Team Building Workshops- fluff or not?

This is how you build a cohesive team:

I work with a small staff team of 8 that is a small part of an agency that has over 1500 employees and twice that number of volunteers.

The people I work with are some of the finest people I have ever known and we all share a common goal of improving the lives of disabled individuals. I have my own agenda in that much of my time is spent in working to improve working conditions, wages, and benefits and to date I have had great success in changing certain policies.

We support each other professionally and in personal matters, we are like an extended family to one another.

Our work is not always sunshine and puppies and over the years we have all faced professional and personal setbacks and tragedies.

We have had our disagreements and had some fights but through all of this we remain committed to what we do and to each other.

Scheduled team building exercises are simply a waste of time as they try to do in hours what we have accomplished over years.

Of the people I work with, 5 are women and three are men. Among us we have 1 aboriginal woman, 1 woman from Poland, 1 from Chile, 1 from Germany, and one from Britain. Of the men we have 1 from the Phillipines, 1 from Etiopia, and me… the only natural born, non aboriginal, Canadian.

Our colours range from my own pasty white to my very dark skinned Ethiopian co-worker. We have 5 Catholics, 1 Muslim, and 1 Agnostic. Our ages range from 34 to 64 and all but 1 of the women I work with are now grandmothers.

A number of us are in mixed marriages and relationships. For example… I am the only white perons in my family :slight_smile:

We can even talk openly about politics and religion as we share a mutual respect of the other person’s belief system. We have agreed to disagree and in the process have learned a great deal about other cultures and beliefs.

And now they say we need to take diversity training.

There’s some more hours of my life that I will never get back.

Riboflavin–what I said is that I haven’t bothered to look for any hard evidence and don’t really know if it’s out there. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. If you look around and get some information about it, let us know. What I said was that I had lots of personal and anecdotal experience to suggest that team-building has some value, given quality trainers and a willing group.
That’s interesting to suggest a placebo effect: I would be interested in seeing a study done on that. My guess is that, as with most anything that involves human beings (take democracy or religion as examples), some of the effect is attributable to believing it will work.
But my emphasis was not on the importance of ‘believing’, rather, it was on ‘trying’: if you don’t put any additional energy into the system, you can’t expect much change to take place.

In the end, though, absent some hard evidence, I think it’s clear that you and I must agree to disagree about the potential effectiveness of team-building.

I had a very adverse reactions to a “team building.” Perhaps greck, as a trainer/facilitator, can offer some insights.

This needs to be in the context of what I do–I am a team leader. My team is very effective in getting its work done. We consistently rank high on internal surveys of “team satisfaction” and “team effectiveness.” I am regarded as an excellent team leader and staff try to get on my team because they like the balance of guidance and delegation that I provide. I am good at my job. I am aware of, and interested in, the lives of my coworkers, but I do not seek out their company after hours. And they know little about me.

At the required team building training, I absolutely refused to do the “trust fall.” I told my coworkers that, as a matter of fact, I did not trust them to catch me. My trust in close associates was violated early, and I am very selective about whom I choose to be physically “vulnerable to.” I told them I would trust them with a blank check, but not with my safety.

This should not have come as a surprise to the trainer, since I had told my supervisor and our “employee assistance professional” that I found the proposed experience extremely threatening.

My refusal was treated with a great deal of shaming, probing inquiries, and blame. I ended up in tears, close to hysterics actually–finally shouting something like “My God, I can’t even trust you to accept that I know myself and what I can and cannot do with out emotional harm. Your reactions to my refusal to put myself in physical danger is to hurt me emotionally.” And I left.

This did not improve the atmosphere at work. I put up a note by my cubicle that said “please respect my privacy.” My colleagues were good about that, and after about six months things got back to normal.

In retrospect, I wish I’d followed my gut instinct and refused to go. I don’t think they would have fired me.

As an interesting sidelight, one coworker came up to me a few weeks later and asked if I’d really trust her with a blank check. I wrote her one and gave it to her. She was flabbergasted. She wrote void on it, laminated it, framed it with the words “there are many levels of trust” and put it up in her cubicle.

