Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
Automotive industry · programme 04

Succeed in the electric transition

Bring teams on board with new powertrains and new jobs.

Why this programme

Batteries, high voltage, new suppliers, new skills: the electric transition is transforming plants and sometimes worries the people who work in them. This programme explains what is at stake through play, introduces the new jobs and gives everyone a place in the project.

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report)Our Common Future, 1987

What your teams experience

  1. Combustion or electric: sort components by whether they disappear, change or appear.
  2. High voltage: recognise the areas and tasks reserved for authorised personnel.
  3. Tomorrow’s jobs: match today’s skills with the jobs they open up.
  4. Tomorrow’s plant: each team comes up with an idea for the site, projected then voted on.

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

Teams who understand the purpose of the transformation, concerns voiced rather than kept quiet, and training wishes that reach Human Resources.

1.1°C

Global surface warming in 2011–2020 above 1850–1900, unequivocally caused by human activities.

IPCCClimate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, A.1, 2023

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.

Follow-up: before, during, after

The sources of this programme

The published research that this programme's games, measures and debriefs refer to. You can check every reference.

  1. Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532. 10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028449.99127.f7
  2. Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
  3. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. 10.1177/001872679304600601
  4. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678
  5. 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
  6. 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 (7 references)

Other research we drew on to design this programme.

  1. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154
  2. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. 10.1177/0021886310396550
  3. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242-264. 10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242
  4. ISO 6469-3:2021. Véhicules routiers à propulsion électrique — Spécifications de sécurité — Partie 3 : Sécurité électrique (norme).
  5. Règlement ONU n° 100 (CEE-ONU). Prescriptions uniformes relatives à l'homologation des véhicules en ce qui concerne les prescriptions particulières applicables à la chaîne de traction électrique (règlement).
  6. CEI 60479-1. Effets du courant sur l'homme et les animaux domestiques — Partie 1 : Aspects généraux (norme).
  7. NF C18-550 (2015). Opérations sur véhicules et engins à motorisation thermique, électrique ou hybride ayant une source d'énergie électrique embarquée — Prévention du risque électrique (norme française).
Shared foundations (8 references)

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.

  1. Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315-324. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840
  2. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  3. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  4. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
  5. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  6. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Review, 48(2), 197-221. 10.1177/001979399504800201
  7. Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149. 10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0
  8. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study (ouvrage).

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.

Demo

See “Succeed in the electric transition” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo