Dear Siddharth,
I beg to differ with you when you say that since dabbawallahs come from one region or community, they have this phenomenal success.
In India most of the businesses are family run business. In India there was caste system based on the activities that persons did. One caste did only the business. They have been doing business for thousands of years. Then why we do not have examples where their work could be measured on not only six but seven sigmas? With thousands of years of experience, India is supposed to have the largest number of MNCs in the world but the facts are otherwise. Please remember, sooner the death of Ambani Sr, his two sons started fighting and the fights are going on for natural gas ownership for the last couple of years.
Just look around and you will find that Marwaris prefer to employ Marwaris, Gujratis prefer Gujratis, Muslims prefer Muslims and so on. Why none of them could replicate the example of Mumbai Dabbawalah?
I had quoted my example of Mumbai dabbawalas only to prove the point that where there is sincerity and devotion, you do not need training on teamwork or games in the training.
Another example like dabbawalas let me give you of Indian Army personnel. Ask the average group of jawans and the group members will not be able to tell anything on teamwork. They won't be able to explain it. Give them some work and they will start working in a team automatically. Teamwork is in the DNA of army personnel. I am ex-Air Force person. Let me put humbly that air force personnel show lesser teamwork compared with Army personnel. I say this with my 20 years of service in the Air Force. Let me reiterate that no army personnel is ever trained on teamwork.
My last 10 years of experience in training shows that in most of the companies, participants show that they are doing a great favour by attending the training programme. By making participants play games, we just cajole the participants.
After my posts, there were several posts but nobody answered one simple question. If games add value in team building training programmes then why these do not add value in ROI or business performance? Why no training organisation or training professional worth his/her salt coming forward and showing ROI on the training is higher if we include games in the training on team building?
The worst thing I found is outbound games. Many trainers privately admitted to me that it is nothing but just time-pass. They do it because "clients want it". Few inventive trainers have gone a step further and make the participants to walk on fire!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
+91-9900155394
From India, Bangalore
7855I beg to differ with you when you say that since dabbawallahs come from one region or community, they have this phenomenal success.
In India most of the businesses are family run business. In India there was caste system based on the activities that persons did. One caste did only the business. They have been doing business for thousands of years. Then why we do not have examples where their work could be measured on not only six but seven sigmas? With thousands of years of experience, India is supposed to have the largest number of MNCs in the world but the facts are otherwise. Please remember, sooner the death of Ambani Sr, his two sons started fighting and the fights are going on for natural gas ownership for the last couple of years.
Just look around and you will find that Marwaris prefer to employ Marwaris, Gujratis prefer Gujratis, Muslims prefer Muslims and so on. Why none of them could replicate the example of Mumbai Dabbawalah?
I had quoted my example of Mumbai dabbawalas only to prove the point that where there is sincerity and devotion, you do not need training on teamwork or games in the training.
Another example like dabbawalas let me give you of Indian Army personnel. Ask the average group of jawans and the group members will not be able to tell anything on teamwork. They won't be able to explain it. Give them some work and they will start working in a team automatically. Teamwork is in the DNA of army personnel. I am ex-Air Force person. Let me put humbly that air force personnel show lesser teamwork compared with Army personnel. I say this with my 20 years of service in the Air Force. Let me reiterate that no army personnel is ever trained on teamwork.
My last 10 years of experience in training shows that in most of the companies, participants show that they are doing a great favour by attending the training programme. By making participants play games, we just cajole the participants.
After my posts, there were several posts but nobody answered one simple question. If games add value in team building training programmes then why these do not add value in ROI or business performance? Why no training organisation or training professional worth his/her salt coming forward and showing ROI on the training is higher if we include games in the training on team building?
The worst thing I found is outbound games. Many trainers privately admitted to me that it is nothing but just time-pass. They do it because "clients want it". Few inventive trainers have gone a step further and make the participants to walk on fire!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
+91-9900155394
From India, Bangalore
Dear Siddharth,
Many a times we have been asked to assess the effectiveness of the training programme conducted especially when the budget raises eyebrows while sanction is being accorded for such programmes.
