Diverse Teams Game Analysis

Demonstration Game Results

This demonstration game consists of eight Players.  Four for the Established Team (Player A/Team One).  Four others for the New Team (Player B/Team Two).

The purpose is to provided interested parties with a high level Dashboard type presentation of a game that can be configured to meet the needs of organizational safety training programs.  This analysis supports the Dashboard data and is supported by detailed analytics.

The following tabs are composed of three components; the Variable (tab), brief Description and high-level Analysis.  Moreover, there are three categories aligned with the Dashboard:

  • Game Outcome–Key results
  • Team Attributes–Overview of aspects of each Team
  • Average of Player Attributes–Roll up of Player Personalities and Temperaments

Finally, all Players, Facilitators and Management have been provided details for each of these variables and analysis.  This includes a Glossary of all the terms used during the game.

ALL of the variables shown in this Dashboard are taken from Player input before, during and after the game.  Typically, Team scores are averages of individual Player input.  Moreover, as part of the game documentation and data input pages, Players are provided detail and appropriate definition of the terms used.

Game Outcome

Learning

While there is a lot of data that organizations can assess at the micro-level, a macro perspective may include:

  • While both Teams are participants and are in the same sector, there are significant differences.
  • These differences contribute to workplace  problems that reduce productively and directly impact the bottom line and shareholder value;
  • However, there are enough similarities that suggest that a complementary business model can emerge

As a result of this game, management has a powerful Change Management Tool.  Drilling down into the game variables reveals a number of opportunities for value creation.

Assessment

Description

This assessment provides Players and management with a view of the overall outcome of the game and may identify areas that should be addressed.  Specific recommendations to management are made including actionable items to increase the understanding between parties.

Additional information about variables is provided in the sections herein.

Analysis

The major ‘Take Away’s’ from this game include:

  • They Payoff after five iterations of discussion were less than the first session.  In all cases, the New Team appears to prevail over the Established Team
  • It is interesting to note that the Established Team is more Satisfied than the New Team, while the Trust is significantly higher by the New Team
  • The Post Game perspective data is widely divergence and supports differences in Satisfaction.  This disparity may be a source of organizational friction going forward.
  • KPI differences are minor as are the Culture of Safety Maturity levels.
  • Personality and Temperament track closely and do not suggest major issues therein.

The major gaps between Satisfaction and Trust suggests this divergence could be a source of discord and management might want to look into this issue further.

Payoff

Description

The goal of each player is Maximize their Set or Portfolio of Performance Metrics. Accomplishing this will lead to greater organizational performance and individual rewards such as bonuses and promotions.

Analysis

Five iterations of the game were played. It appears that Team Two negotiated a better deal; however, the final position was worse for both parties.

Satisfaction

Description

This is the level of Satisfaction each Team has about the outcome of the game.  This metric is a function the parties’ Relationship.

Analysis

Team One has expressed a higher level of Satisfaction than Team Two. This might indicate a problem as this gap is large and might be an area of further discussion with team members.

Perceived Time

Description

Each Team is asked to provide the amount of Time the actual game required.  This can be important in that negotiation time may appear to be short when ‘things’ are going well and drag when they are not.

Analysis

Not surprisingly, there is a perception of the amount of time engaged in the game. Small differences are to be expected.

Trust

Description

This is the level of Trust the Team has about the other Team.

Analysis

This gap is rather large and could be an indication of a lack of Trust by the Established Team. Since this is the acquiring company, the acquired firm might pursue the variance.

Demographics

Description

Basic Demographics of each Player. Details are sanitized for privacy.

Analysis

For this small demonstration game, only eight Players were involved.  Therefore, the table is a satisfactory presentation.  For larger samples, these demographic variables will be parsed as appropriate.

Team Attributes

Post Game – Team

Description

Each Player completes a Post Game Questionnaire. Effectively a set of questions about their perspective about their performance and the performance of the other Team.  An average is taken for each Team.

Analysis

This will generally track Satisfaction and Trust in the Game Outcome section. The individual score is not as important as the % Difference (red line). Substantial differences can represent areas of discord that should be addressed.

Org Traits & High Reliability – Team

Description

Each Organization has a set of Traits that will partially define it’s Culture. Each Player is asked for their ‘perception’ of these traits. This includes the aspects of the High Reliability mindset.

Analysis

Similarly, the % Difference reflects differences in Organizational Cultures and should be noted as part organization and HR culture programs.  In this game, the difference are wide and management will need to address this and find ways to mitigate the differences.

Culture of Safety Maturity – Team

Description

Originally developed to meet the needs of heavy industry, Safety Culture Maturity models are extended to meet general workplace safety maturity.

Analysis

In this case, it appears that both organizations have similar Culture of Safety Maturity levels.  This is helpful when teams are working together on joint projects.

Key Performance Indicators – Team

Description

According to Investopedia, “Key performance indicators (KPIs) refer to a set of quantifiable measurements used to gauge a company’s overall long-term performance. KPIs specifically help determine a company’s strategic, financial, and operational achievements, especially compared to those of other businesses within the same sector.”

Analysis

Percent differences suggest that each Player and Team may have different KPIs that they are held accountable to. If the metrics are poorly aligned sub-optimal performance may result.

Average of Player Attributes

Personality – Team

Description

Often defined as behaviors, cognitions, and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors.”

  • Agreeableness–level of concern for social harmony
  • Conscientiousness–level of discipline v flexibility
  • Extraversion–level of breadth of activities not depth
  • Neuroticism–level of tendency to express negative emotions
  • Openness–level of willingness to try new

Analysis

For this game, these traits are consistent between Teams.  This could be attributed to the fact that both organizations are in the same industry sector and may attract similar employees.  It may also be a coincidence.  In any event there is a level of commonality for this variable.

Temperament – Team

Description

Often defined as a individual’s ‘human nature’ from one perspective it consists of five elements:

  • Choleric–level of extroversion
  • Melancholic–level of analytical thinking
  • Phlegmatic–how laid back is the person
  • Sanguine–level of communicative behavior
  • Supine–level of need for inclusion

Analysis

As with Personality, there is strong alignment between the Teams.

The largest % Difference appears to be with communication.  This could be a potential issue going forward and may be something management may want to address.

Relationships, Behaviors, Conditions (RBC)

Situational Awareness (SA)

SA is generally defined as the subjective view of the setting one finds themselves in.  It is generally seen as a critical element in the decision-making process.

The Conditions model includes the Circumstances, Culture and Environment impacting on Behaviors and Relationship. Moreover, each Team’s Capability is a function of Conditions as well

This can be construed as an understanding of one’s situation aka Situational Awareness.

Behaviors

There are three elements to human interaction with this game; Organizational (See Org Traits), Team and the Individual (Player).

Relationships

There are four levels; between the organizations as shown in the Payoff, Satisfaction and Trust.  Certainly, the last two are a function of Inter-organization, between Teams as well as Individuals in each Team and across Organizational boundaries.

Summary

This game address all of the human interactions identified herein and is designed to assist Players and Organization better understand how to work with counterparts with different cultures.

Glossary

FORTHCOMING

Each Player has been provided description and definitions of all the terminology herein.  This material is provided for those who review this data, analysis, and recommendations for completeness.

en_USEnglish
en_USEnglish
Scroll to Top