Unite shift teams
Build bonds between day, night and weekend teams.
Why this programme
In continuous production, some teams never cross paths. They know each other through the instructions left at shift change, and sometimes through complaints. This programme brings shift teams together around challenges that can only be won together, and improves handovers between shifts.
Night shift work is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
What your teams experience
- Who works when: piece together how the site is organised over twenty-four hours.
- The handover: pass on a shift’s key information to the next team, without leaving anything out.
- The shared challenge: a challenge where each shift’s points add up to a site-wide score.
- A word for the next shift: each team leaves a projected message for the team taking over.
Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.
What the company gains
Smoother shift changes, less tension between teams, and a sense of belonging to the site rather than just to one’s own shift.
In 2024, 30.5% of adults slept less than 7 hours on average in a 24-hour period.
Staging written for you
In your client area, a form specific to this programme collects your content: it is built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, exactly as you provide it. The look uses your logo and your colours. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart.
Follow-up, up to D+30
Your follow-up dashboard stays with the programme, from the order to the final results.
- After the session: the session report, with the gap between the opening and closing measures.
- At D+7: a reminder asks a few key questions again, and the D+7 report shows what has been retained.
- At D+30: a second reminder, and the D+30 report shows what holds over time.
The sources of this programme
The published research that this programme's games, measures and debriefs refer to. You can check every reference.
- Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
- Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349-356. 10.1086/222258
- Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-26. 10.1080/14792779343000004
- Lardner, R. (1996). Effective shift handover: A literature review. Health and Safety Executive, Offshore Technology Report OTO 96 003 (rapport).
- Starmer, A. J., Spector, N. D., Srivastava, R., et al. (2014). Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(19), 1803-1812. 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556
- Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (dir.), Theories of Group Behavior (p. 185-208). Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9
- Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-604. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
- Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
- Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
- Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
- Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
Further reading (3 references)
Other research we drew on to design this programme.
- Cullen, W. D. (1990). The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster. HMSO (rapport).
- Patterson, E. S., Roth, E. M., Woods, D. D., Chow, R., & Gomes, J. O. (2004). Handoff strategies in settings with high consequences for failure. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(2), 125-132. 10.1093/intqhc/mzh026
- Kecklund, G., & Axelsson, J. (2016). Health consequences of shift work and insufficient sleep. BMJ, 355, i5210. 10.1136/bmj.i5210
Shared foundations (1 reference)
The mechanics of all our sessions (team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders) and the research that also underpins the other programmes in the same specialty or sector.
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Before you book
How is a Corporate Solutions experience different from team building?
It starts from a business objective, not an activity: onboarding new hires, preventing a risk, bringing your commitments to life. It is staged for your company, with your content, your figures and your brand. Your teams play in person, on their phones, while a big screen tells the story and a facilitator runs the room. And it is followed up: the session report, then the D+7 and D+30 reminders in your client area.
Do we need to install an app?
No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.
Is there a limit on the number of participants?
No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.