When we talk about team building, in my opinion the success of team ultimately depends on the person who leads the team and to honestly tell you an outbound training programme such as trekking, group drumming etc does not bring about any drastic change. It is just the attitude. It is great fun when all these games are organised but when they return back we do not find much difference.
In many companies we find Quality circles function wherein a team of members discuss and analyse various problems faced by the organisation and arrive at solutions. No games are conducted for them to work as teams but they are given classroom training to analyse the problem using the QC story approach. The team members then toil and make presentations that wins them laurels.
In my opinion strong teams are built wherein the members make personal sacrifices for the success of the team, the attitude of the members more importantly the leader. He can't merely delegate but has to take ownership.
I wish to reiterate, games are for fun and does not have any real value addition to the actual training. Of course I am not against ice breakers during a training programme but it can form a small percent of the training programme.
M.V.KANNAN
From India, Madras
Many a times we have been asked to assess the effectiveness of the training programme conducted especially when the budget raises eyebrows while sanction is being accorded for such programmes.
When we talk about team building, in my opinion the success of team ultimately depends on the person who leads the team and to honestly tell you an outbound training programme such as trekking, group drumming etc does not bring about any drastic change. It is just the attitude. It is great fun when all these games are organised but when they return back we do not find much difference.
In many companies we find Quality circles function wherein a team of members discuss and analyse various problems faced by the organisation and arrive at solutions. No games are conducted for them to work as teams but they are given classroom training to analyse the problem using the QC story approach. The team members then toil and make presentations that wins them laurels.
In my opinion strong teams are built wherein the members make personal sacrifices for the success of the team, the attitude of the members more importantly the leader. He can't merely delegate but has to take ownership.
I wish to reiterate, games are for fun and does not have any real value addition to the actual training. Of course I am not against ice breakers during a training programme but it can form a small percent of the training programme.
M.V.KANNAN
From India, Madras
Hi Guys,
Was following this interesting discussion - and I really think there is a clear middle path available to the diverging opinions that this post has attracted. Let me share my two bits.
As a Facilitator having conducted hundreds of such team workshops involving play (i use the word play instead of games - since "games" sometimes has negative connotations in corporates. We dont like people who play "games", do we?), I think there is a truth when some people ask - "Why did we do this?", "How will we become a better team, just because we had these few games?". Outbound activities while exciting and fun - by themselves do not make a team come closer.
At the same time, the concept of using these fun activities in team outings to pull teams together is a time tested one. So, where is the discrepancy?
The discrepancy becomes clear when you get an understanding of Kolbs experiential learning cycle. As adults, the best way to learn is by doing. This is something everybody agrees with. However, if the cycle where to stop there - there is no learning that comes through. In team building events, after an activity is done, it is critical - rather imperative for the facilitator to get the team talking about the experience. The idea is to extract a few individual and personal "truths" from the experience. The next step is to extend the discussion to whether the same truths apply in the workplace. Done right, very often this can bring in a paradigm shift in thinking. The final step is to challenge the team with, "Now what?"... i.e now that we know this happens at work, how will we act differently? When this whole process is handled sensitively, encouraging participants to open up - this can be a very powerful experience.
To put things in perspective, its important for team leaders and HR professionals to recognise that team building is always a long term process. Its never achieved from one break through session, however good it be. However, when the session is done right it can be a very powerful catalyst in getting the team thinking about how it can be a better team indeed - and start moving in that direction. Whether it does achieve the goal depends on the leadership shown and the commitment of individual members.
Do let me know what you think.
From India, New Delhi
Was following this interesting discussion - and I really think there is a clear middle path available to the diverging opinions that this post has attracted. Let me share my two bits.
As a Facilitator having conducted hundreds of such team workshops involving play (i use the word play instead of games - since "games" sometimes has negative connotations in corporates. We dont like people who play "games", do we?), I think there is a truth when some people ask - "Why did we do this?", "How will we become a better team, just because we had these few games?". Outbound activities while exciting and fun - by themselves do not make a team come closer.
