Knowing Me,Knowing You: Self-Reflection and Understanding Diversity for Effective Teamwork—A LEGO® Building Activity

Abstract

Effective teamwork is a crucial transferrable skill for students’ learning experience during their studies and future careers. Understanding the making of effective teams, how teams differ from mere groups of individuals, and the potential value and challenges of diversity for team performance is essential for students as current and future team members, leaders, and creators. The LEGO® building activity at the heart of this exercise presents an interactive and engaging way to provide crucial insights and reflection opportunities concerning diversity and teamwork. This activity introduces participants to the value and challenges diversity can raise for teamwork. In addition, it encourages participants to recognize the importance of effective communication, having a common purpose and collective accountability, transparency and information sharing, and psychological safety and trust. The exercise was developed for international postgraduate business and management students in a face-to-face classroom setting. An alternative online activity is also presented.

Team diversity in the form of members’ different work styles and practices, perspectives, values, interests, and cognition, whether stemming from their different education and experience profiles, genders, ethnicities, or other characteristics and traits, is critical for team performance. While diversity is significant for ethical, legal, and moral reasons, research and practice also testify to its importance. On one hand, it can enhance team performance outcomes, including enhanced capacity for innovation and creativity (e.g., Lyon & Ferrier, 2002; Mannix & Neale, 2005), while it can also adversely affect team performance. This double-edged sword of diversity (Carter & Phillips, 2017) elevates the importance of the “enabling conditions” or “mediators” that transform diverse groups of individuals into effective, high-performing teams. The presented exercise represents an interactive heuristic approach to understanding the importance of such elements in successful teams and considering possible actions organizations and individuals themselves take to support them.

The exercise requires some pretask arrangements and logistics for the instructor (Appendix A) and students undertaking prework in the form of a self-assessment questionnaire (Appendix B) before engaging in a LEGO® building activity (Appendix C). In the two rounds of the activity, participants work in small groups (five or six participants) to experience and understand the benefits of all members having a common purpose and collective accountability, effective communication, clear information sharing and transparency, and psychological safety and trust. Participants compare and discuss their experiences from the activity and self-assessment questionnaire results as part of discussions exploring diversity in this context.

The exercise can be applied across many disciplines and is suitable for different educational and professional development levels. A single instructor can run the exercise with 5 to 60 participants. The whole exercise runs in a single 45-minute block. We have regularly run the exercise with up to 10 groups in a class (60 students in total). While the nature of the learning experience involving the LEGO® building activity prevents online delivery, an online variation is available (Appendix D). The session concludes with a debrief (Appendix E), and suggested student readings and additional resources are available (Appendix F).

Theoretical Foundations—Diversity and Team Performance

For our purposes, team diversity relates to the possible objective and subjective characteristics members hold that can lead them to perceive other members as “different.” Evidence for the relationship between diversity and team performance has been inconclusive (Martins et al., 2013; van Dijk et al., 2012), at times due to differences in the performance measures used and how diversity is specified (e.g., Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). On one hand, there is evidence of the adverse effects of diversity on team performance. Yet, simultaneously, a positive relationship is identified, which has witnessed the emergence of two distinct lines of thought and inquiry (Urionabarrenetxea et al., 2021).

The first, a social categorisation/similarity attraction approach, mentions the adverse effects of diversity on team performance outcomes through, for instance, the misunderstandings, interaction difficulties between members, and uncertainty it can create. As a result, group homogeneity and similarity, not diversity, are suggested to enhance performance (Carter & Phillips, 2017). In contrast, an information/decision-making approach advocates for diversity’s opportunities for developing new ideas and approaches. Such pooling of complementary abilities, ideas, knowledge, skills, perspectives, and values (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), this approach advocates, leads to enhanced team performance through the presentation of new options and improvements in the quality of decision-making (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007).

In reconciling these different approaches, Urionabarrenetxea et al. (2021) consider the conflict generated by diversity to constitute two dimensions, each working in different directions. They consider “task conflict” to encompass judgemental differences among members concerning how best to fulfill their common purpose and objective(s). In contrast, what Urionabarrenetxea et al. label “relationship conflict” concerns personal disputes between team members. They also identify a need for contextualisation, whereby the effect of diversity on conflict, and therefore the impact of conflict on team performance, varies under different conditions, including the presence of effective leadership, experience, and group cohesion (Urionabarrenetxea et al., 2021; see also, O’Neill & MxLamon, 2018; van Veelen & Ufkes, 2019). Consequently, it is not diversity in itself that (automatically) leads to enhanced (or reduced) team performance outcomes. Instead, the critical factor is how diversity is managed in terms of team creation, leadership, and support.

Such interest draws attention toward the necessary “enabling conditions” and “mediators” transforming groups of otherwise unconnected individuals into effective, high-performing teams based on developing common purpose and direction, collective accountability, clear communication, transparency and information sharing, and psychological safety and trust (Anantatmula, 2016; Delizonna, 2017; Dhawan, 2021; Emmerling & Rooders, 2020; Katzenbach & Smith, 2005; Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). Scholarship and practice consider these conditions to be developed intentionally through individual, group, or organizational actions and processes and through experience and time together (i.e., “emergent states”).

Learning Objectives

After completing the exercise, participants will be able to:

• Experience the importance of a common purpose, accountability, clear communication, information sharing, and transparency for effective teamwork.

• Understand the value and challenges diversity can present for developing effective, high-performing teams.

• Identify possible actions for developing effective teamwork.