I too am overcome by eye-rolling and heavy sighs when confronted with namby-pamby-hug-a-stranger-hold-my-sweaty-hand-and-investigate-the-deep-dark-depths-of-your-belly-button type workshops. I think many of the individuals that present these types of workshops pay lip service to concepts and ideals that are complex and difficult to achieve. I also think business’s are not truly committed to a process that might lead to the development of ACTUAL supportive teams because it is too confronting and messy. Often employees feel disempowered by these kinds of workshops because they feel that their valid feelings of disillusionment and frustration with the politics and structures of organizations are not being honestly addressed.

That being said I believe there can be amazing outcomes when an organization commits to addressing the TRUE needs and desires of its employees. I have seen profound results, especially in the human services field, both as a facilitator of workshops and as a recipient of ongoing training. I think the key here is ONGOING training. It is ridiculous to think that in two days the deeply conflicted psyche of an organization is going to be transformed and everybody is going to feel safe, supported and respected In such a short amount of time. That kind of expectation is going to do much more harm than good. It do believe it is important, though, to have a commitment to team building but with a much more honest approach. It is not easy to address these kinds of issues, and while many of the responses to this thread talked about the ridiculousness of some of the methods for reaching this goal, I still believe people are happier working as part of a supportive and healthy team.

There are workshop facilitators, managers, directors, and employees that have the courage and commitment to work through the messy and challenging process of developing truly awesome holistic approaches to their work. I’m not talking about some metaphysical whimsical huggy kissey vision. I’m talking about creating an environment where people feel great about what they are doing and understand the value of honest communication.

I work in the arts and human services field so the needs of employees are somewhat different than what I have heard from most of the posts. I personally know some fabulous team-building games that are hilarious. They don’t translate in writing so it wouldn’t do much good to share them here, but over time they really helped to address important inter-personal issues in a fun way.

Thanks Blue Curls for a really interesting thread

as_u_wish your story makes a powerful point about workshops that are not true to their word. People who are not corageous enough to deal with real feelings can cause great harm in these situations.

It sounds like you dealt with it really well.

as u wish:

First let me say I’m really sorry things went that way for you, sounds like it was really hard.

Second, that was your facilitator’s fault. He/she should have created an environment that was safe enough for you to say no to the activity and not had to explain yourself. A good facilitator would have enabled and supported you to explain that this was your personal stuff and that you are allowed to own it rather than allowing the group to take it on.

Trust falls are inherently weird, and you don’t just do them on a whim. This is a big mistake that facilitators make, thinking that since they’re so powerful that they’re always a good idea. If there is a member of the group that’s gonna have problems with it, you seriously consider the potential consequences of doing the activity, and maybe do some more fundamental trust work.

The real problem that I’m seeing here is that people are feeling coerced or even forced to attend these things.

I do not do “trust falls”. They force me to act in violation of years of physical training on the mat. I already know how to fall properly. The last thing I want to do is ignore years of very good training merely to take part in some pop-psychology posturing.

Likewise, I dislike the very concept. Why should I have to put myself at physical risk in order to demonstrate “trust” in people whose job descriptions do NOT include protecting me from physical injury? Now, if I were in a professional mountain-climbing team, then something like a trust fall would make sense. But for a bunch of cubicle climbers or lab rats? They’re just another form of pointless busywork.

Is it not enough that we share all data we generate within the group? Is it not enough that we make sure that common equipment is in working order? Is it not enough that we let the ordering person know if a reagent is low? These are real world trust tasks that have direct and vital impact upon the work we do. Why diddle around with distractions when working directly on these practices would both build team trust and DIRECTLY influence group productivity?

I’ll tell you why!

Because there is an entrenched industry in place that runs these scams. There’s a buck to be had out of conning management into these dog-and-pony shows.

Here’s more butane for the fire:

I fence. I fence in several styles, both modern and historical. That makes me the lone fencer in my entire building. I brew. Again, I am the only brewer here. Likewise, I like to wear a kilt and march around with a musket. Time that I spend in “social” activities with coworkers is time taken away from the hobbies I enjoy. Why should I be expected to obliterate my personal preferences and become just another anonymous, bland little drone?

So what you’re saying is that any time ‘team-building’ fails, it’s due to flaws in the team, not flaws in the team-building. That really sums it up without any need for me to try to prove a negative; team-building is completely effective as long as you’re willing to attribute its failures to flaws in the team being built instead of the team-building process. What it really comes down to is that according to you, I’m responsible for the team not being built if I dare to think that some goofy ropes course that you sucker truckloads of money in with might not actually work, it can’t possibly be that the goofy ropes course is nothing more than a way to move money into someone else’s pocket.