At the same time, the concept of using these fun activities in team outings to pull teams together is a time tested one. So, where is the discrepancy?
The discrepancy becomes clear when you get an understanding of Kolbs experiential learning cycle. As adults, the best way to learn is by doing. This is something everybody agrees with. However, if the cycle where to stop there - there is no learning that comes through. In team building events, after an activity is done, it is critical - rather imperative for the facilitator to get the team talking about the experience. The idea is to extract a few individual and personal "truths" from the experience. The next step is to extend the discussion to whether the same truths apply in the workplace. Done right, very often this can bring in a paradigm shift in thinking. The final step is to challenge the team with, "Now what?"... i.e now that we know this happens at work, how will we act differently? When this whole process is handled sensitively, encouraging participants to open up - this can be a very powerful experience.
To put things in perspective, its important for team leaders and HR professionals to recognise that team building is always a long term process. Its never achieved from one break through session, however good it be. However, when the session is done right it can be a very powerful catalyst in getting the team thinking about how it can be a better team indeed - and start moving in that direction. Whether it does achieve the goal depends on the leadership shown and the commitment of individual members.
Do let me know what you think.
From India, New Delhi
Team-building activities and games are supposed to be not only educational but also enjoyable. They help the team learn about each other — how each person thinks, works, solves problems, and has fun.
Hi Dinesh and others,
This is an interesting array of views.
We clarify the following:
1. Management games are not same as the games children play.
2. Games are not always for children.
That said, what is usually meant by a management game is an bunch of activities which generate some "here and now" data which can be seen, felt, and understood by everyone present and involved in the game.
Generating this here-and-now data is critical, because it brings a concrete evidence of how people choose the behaviors they do and what are the consequences.
In case of team-building, the crux is for the people to let go of their parochial interests and work for superordinate interests. Team-building activities are designed to bring it before the group (1) who are cooperating and who are not (2) What barriers against cooperating as perceived by people (3) what actions and approach unite people and harness their energies (4) who emerges as leader(s) and lot more.
These are complex behavioral issues and cannot be addressed realistically through lectures or videos.
For more, do let me know if there are questions.
Hope this helps!
Best wishes,
Team HRM For Non-HR Managers
Email:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hrfornonhr.gu.1/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hrm4nonhrmanagers/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Cec22M
From India
This is an interesting array of views.
We clarify the following:
1. Management games are not same as the games children play.
2. Games are not always for children.
That said, what is usually meant by a management game is an bunch of activities which generate some "here and now" data which can be seen, felt, and understood by everyone present and involved in the game.
Generating this here-and-now data is critical, because it brings a concrete evidence of how people choose the behaviors they do and what are the consequences.
In case of team-building, the crux is for the people to let go of their parochial interests and work for superordinate interests. Team-building activities are designed to bring it before the group (1) who are cooperating and who are not (2) What barriers against cooperating as perceived by people (3) what actions and approach unite people and harness their energies (4) who emerges as leader(s) and lot more.
These are complex behavioral issues and cannot be addressed realistically through lectures or videos.
For more, do let me know if there are questions.
Hope this helps!
Best wishes,
Team HRM For Non-HR Managers
Email:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hrfornonhr.gu.1/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hrm4nonhrmanagers/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Cec22M
From India
If you were to do a survey, you would find that most people absolutely loathe and detest playing games in training courses and company get-togethers. They achieve nothing, and I can say that with absolute confidence after more than 50 years in the workforce.
It's just a Band-Aid solution for a much deeper problem - a problem that starts with management and exacerbated by a poor recruitment and selection process.
If you are having team work problems then start by looking at management. Do they see themselves as part of a team, or do they just sit in their offices and issue commands? Do they actively participate in the running of the company with ALL the staff, or do they remain aloof and untouchable?
