Once upon a time, I was a member of a team that held regular meetings every week. The structure of our meetings remained the same for years. Occasionally, we discussed what we could do differently to make the meetings more beneficial to everyone. In the end, however, we always came up with good reasons for keeping things as they were — and so it went on (and on…) without any changes. (Sigh.)
This was a lose-lose situation. As team members, we were frustrated because our weekly meeting didn't feel like time well spent. Our boss was also frustrated because we weren't taking the meeting as seriously as he would have wished.
It would have helped if, at the time, I had known about the following exercise. I would have been able to convince my colleagues and my boss to try out a few new ideas — and that continuous improvement is not just something for manufacturers and "agile-work nerds"; it's actually really helpful for any team.
Here's how it works
Have your team members form a circle, leaving enough space to be able to run around the outside of the circle. You'll understand why in a minute.
Before you start the exercise, there are two important goals to remember:
- Always keep the process running — no matter what.
- Be as fast as possible.
Next, introduce the game. I like to call it "The Agile Seven".
Standing in the circle, the group should count out loud (from one to seven). Each person says one number, one after the other, around the circle. While saying their number, each person also taps themselves with one hand on their opposite shoulder. The person standing next to that shoulder goes next. In doing this, each person can change the direction of the counting at any time (as long as it's their turn). So far, that's pretty easy, isn't it?
After having introduced the two goals and practised a bit, introduce a rule: "Anyone who makes a mistake must run once around the circle."
Next, introduce a role (without calling it that): "I'm the team lead and, when in doubt, I decide if something was a mistake or not."
Continue practising for a while, until people make the first mistakes and start running around the circle and/or complaining. Encourage the group to be aware of anything that's not clear or any questions that come up — they'll have the chance to talk about them later.
Things get a little harder
Now, introduce some complications, which will increase the probability of mistakes, but also force everyone to focus more:
- On "three", don't touch your shoulder but hold up three fingers to the person next to you.
- On "seven", remain silent and point one arm (at chest height) to one side or the other, either continuing or changing the direction. (If this sounds too complicated, you can always try another move that involves pointing.)
As the game continues, this would be a good time to ask the team about the two goals discussed at the beginning. It never ceases to amaze me how many people forget these simple goals because they're so involved in getting the movements right. (Are they doing this in their work, too?) If necessary, remind the players of the goals and the rules.
Game analysis
Pause the game and write down any questions that people have or things that weren't clear. Look for moments of hesitation, for example when people don't know where to restart after a mistake has been made. Were the mistakes clear to everyone? Did the group decide collectively that a mistake had been made, or was that only the team leader's job?
Some groups tend to discuss the game from a meta perspective and ask questions like "Why are we doing this?" or "When will the exercise be over?" You might want to write these questions down, too, and come back to them after the game. Or maybe not.
The point is that the group learns to cope with uncertainty and sudden change. Above all, it's about improving processes and cooperation.
Once you've collected five or six questions, go through them one after the other. As a team, find answers to these questions. For example, if the question is from what point to continue after a mistake, there are various options: restart on the number of the mistake or on the number before that, or go back to "one", or allow the next person in the circle to choose any number they want.
The person who raised the question in the first place should decide which solution to try out. They might ask the rest of the group for their opinion but they don't have to. If the discussion gets too intense or takes too long, interrupt and have the group play instead of talk. There's an important lesson in that: if you're not sure how to proceed and nobody has superior experience, don't spend too much time on theory. Go for practice instead and learn from the results.
Play again, implementing the solution that was decided upon. Then, ask the "question owner" whether to keep this change or not? If the answer is no, try another solution. (I can say from experience that restarting the game on "one" whenever someone has made a mistake generally runs quite smoothly.) Use the same procedure with every question.
To lead or not to lead?
When I play this game with a team, one general question comes up almost every time: do we actually need a team leader? The answer is different for each team. Some teams depend on their leader to make decisions in unclear situations. Other teams, however, quickly get rid of the leader, as they realize they can sort out themselves when to (re)start, what a mistake is and how to deal with situations that need clarifying. Obviously, such a decision requires a significant amount of trust within the team, as well as willingness to take responsibility for one's own actions and those of the team.
From the outside, this game might seem a little trivial, but it offers benefits to you as a leader:
- You get a quick impression of how mature your team really is in terms of trust and self-organization.
- You and your team learn intuitively how continuous improvement works and how it can help you to move forward. You also learn how to ask the right questions.
- The team learns to act rather than talk.
Allow your team members to experiment with how to play the game. If you want, let them change the rules you introduced and introduce their own, and see what happens.
Once, a group I was working with decided to get rid of all the complications. Furthermore, they decided to pass on the impulse in one direction only. At first, I was hesitant to let them do this — it isn't usually part of the game. But then, I became curious to see how it would play out.
As a result of the simplifications, the game went very fast without any interruptions or mistakes. But, after a minute or two, the group stopped playing. Why? They found it boring. It was too easy. And there's another lesson: if we get rid of the challenges and obstacles, and opt for the easy way, it might help in the short term, but in the long term, people become demotivated.
Now, when I work with teams, I often play this game with them. It offers great opportunities for growth and learning, and I quickly get an idea of how mature the team I'm dealing with is. Win-win.