If it walks like a scam, talks like a scam, and is defended with arguments like a scam…

Ribo–please stop putting words into my mouth. All I’m saying is what I said. Your rephrasings continue to miss the point and to unfairly characterize what I wrote. Thanks.

I’m kind of confused - you’re genuinely suprised that people going to ‘team-building’ excercises didn’t just up and say ‘hey, let’s go play with ropes and/or do trust falls and spend a bunch of money to do it’? The real problem is that some management types believe in this stuff, force their employees to go to these things, and the people giving them are actually suprised that the employees are less than entusiastic about participating in a touchy-feely scam.

You’re the one who attempts to put the blame for ‘team-building’ failures on the people who are skeptical instead of on flaws in the ‘team-building’ process.

My rephrasings hit right on the point that ‘team-building’ excercises are clearly a scam. If they weren’t, someone would be posting links to verifiable data showing that they actually worked, and I’d look awfully silly. Instead, you object to me pointing out that you blame the failures in team-building on people who don’t believe in the scam and not on any possible flaw in ‘team-building’ excercises.

The whole concept that paying a bunch of money to have a department go off and play with ropes for a few hours will make them work together better at their real jobs (which don’t involve playing with rope) is just strange, and when the defense of it is to blame the ‘team’ for any failures it’s quite clear that the whole idea is just a clever scam.

My experiences with team building exercises generally fall into one of two camps -

a) Those involved view the exercise with cynicism, and look forward to completing it so they can return to work.

-or-

b) Those involved enjoy it quite a bit, but any practices learned seem to quickly go by the wayside once we all return to work.

Where the team building does seem to payoff is when these things happen in places away from the office over multiple days. Going out at night with those in class with you can lead to tighter teams. (Tighter in the sense of being closer, not drunker (though that can happen as well.).)

That’s just my perspective from a business standpoint though. Exercises practiced by the military and such appear to be much more effective and are much more sustained in use. Same with pro athletic teams. It makes a difference when teamwork may affect your well being or employment.

In day-to-day business, there’s no discernible or tangible penalty for not following up on practices taught in non-technical courses and exercises.

Furthermore, the non-technical offerings in the world of business seem to often happen in a “flavor of the month” type way. Someone high up reads a particular book and all of a sudden, the book’s message is the key to success. At least until the next book is read.

riiiiight,
I didn’t say anything about surprised, or anything like that.

What I did mean was that it’s important to the process that people be allowed free choice to participate or not. When people are forced, they generally not open, and the lack of openness will subvert the objectives of any teambuilding activity.

The real problem isn’ t that management types believe in it, it’s that they aren’t able to help their employees believe in it, or they are looking to it as a short cut to their own work that they themselves don’t have to invest in.

People seem to be really focused on the outcomes of these things, and how these outcomes are never tangible or worthwhile. The transfer of the experience to the real world. There are three types of transfer that I learned:

  1. specific transfer (to which someone was referring when he said “I could see if i was part of a professional mountain climbing team…”) that is the use of actual skills of the activity in future situations. Learn to belay on the ropes course, then belay on a rock climbing outing. This is not particularly useful in the corporate world.

  2. there’s non specific transfer - which is the use of behavior sets rehearsed in the teambuilding activity in a similar dynamic situation in the future (for instance, in the activity I was able to ask for help when I was stuck, and my coworkers responded to me, so I now know this new way to ask for help with reports or whatever) This is more useful and harder to get people to implement

  3. there’s metaphoric transfer - which is the use of the situation on the ropes course as a metaphor for life, and relies heavily on the participant to make meaning of the experience as being their life. Used more in therapeutic type situations.

Keep in mind that these seminars are a tool. They should be understood as such.
You don’t read the owner’s manual, you don’t use as directed, then definitely it doesn’t work.

I recently got a guitar, I like to tell people it’s defective because it sounds like shit when I play it. Should I get mad at the guy who gives me lessons because my guitar is defective? Should I get mad at my family for giving me a defective guitar?

The problem is that the lip service managers pay to teambuilding is overshadowed by the reality of layoffs, unreasonable expectations and double standard managment.

What does the average employee care about the “team”? Generally they don’t see a benefit if the team succeeds (other than maybe a pat on the back or token bonuses like movie tickets). If the company hits hard times, every employee knows (or should know) that the “team” would hapily let them go.