Instructions for Running the Exercise

Overview

Small group work is at the heart of this exercise, at the center of which is a face-to-face LEGO® building activity, varieties of which have been used extensively in various educational and professional development settings. Instructors often use such activities to develop abilities, competencies, and understanding regarding teamwork, team communication, creativity, problem-solving, and leadership (Martin-Cruz et al., 2022). The popularity of this approach stems from the engagement and learning benefits of real-time face-to-face teamwork using physical resources over other asynchronous and digital formats (Heracleous & Jacobs, 2008; Hinthorne & Schneider, 2012; Roos & Victor, 2018; Wengel, 2020).

Logistics

Groups use a predetermined number and combination of colored bricks. In addition, each group member possesses a unique (within their group) assignment requiring a particular construction specification or procedure. These “Individual Assignments” include, for example, ensuring that each row of the tower contains a minimum number of bricks, or a specific color brick must be the first laid in a particular row.

Regarding preparation, the instructor creates a separate kit for each group containing the building materials and printouts of the team instructions and Individual Assignments (see Appendix A).

As prework, each participant evaluates and categorizes their approach to work and working style using a Leadership Compass self-assessment questionnaire (Be The Change Consulting, 2010; Appendix B). In our experience, not only does this questionnaire provide an accessible four-category tool for groups to explore and map diversity/similarity of approaches to work between members before considering the task conflict(s) such diversity/similarity may present but without such an instrument, such explorations can lack focus, structure, and descend into discussions of largely superficial differences.

Step-by-Step Instructions

The LEGO® building activity has two rounds.

Round 1: Group members build their tower together but cannot communicate or show their Individual Assignments to other group members.

Round 2: Groups start the tower-building activity again. However, in addition to being able to communicate with each other during the building process, in this round, group members must first share their respective Individual Assignments and conflicts they experienced in the first round and together formulate a plan before they restart building.

The two-round approach is crucial for the experiential journey participants undertake. It enables participants to experience the different challenges and opportunities in each round for completing the activity, notably, the benefits presented by communication, transparency, and information-sharing in creating a plan in Round 2 to achieve the collective tower-building objective while simultaneously accounting for every member’s Individual Assignment. Participants experience firsthand that such accountability is vital for fulfilling their Individual Assignments due to the obstacles and disruptions these can present for each other and for fulfilling the collective tower objective. Indeed, the collective tower objective is only complete when all Individual Assignments are fulfilled.

Following these two rounds, groups discuss the extent of their group’s diversity (or similarity) based on the four categories identified in the prework questionnaire. In addition, manual (i.e., hand or card raising) or electronic polling can demonstrate the extent of diversity across the class. In our experience, the extent of diversity identified through the questionnaire can vary significantly between groups, with some reporting similarity between members and others reporting notable diversity. Next, participants consider possible explanations for the identified diversity (or similarity) within their groups, for example, possible similarities/differences in educational background, work experience, personality traits, gender, country and cultural background, and so on.

Through the initial discussion, participants recognize different task-related diversity concerns within their groups, reflecting different approaches to learning and work, perspectives, values, interests, and cognition within the group. We then ask groups to consider the Individual Assignments within the LEGO® building activity as a proxy for task-related diversity dimensions and to consider the potential (task) conflicts they could present for completing such a collective activity. In this respect, rather than specifying different design or building specifications, participants are asked to imagine that Individual Assignments reflected team members’ different approaches to work and working styles identified by the prework questionnaire or perhaps different individual interests and objectives, communication and leadership styles and preferences, or simply differing views, judgments, and ideas on the best way to complete such the activity, and to consider how these might impact team performance in completing the collective task. Participants then discuss how the group could accommodate and harness such diversity to secure desired performance outcomes while mitigating potential adverse effects. Finally, the exercise asks participants to articulate logical explanations for any measures they advocate.

Variations

An alternative activity is available for online delivery based on a sudoku puzzle (see Appendix D).

Instructions for Debriefing the Exercise

The debriefing provides an opportunity for participants to deepen their understanding of different dimensions of diversity in teams, the potential positive and adverse effects it can have on team performance, and the actions available to members, leaders, and creators of teams to harness the benefits of diversity (Appendix E). We start the debriefing by asking participants about their experiences of the LEGO® building activity and the lessons it provides for effective teamwork. In terms of their experiences, participants’ responses often focus on the challenges they experienced of not knowing what other group members were trying to achieve in Round 1 and the benefits in Round 2 of transparency and effective communication between team members and in (co-)creating a plan to complete the collective activity which accounted for all Individual Assignments. Following this initial discussion, we ask participants to consider what insights the activity presents concerning team conflict(s) and diversity, notably task conflicts through group members’ similar/different approaches to work as identified in the prework questionnaire. Essential elements here include differentiating between task and relationship conflicts. In this respect, we ask participants what they understand such conflicts to entail before asking them how these might connect with diversity and team performance. An important issue we look to cover here is the double-edged sword of diversity for team performance outcomes.

When we are satisfied, we then ask students to identify possible actions available to team members, leaders, and creators as they seek to harness diversity’s benefits while at the same time mitigating the potential challenges it can present. Examples often raised by students include the use of team charters as well as effective team onboarding and induction sessions, particularly for new members. Indeed, in the past, many students have considered the value of psychological safety and trust that can be engendered over time and experience spent together (i.e., emergent states), identifying the importance of continuity in team membership and out-of-work social engagement and relations. If not forthcoming from students, we raise these items as a further aspect for students to consider.

Conclusion

This exercise sensitizes participants to the opportunities and challenges diversity presents for effective, high-performing teams, simulating their understanding of different possible dimensions of diversity in the workplace and how an organization might embrace it effectively. In addition, this exercise encourages participants to recognize the value of enabling conditions for building high-performing successful teams.