Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
HR · Human Resources · programme 04

Foster cross-functional collaboration

Break down silos between the company's departments.

Why this programme

Teams are deliberately made up of colleagues from different departments. No challenge can be won without everyone’s knowledge: sales needs logistics, finance needs the front line. People discover each other’s jobs by needing each other.

Speech belongs half to the one who speaks, half to the one who listens.

Michel de Montaignephilosopher and moralistEssays, Book III, chap. 13 “Of Experience”, 1588

What your teams experience

  1. The full process: reconstruct, step by step, the journey of an order or a file through the departments.
  2. Other people’s jargon: decode the acronyms and expressions specific to each job.
  3. The investigation: a deadlock that only the cooperation of three departments can resolve.
  4. The footbridge: each team proposes an idea for working better together, voted on by the room.

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

Counterparts who finally know one another, and a list of cooperation ideas from the front line.

70 %

of the variance in team engagement is accounted for by the manager.

GallupManagers Account for 70% of Variance in Employee Engagement, 2015

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Gittell, J. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups. Management Science, 48(11), 1408-1426. 10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1408.502
  2. Valentine, M. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2015). Measuring teamwork in health care settings: A review of survey instruments. Medical Care, 53(4), e16-e30. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827feef6
  3. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. JAP, 95(1), 32-53. 10.1037/a0017328
  4. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568. 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  5. Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities. Organization Science, 14(3), 312-330. 10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
  6. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. JPSP, 90(5), 751-783. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
  7. Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349-356. 10.1086/222258
  8. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Psychology Press (ouvrage).
The foundations shared by all our programmes (20 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., et al. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40(2), 181-222. 10.1177/1046496408328821
  2. Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., et al. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50(6), 903-933. 10.1518/001872008X375009
  3. McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169604. 10.1371/journal.pone.0169604
  4. 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
  5. Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. 10.1177/0149206309352880
  6. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  7. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  8. Cepeda, N. J., et al. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
  9. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
  10. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making. JPSP, 48(6), 1467-1478. 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
  11. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. JAP, 94(2), 535-546. 10.1037/a0013773
  12. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. JPSP, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
  13. Aronson, E., et al. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Sage (ouvrage).
  14. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. 10.1038/075450a0
  15. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401-405. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00589.x
  16. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall (ouvrage).
  17. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
  18. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (dir.), Judgment under Uncertainty, 306-334. Cambridge University Press (ouvrage).
  19. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. Doubleday (ouvrage).
  20. Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 604-616. 10.3758/MC.36.3.604

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

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 “Foster cross-functional collaboration” in action.

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

Request a demo