By the same token, if I stick 4 of my employees together with some instruments they aren’t going to become a band.

So, teambuilding doesn’t work when some management guy decides to make a bunch of people go into it? How many team-building sessions aren’t the result of one manager forcing a bunch of people to some touchy-feely thing he thinks is a good idea? Do team-building companies actually state up front (not buried in the fine print) that their service is worthless if the manager just makes a bunch of people show up? You seem to be pretty much agreeing with me; if you’re saying that team-building activities don’t work in 90% or so of all cases for which the activity providers accept payment, then I don’t see how you can disagree with it being a scam.

If the guy who gives you guitar lessons teaches you things about how to actually play a guitar like chords, strumming, tuning, and whatnot, then no. If, however, his ‘guitar lessons’ involve you playing around on some ropes and doing a trust fall with him then I think it’s rather obvious that you should be mad at the guy giving you lessons, and that you should ignore him when he says that his lessons would work if you weren’t a bad student.

Sorry–I don’t like to seem contrary, nor do I generally support these team-building workshops–but the answer to the question I quoted from B2 is, at least sometimes, yes. When I went through the Covey Leadership Center program some years ago, it was said up-front that the training in question would be worth little if it was something thrust on a bunch of unwilling workers. I know for a fact they gave this message to management, trainees, and the guy who signed the check. I suppose this message was partly responsible for the head honcho forcing us to volunteer instead of forcing us to go against our wishes. :rolleyes: :slight_smile: Still, the Covey Leadership people couldn’t be accused of dishonesty. Likewise, I’m almost positive the same warning was delivered to (though not necessarily comprehended by) various corporate bigwigs at that company, and others for which I worked, on other occasions.

My experience–-limited though it admittedly is–-tells me that most of these companies suggest they can work miracles, at least during certain stages of their pitches. However, few of them I think will outright lie, nor even bury their disclaimers in the fine print–-no doubt there are exceptions. But the handful of “workshops” and “seminars” I’ve attended that related to molding corporate culture, building teams, facilitating communication, and the like have all recognized that the participants must be willing. Likewise, at least a couple of the books I’ve perused on these subjects acknowledge the foolishness of forcing people into this kind of thing.

–-Mephisto, himself not a management guy, but somebody who’s had to endure (and, he grudgingly admits, occasionally benefitted from) this kind of stuff anyway.

I actually had no problem with the one I went to - but we were a pretty good team already. It was started by our fairly new director, and the only real benefit was that he actually saw the team in action in a way he could understand. BTW it was voluntary (and a few people who did not come were not punished or made to feel bad) and it was on work time.

Real team building comes when managers (and everyone else) calls people on anti-team activities, and takes steps to correct them. (Calls people on them in private, of course.) That’s just basic good management. I know it is easier for a lot of managers to hire a team building consultant than to take the effort to do this, but that is why there are so many bad managers out there.

Someone mentioned basic training as team building. True, and I also bet that anti-team activities don’t end there. I’ve never been in the military, but my father had reunions with his battalion for 50 years after WW II.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I used to be a “training administrator.” I checked my old company’s website out of curiosity, and discovered, that HR had been renamed “HR/People and Culture.” Gack! I’m glad I got out of there.

We did some cool games:

Cross the Acid River We had these planks that were in some arrangement on the ground. We had to put them together to get to the “other side” without falling into the Acid River.

Go through the ropes We had to get someone from one side of a “rope arrangement” to the other without touching the ropes that were in a zig-zaggy setup between two trees. It was a bunch of us guys, all 200+ pounders and one gal–5 feet and about 100 pounds. Guess who was the “passee.”

Crawl under the ropes Same sort of arrangement, but this was on the ground. Sorta like a limbo on your belly. We biggish boys had a time with that one.:smiley:

Stand on the “circle.” A “bonding” exercise involving some circular doohickey. We had room for only one foot, and we’d all hold each other as we perched precariously on it.

Make a square with a rope." We were blindfolded and given a 100-ft rope tied at the ends. We had to form a square with it.

There were probably some other things, too, but I don’t remember them. We also had to read a book afterwards: Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment

All in all, it was fun, but it produced no long-term benefits. One of the ideas presented was that voting on ideas (within a team) was bad. Voting creates winners and losers. That’s bad. Instead, you should have a consensus. That way no one feels superior (winners), and no one feels inferior (losers).