Build a Tower, Build a Team
Tom Wujec’s (2010) discussion of the marshmallow
challenge was interesting. The challenge
can be given to individuals from every echelon in any industry. Briefly, groups of four are given a yard of
tape, a yard of string, twenty sticks of dry spaghetti, and one
marshmallow. The groups have eighteen
minutes to build the tallest structure they can with the materials
provided. The marshmallow must be on top
of the structure they build. Many of the
groups build impressive structures only to have them collapse under the weight
of the marshmallow when they place it on top of the structure as required. The challenge humbled several groups of
intelligent people, produced a couple of surprises, and offered a few important
lessons as takeaways.
As it turned out, recent MBA graduates were among the
worst performers. One of the surprises
was that a group of kindergartners were among the best performers. They scored above average and better than most
of the adults. Wujec (2010) provided a
couple of possible explanations. He described
how adults typically spend their allotted eighteen minutes. They use seven minutes to orient themselves
to the challenge and plan the build. During
this time, they discuss the task, try to figure out what the structure will
look like, and jockey for power. Then they
plan, organize, draw, and lay out the materials for the build. Groups then spend the next ten minutes building
the structure, leaving just enough time to carefully place the marshmallow on
top. Often, the weight of the
marshmallow is too much, the structure collapses, and there is no time for
rework.
Wujec (2010) offered that children do not spend the
time upfront jockeying for power. They
spend that time solving the problem. Another
explanation Wujec (2010) provided is that unlike MBA graduates who learned to
find the single best solution and then execute on it, children begin
collaboration right away and use the rule of always keeping the marshmallow on
top to guide them. So, they know
immediately if the structure will hold the marshmallow which gives them several
attempts to try again. In other words,
the children used an iterative process of prototyping and refining their design
until they got it right (Wujec, 2010). I
agree that Wujec’s explanations for the children’s success are reasonable;
however, they may not be complete.
Children see the marshmallow challenge differently
than adults. For the adults, the
challenge is a competition, there is pressure to succeed, and they do not want
to look bad in front of everyone else. For
the children, it is a game, it is play, it is fun, and the more the
merrier. It is a game with rules. According to Duester (2015), without any
adult involvement, children in this type of scenario will naturally cooperate, communicate,
work together, share ideas, efficiently use the work space, and collaborate as
a team toward a shared goal. And, when
they complete their work, they will share pride in their accomplishment. They work efficiently and effectively and
never lose sight of their goal. It is
simply a fun learning experience for the children whereas, it is a proving
exercise for the adults.
It was not a surprise to learn that CEOs performed
better than the average for adults.
However, I was surprised to learn that they performed significantly
better when an executive assistant was added to their team. Wujec (2010) asserted that executive
assistants have specialized skills of facilitation that allows them to
understand and manage the process. He
goes on to say that “any team who manages and pays close attention to work will
significantly improve the team’s performance.
Specialized skill and facilitation skills are the combination that leads
to strong success” (time 4:10). While
Wujec’s explanation sounds good, I am not sure I completely buy it.
Human nature is far too dynamic for me to say with any
degree of certainty, but I would speculate that human behavior offers a more
realistic reason for the CEOs spike in performance. When the CEOs worked alone, they were among
peers and therefore, they were probably comfortable and relaxed. When the executive assistant, who normally
works for a CEO, joined the team, it changed the dynamic. The CEOs would put their guards back up and be
more focused on the task simply because they are being observed. In a way, this is like the Hawthorne
Effect that Brown (2011) discussed in chapter five.
“The very act of investigating and observing may influence the behavior
of those being investigated” (p. 127). Brown
(2011) applies this specifically to data collection and analysis, but the
concept is the same. In this case, the
CEOs would not want to look bad in front of a subordinate. They would focus more on the task and their
performance would improve. I find this
explanation easier to believe than every executive assistant having the same
specialized skills and facilitation skills.
Brown (2011) explained that process interventions “differ
in many ways, but they never involve the work-group’s task. Process interventions are all about how the group is going about accomplishing
its task” (p. 203). Wujec’s (2010)
presentation was aimed at design and designers.
