Our Personal & Professional Development Range
Our Teamwork & Collaboration Range
Leadership & Management
Resources & Tools
Recorded Webinars
Voyage Mapping
This Webinar is a demonstration of the Voyage Mapping activity, originally designed for business planning.The four versions are described along with their applications, and both future planning, and project/learning review scenarios are included. SeeVoyage Mapping: Hardback Voyage Mapping: Standard Roll-UpVoyage Mapping: Large Roll-UpVoyage Mapping: Individual Coaching
Read moreT-Trade
This physical product-based webinar introduces T-Trade & Post-iT featuring RSVP Design's team negotiation challenge, originally designed in conjunction with IMD.In addition this product includes a second activity: Post-iT. It's a separate experiential learning activity which looks at the challenge of remote team communications.The webinar deals with the set up, expected learner outcomes and facilitation of both activities.
Read moreLearning Squared
This webinar introduces the two activities contained within the Learning Squared product.1.Broken Squares success is dependent upon relationships between team members, an awareness of what they need, & a willingness to offer resources without verbal communication.2. Hollow Square is a rapid introduction to the skills of planning & carrying out an 'instructional' process. It's an excellent opportunity to rehearse remote management and instruction skills.
Read morePerformance Cubed
This webinar introduces and explores the Performance Cubed activity - one of the most engaging collaborative learning activities in our collection. It provides an evolving challenge where teams & participants experience a process to achieve better results through collaborative working. The webinar offers hints and tips for facilitators and a review of how the activity typically plays out for participants.
Read more
Our Latest Insights
How to Solve Motivation Problems - Insert Trust into the Equation
Recently I’ve had some pretty low-energy conversations with people working in organisations. It could be the political climate, it could be the time of year, it could be the weather… I’m not going to try to interpret the detail of what’s behind these conversations, suffice to say there’s a lot of people around who seem to be experiencing a distinct lack of motivation. However, when we do get to talking about the ‘why’ of all this, the word I hear more often than I should is TRUST - there seems to be a definite lack of trust out there. Google Trends reckons this word is searched for some 4 to 5 times more than 'Motivation'. Trust - Motivation, what’s the connection? Let me give you my take on all of this. I’m going to start with something we know about motivation and use that to look at how trust becomes a player. There are many process theories about motivation, but the one I tend to reach for is Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation. It’s a relatively simple Motivation Equation, it’s only got three moving parts which makes it easy to collect evidence in a workplace setting when looking to answer questions about why people are / aren’t motivated in particular circumstances. I often apply it with clients who are wondering if a particular new initiative will work (will our people get behind this?), or, retrospectively helping clients to understand why a particular new initiative didn’t work (why didn’t our people get behind this?). Obviously the former of these is the most desirable, the latter is by far the most expensive. What Vroom says is focused on what individuals expect in the future. Specifically, that an individual’s motivation is affected by how much they value any reward associated with an action (Valence), how much they believe that by putting effort into something they will be able to generate good results (Expectancy) and how much they believe that generating good results will result in a reward (Instrumentality). Importantly the reward may be either intrinsic (like a sense of fulfilment or achievement) or extrinsic (money or promotion). This is usually expressed as the Motivation equation M = V * I * E So where does Trust come into this? Let me add this key word into how the equation is usually explained. Valence: is pretty straightforward. How much does the individual or group value the potential rewards? Hint: go and ask them! Expectancy: How much they TRUST do they place on the information that their additional effort will help them achieve the target results? Instrumentality: How much TRUST do they have that the rewards will actually appear should they achieve the target results? Put like this trust becomes somewhat pivotal in motivating people to do what leaders want them to do. At that point I usually see the lightbulbs going on - that in order to get people to do what they are told, they need to trust the leader who’s telling them to do it. Now we’ve got a different question to answer: How do we build trust in our leaders? I can easily answer that one in the negative - you don’t build trust in leaders by telling people that they are worthy of trust. It’s here that the term “walking the talk” is usually introduced by somebody, and that tells me that many clients get this in principle, but may be struggling with the practice of making it happen. My answer usually emphasises the need for shared experience - there is nothing quite like having stood shoulder to shoulder with a leader in a challenging situation to build trust in their ability to perform. The trouble is that challenging situations - where the consequences of failure could be drastic - are not places for experiments in leadership practice. This is where authentic and engaging experiential learning environments are worth their weight in gold. The consequences of failure are perhaps a little embarrassment and certainly a lot of learning, but crucially the increase in interpersonal knowledge is the stuff the trust is built upon. Very often in organisations there is an assumption that certain development experiences are for leaders, and other development experiences are for the people they lead. Think how many trust-building opportunities are lost by playing to the ego that exists at the top of the organisation - and how crucial that lack of trust could be when the leaders need the workforce to follow them. My prescription is to work in vertical slices and put the teams / groups into shared learning situations where they can experience one another performing. More complex tools like T-Trade and Minefield lend themselves perfectly to these learning outcomes, though it may well be advisable to use a preliminary exercise like Colourblind, Webmaster or Simbols to build some initial trust / familiarity.