Secondly, look at the people in the roles of supervisors/managers. Micro-management kills teams just as easily as laissez faire management.
Thirdly, look at the people at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. the people who actually do the work. You will find that in a team there are many personalities, people who like direction, those who hate direction, people like to work alone and at their own pace, people who are confident, people who are not confident, bullies, victims, lazy sods who find every excuse not to pick a pen and start working, people who will work every hour God gives them, etc, etc. I am sure you get the picture as you will have met all these types in your working life.
It is said that we need a diverse range of people working together to make things work. Maybe, in some industries that will work, but not everywhere. Why is it that when we have a special project, we tend to "hand-pick" people for that team, i.e. people we know have the skills and temperament to work together and bring the project to fruition. Doesn't always work of course, but you get the gist of it.
And that brings me back to recruitment and selection. You are never going to get team work if you don't employ team players right off the bat. You need a very rigorous process to ensure you get the right people first time. That takes skill, and certainly not something I see here after many years of being a member of CiteHR and reading about the endless woes you all have with recruitment.
Many years ago, people used to tell me that when they read resumes, people who played soccer, or cricket etc were placed at the top of the pile, as it was assumed that they were used to taking direction from a coach and all working to together to win the game. I never set much store by that theory. We all know of sports stars who like to think they are a one man band and the team revolves around them.
Team work starts at the top. If the CEO and his/her management team do not model the behaviour, then forget about stupid team games. It is never going to work in a million years. Then go back to the drawing board and fix your recruitment and selection process.
This is, of necessity, short and does not include all my thoughts on this subject. If I had a mind to, I could probably write a book about it as it is a subject I have felt strongly about for a long time.
My advice, STOP looking at trendy fads to solve your problems, and start implementing real world solutions.
From Australia, Melbourne
It's just a Band-Aid solution for a much deeper problem - a problem that starts with management and exacerbated by a poor recruitment and selection process.
If you are having team work problems then start by looking at management. Do they see themselves as part of a team, or do they just sit in their offices and issue commands? Do they actively participate in the running of the company with ALL the staff, or do they remain aloof and untouchable?
Secondly, look at the people in the roles of supervisors/managers. Micro-management kills teams just as easily as laissez faire management.
Thirdly, look at the people at the bottom of the food chain, i.e. the people who actually do the work. You will find that in a team there are many personalities, people who like direction, those who hate direction, people like to work alone and at their own pace, people who are confident, people who are not confident, bullies, victims, lazy sods who find every excuse not to pick a pen and start working, people who will work every hour God gives them, etc, etc. I am sure you get the picture as you will have met all these types in your working life.
It is said that we need a diverse range of people working together to make things work. Maybe, in some industries that will work, but not everywhere. Why is it that when we have a special project, we tend to "hand-pick" people for that team, i.e. people we know have the skills and temperament to work together and bring the project to fruition. Doesn't always work of course, but you get the gist of it.
And that brings me back to recruitment and selection. You are never going to get team work if you don't employ team players right off the bat. You need a very rigorous process to ensure you get the right people first time. That takes skill, and certainly not something I see here after many years of being a member of CiteHR and reading about the endless woes you all have with recruitment.
Many years ago, people used to tell me that when they read resumes, people who played soccer, or cricket etc were placed at the top of the pile, as it was assumed that they were used to taking direction from a coach and all working to together to win the game. I never set much store by that theory. We all know of sports stars who like to think they are a one man band and the team revolves around them.
Team work starts at the top. If the CEO and his/her management team do not model the behaviour, then forget about stupid team games. It is never going to work in a million years. Then go back to the drawing board and fix your recruitment and selection process.
This is, of necessity, short and does not include all my thoughts on this subject. If I had a mind to, I could probably write a book about it as it is a subject I have felt strongly about for a long time.
My advice, STOP looking at trendy fads to solve your problems, and start implementing real world solutions.
From Australia, Melbourne
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
A Game on Team Building.doc
Team Building - Games.ppt
What is NOT Team building.pdf