking something personally that didn't need to be personal at all. I approached the whole thing like...we're just trying to get a job done and switching spots often is the most efficient way to do it.
Bob did explain that he felt that he was not given enough of a chance to change how he was communicating. That he was pushed out of task by Dan. I think now that I look back at the activity - I still see my approach to it clearly. I was in it to get the job done, not to make Dan or Bob feel good about themselves. Even though I have grown and really learned to slow down and put priority on people...deep down, I am still quite task-oriented. Bob, I think, needed to feel included, and that he was a key player in the activity. I think often as Managers who can see the "building" going on and know what the program or the job is supposed to look like, we are often on the outs as far as feeling like we're actually doing something, getting their hands dirty.
When I debrief this activity...
Questions that I usually ask that are different than standard Q and A would be:
- If you could pick a position (Builder, Architect, Manager) to be, which one would it be? Why?
- What part of the communication was the most difficult?
- How many times did the Manager and Architect switch? (I find that one of two situations most often occur...the M and A switch very often or the M and A do not switch at all. I think the latter situation can occur if the person who starts out as the Manager is not confident in their abilities to insight change as the Architect or they do not believe that they can do a better job than the current Architect).
- Which position is the most important?
- Why do we place importance on moving up the ladder?
I want to hear from you! (Yes, you...the reader)...
How did your debrief go? Do you (my reader) see yourself struggling in a certain position more than others? Would you take switching personally? Why? Or maybe you would not switch in...explain what the barriers are standing in your way.
That's it for now! I'm hoping to write some pieces on the theories and big concepts behind what I talk about on the weekends. And then next week - I should have some more fun stuff to talk about because I'm presenting at the Central Alberta Teacher's convention! Hurrah!
Have a great Friday!
I first experienced this activity with a management team from work. We went to a day long cooperate team building session. I struggled to get much out of it beyond this activity. I think what I learned that day was that cooperate team building is a very different beast than team building with youth. Youth have a greater ability to change and adjust to their situations - which sounds a little backwards because you'd think that as adults who have developed faculties and a greater vision for their environments would be able to make the changes necessary to be more efficient and more successful. When I look at my own experiences working in and with adult teams - this is not the typical case. We're more set in our ways of doing things and we really, really don't like to be told we're wrong.
When I did this activity that day - there were a couple different shapes that we were making that were more complex than a "square". We were also using about 15 individual geometric shapes. So the task was a little more difficult. But all the same rules applied to us. I'll go through my experience and then talk about how I typically debrief it.
My Experience...
So there was me, Dan, and Bob. We did the activity twice. I started out as the Builder on the first activity so I could only work with the shapes and speak to whoever was the Architect, in this case, Bob started out as the Architect. When we started the activity - communication sucked. I mean - Bob could have been speaking Japanese and I would have understood him just as well. Through some detailed question asking on my part - I was able to start figuring out what shapes he was talking about but there was a big disconnect in knowing where to put them. Dan tagged Bob out almost right away and even though I couldn't see the two...I could hear that Bob was not ready to be tagged out. Dan sat down and started talking to me...of course, he had just seen (he started as the Manager) where I had all of my shapes so Dan immediately started to get me to organized all of my shapes. No fault to Bob, but Dan spoke "my language". He let me know what I was building (a running man) which was a huge help. I think the problem with that is I started to make guesses to where the pieces went.
Dan and I were going on at a good pace when Bob tagged back in. I don't think it would have been a problem but Bob was speaking another language again. Confusion ensued. Dan tagged in again almost immediately. I could hear tension rising. Dan and I kept going and finished the task. There might have been a couple more switches by Dan and Bob but essentially that's how it went.
We did the activity again with Bob being the Builder and Dan and I switching on and off as the Architect and Manager. This next time I think Dan and I switched back and forth three or four times more often unless one person was making lots of progress. The second time went a lot more smoothly.
What I learned from it...
Without much thought at all...I could tell you right off that Dan and I had similar communication styles. We naturally organized our geometric shapes similarly and we shared information back and forth more effectively during the activity. Maybe it was that Dan and I knew each other better but ultimately - I don't think that was a factor. I also know that when it came to switching back and forth as the Manager and Architect - we did it quickly and without attaching anything personal to it. Essentially we placed the task first and didn't pay attention to each other.
Though I don't think Bob's communication style was wrong. I do think that if, as a leader or someone who works with people, are not getting your message through to your people, something has to change. It's a matter of clarity. As a person receiving a message I have the responsibility to ask questions to gain a better sense of clarity. And if you are delivering a message or instruction - you need to work at making sure that your delivering method is effective. Simply put --> If you're speaking english to a non-english audience...what needs to change?
What was a little frustrating was that the facilitator's didn't debrief our group (small group or entire group) well enough after the activity. We just hit the main points pertaining to clarity and communication and moved on. Looking back on it - the tension that our group experienced needed a bit of mashing through. Why did Bob react poorly to being switched out? Was there something that Dan or I needed to do or say to not make it seem like it was 2 against 1? In the moment, I felt like Bob was taking something personally that didn't need to be personal at all. I approached the whole thing like...we're just trying to get a job done and switching spots often is the most efficient way to do it.
Bob did explain that he felt that he was not given enough of a chance to change how he was communicating. That he was pushed out of task by Dan. I think now that I look back at the activity - I still see my approach to it clearly. I was in it to get the job done, not to make Dan or Bob feel good about themselves. Even though I have grown and really learned to slow down and put priority on people...deep down, I am still quite task-oriented. Bob, I think, needed to feel included, and that he was a key player in the activity. I think often as Managers who can see the "building" going on and know what the program or the job is supposed to look like, we are often on the outs as far as feeling like we're actually doing something, getting their hands dirty.
When I debrief this activity...
Questions that I usually ask that are different than standard Q and A would be:
- If you could pick a position (Builder, Architect, Manager) to be, which one would it be? Why?
- What part of the communication was the most difficult?
- How many times did the Manager and Architect switch? (I find that one of two situations most often occur...the M and A switch very often or the M and A do not switch at all. I think the latter situation can occur if the person who starts out as the Manager is not confident in their abilities to insight change as the Architect or they do not believe that they can do a better job than the current Architect).
- Which position is the most important?
- Why do we place importance on moving up the ladder?
I want to hear from you! (Yes, you...the reader)...
How did your debrief go? Do you (my reader) see yourself struggling in a certain position more than others? Would you take switching personally? Why? Or maybe you would not switch in...explain what the barriers are standing in your way.
That's it for now! I'm hoping to write some pieces on the theories and big concepts behind what I talk about on the weekends. And then next week - I should have some more fun stuff to talk about because I'm presenting at the Central Alberta Teacher's convention! Hurrah!
Have a great Friday!
Comments