But, he followed Brown’s rule. In
doing so, the lessons buried in the presentation can and should be used by the
OD practitioner conducting a process intervention in any industry.
If I were performing a process intervention, there are
several lessons from Wujec’s (2010) presentation that I would share with the client’s
work groups. By doing so, the groups may
come to understand their process and learn to solve their own problems (Brown,
2011). I would begin with the problem
solving and decision-making area of the group.
Problem solving and decision making is pivotal to the group’s overall success. It may indicate the beginning of a new project
or resolve an issue in an ongoing project.
Either way the group must excel in this area or none of the other areas
will matter. The group should have a
process by which they can produce effective solutions and make good decisions
(Brown, 2011). Whatever process the
group chooses to utilize, keeping the desired end state at the forefront will make
it better.
When the group identifies a
problem, they must determine the current end state and a desired end state. Any potential solution or decision considered
as an alternative must address the desired end state. While it sounds like common sense, it is not
uncommon for groups to assume a solution will produce the desired results or
lose track of the desired state completely.
If it goes too far, the solution can be far worse than the original problem. Minimally, it will cause the group to
backtrack or create confusion. Either
way the efficiency and effectiveness of the process will be reduced and overall
success jeopardized. Additionally, the
marshmallow challenge illustrated how keeping the desired end state at the
forefront of thinking can lead to the best action. When the kindergartners were told that the
marshmallow must be on top of the structure, they saw that as a rule. And they followed it. The marshmallow went first and they built
their structure under it. If the
structure failed to support the weight of the marshmallow, they started over
with the marshmallow on top. When the
adults were told the marshmallow must go on top of the structure, it was just another
condition of the challenge. The children
treated it as the desired end state (although they did not know it), built their
process to achieve that end state, and ultimately were successful. Conversely, the adults based their process on
building the tallest structure and having a marshmallow on top was just a step
in the process. Unfortunately, for many
groups, it was the final step. When their
attempt to place the marshmallow and achieve the desired end state caused a
failure, they were left without time to make corrections. When solving a problem or making a decision,
it is best to develop that solution or decision around the desired end state.
In the communications area, I would share how a group
of kindergartners were able to outperform a group of recent MBA graduates using
collaboration early in the process instead of trying to figure out who should
be the boss.
When talking to the group about member roles and
functions, I would stress the importance of fully understanding the work necessary
to achieve the desired result and the criticality of having the skills to
manage the process and make the proper adjustments when the two get out of
alignment. In the challenge, the impact on
performance was clearly illustrated after the executive assistant was added to
the CEO team.
Finally, I would share the following lesson in a
discussion within the group norms and growth area. Committing to a continuous program of
learning and self-improvement focused on the group’s realm of responsibility
will increase the group’s breadth and depth of expertise. This knowledge will reduce the amount of
guesswork and research required when discussing the new projects that come into
the group. The marshmallow challenge demonstrated
that when the stakes are high and the group must get it right, acting from an underinformed
position has a devastating effect on success.
On the other hand, acting from an informed position increases the
success rate to well above the average.
The OD practitioner’s job in a process intervention is
to help the work group understand how it functions and how its members interact
with each other (Brown, 2011). In turn,
the work group uses all the information provided to develop the capability to
solve their own problems.
This exercise showed me how fine that line can be. While I understand that homegrown processes,
are more likely to be followed and meet the needs of the organization,
following this guidance to the letter would be difficult for me. My tendency would be to lead the group to a
good solution and let them choose it or not.
Hinting around at the weaknesses in their processes and hoping they make
the changes needed to correct those weaknesses would drive me nuts. If they do not take the hints and proceed
with the same broken processes, have I done my job? Did the client get a fair return on its
investment? Did I meet the client’s
expectations?
~Pete
References
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Duester, M. (Producer) (2015, July 28). The play doctors:
Giant sensory jigsaw [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWV13pekng
Wujec, T. (2010, February). Tom Wujec: Build a tower,
build a team [Video file]. TED2010. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower#t-388125
No comments:
Post a Comment