Read moreMutual Understanding: The Skill That Turns Good Teams into Great Ones
The best performing teams demonstrate an almost unnatural awareness of what drives individual members and a fluid ability to shift support where it's needed.
Read moreThe Art of Representation: Preparing teams to speak and act for each other
There are situations in the life of every team when their work and views need to be represented by sending a team member to an external meeting. This may be a hierarchical situation where the team leader is required, or a matter of specialism where a subject matter expert needs to represent their colleagues. Either way it's imperative that the team trusts that their representative will effectively demonstrate the work and professionalism of the team. Equally it's important that the representative themself is given the message that the team trusts them in the role. The meeting may well happen away from the team, behind closed doors, so there can be no in-the-moment reinforcement of this trust relationship. It's something that is best developed in the safety of an experiential setting - but what's the best tool to address the issues of psychological safety involved? At the simpler, shorter end of a range of possible interventions is Team Fusion . Importantly this rotates the representative role around the team so everybody experiences relying on that representative, and also being the one who is being relied upon, several times during the activity. There is a strong emphasis on making good decisions on behalf of the team, communicating these decisions and resultant actions, and basing these decisions on the learning derived from preceding colleagues. It's a very easy activity to administer, and the transfer of learning from activity, to debrief, to workplace implementation is direct and impactful. This makes it a great starting place for a facilitator taking early steps in using experiential tools, or line managers introducing something useful and engaging to team meetings. At the other end of the range is T-trade which is one of the most powerful tools I know for looking at how different parts of an organisation need to operate in a co-ordinated manner when they are under severe operational pressure. In these situations each function needs to trust the others to make and communicate decisions that might have short-term negative impacts across the organisation e.g. if sales unexpectedly open up a new market it will require manufacturing to change what they are doing, or conversely, a shortage of components may need sales to rapidly shift their targets. In each of these cases the result may be uncomfortable, but positive outcomes will only be achieved if there is a bond of trust and common purpose across the functions. In both of these activities the underlying requirement is for every individual to be working towards relationship building - within and beyond team boundaries. Trust will only flourish in the psychological safety of good relationships, and this is not something that can be achieved through familiarity alone. It's far better to allow teams to explore and hopefully extend the limitations of their mutual trust, especially when they are relying on the quality of represention they receive from colleagues.
Read moreHow to develop and maintain trust in teams
Teamwork is built on a bedrock of mutual trust, and can only be truly effective when each and every team member works within the climate that this trust engenders. This may be a simple statement, but the diversity of human nature and personality often mitigates against the establishment of the necessary trust. Regularly introducing an effective intervention to establish and maintain trust is something I'd always advocate, no matter how long a team has been together. That regularity needs a selection of tools around which to build the intervention, here are two that would be in my toolkit. Counter Intelligence is an activity that sets up a complicated working environment, complicated rather than complex. There are a lot of regulations involved, and individuals are required to represent these requirements, despite many of them appearing pointless and irrelevant in achieving the goal. It's this dynamic that makes it very easy for the team, or individuals, to dismiss or ignore information they have been given, and this may ultimately result in a failure to complete the task. Success depends on each team member being vocal in steering team process whilst trusting that each colleague will do the same. Without discipline this may result in chaos, but with a strong element of mutual trust the team operates in a discernably businesslike way. Trust is a key teamwork value, and Counter Intelligence inevitably leads to discussions about the need for teams to operate within a framework of shared values. If I want to address how we can create open and respectful working environments that can be built on the platform of demonstrating trust in the contribution of others, I might choose to use Reversal as a significant experiential tool. It's important to me that team members recognise that trusting the contribution of others isn't a recipe for unquestioning acceptance, so I need them to have the tools they need for goal-directed evaluation and respectful challenge. Reversal is a great activity to develop and coach these skills. The kind of questions that arise every time I use Reversal are: "What do I do if my contribution seems to contradict what a colleague has offered?" "How do I handle the situation where my contribution seems to suggest a change in direction for the team?" "How do we achieve a team process that allows for individual differences? These are big questions, and I would suggest that they are far better explored and resolved within the safety of an experiential activity rather than jeopardising team performance in the workplace.
Read more

