Most disappointing team buildings are not badly run. They were the wrong kind.
Someone wanted two departments to work together better and booked a sports tournament. The day went well, people laughed, and six weeks later the same departments were still working past each other. That is not an execution problem. A competition does what a competition does: it sets groups against each other and measures which was better. If you wanted to make interdependence visible, you bought the opposite.
There are broadly three ways in the Guide’s selection to get a group moving. None of them is better than the others. They simply do different things, and it pays to know which in advance.
Side by side: same task, separate teams, one scoreboard
This is the most recognisable model. The group is split into teams, each team gets the same series of challenges, and a result appears at the end. Highland Games and Beach Games work this way outdoors. At the Races, Powerplay, Team Olympics and the Live Music Quiz do it indoors.
What it does. It starts fast. Almost no explanation is needed, everyone immediately understands what is being asked, and the energy rises on its own. For a group that does not know each other well, or for a flat stretch in the day, that is exactly right. Competition also has the honesty of its own simplicity: there is a score, and the score is not open to interpretation.
What it does not do. It says nothing about how the teams function with each other, because they do not have to. Two departments playing against each other all day go home with a winner and a loser. Excellent party, mediocre intervention against silos.
Where it goes wrong. When an organiser picks competition because it looks like the most fun, while the issue on the table was collaboration.
Interdependent: each team builds a part, and it has to connect
In this model the sub-teams work in parallel on something that only becomes a whole at the end. Each team can finish its own part perfectly and still discover that the join to the next one does not line up.
Chain Reaction is the purest form: every small group builds one link of the same machine, and a single press of a button shows whether the whole thing holds. Building Bridges does it with bridge sections that a vehicle either crosses or does not. Archipelago engineers scarcity between islands so that trade and negotiation appear. Team Town drops every planning decision onto the neighbours’ drawing board as well. Wind Farm adds a cost variable on top. Before Mars sets the whole thing inside a decision simulation.
What it does. It makes the handover visible. Not collaboration inside a team, but the point where one group’s work meets another’s, which is usually precisely where things break in an organisation. Anyone who watches that happen then has a conversation about something concrete.
What it does not do. It is not a light programme. There is a moment when the group discovers the parts do not fit, and that moment is uncomfortable. It also takes time: these formats run two hours or more in their full form, debrief included. Cut them to forty-five minutes and you keep the construction brief while losing the insight.
Where it goes wrong. When this format is booked as the closing act of a celebratory evening. The form demands attention, and attention is the scarcest thing in the room at that hour.
In time: everyone doing the same thing at once, and it has to coincide
The third family works without a scoreboard and without sub-tasks. The whole group does the same thing, simultaneously, and the result only exists when it coincides. Taiko Drums, the Haka Workshop, Boomwhackers and Body Percussion belong here, and on a longer timescale so does Lipdub.
What it does. It briefly turns a collection of people into a single sound. There is nowhere to hide and equally nowhere to stand out, because half a beat early is as audible as half a beat late. What remains is a memory the whole group shares, and it travels across language lines: these formats need very few words, which makes them workable for mixed Dutch-speaking and French-speaking audiences.
What it does not do. It diagnoses nothing. You do not learn how your team decides, prioritises or shares information. There is little to unpack afterwards, and that is not a shortcoming but the nature of the form.
Where it is underrated. Exactly there. Because no report comes out of it, this family is sometimes filed under entertainment. For an organisation that needs something everyone shares at the same moment after a reorganisation or a merger, it often does more than an exercise with an analysis attached.
In between: puzzle and escape
A fourth family sits between the first two. Code Crackers, Escape Experience, Escape to Victory and Wie is de Saboteur? combine a scoreboard with an inner mechanism in which the group has to decide who listens to whom.
They are a good choice when you want a bit of both. The shortest of them fit into one to two hours, while Escape to Victory and Wie is de Saboteur? need half a day. What they rarely deliver is the confrontation between sub-teams: the tension plays out inside each team, not between them.
What the Guide makes of it
There is no ranking between these families, and the Guide does not try to build one. The four measures we apply to every activity, meaning, craft, consistency and fit, apply just as strictly to all four forms. An outstandingly run competition earns the same recognition as an outstandingly run construction brief.
Where we do take a position: fit is the measure most often missed. Not because organisers choose badly, but because the request they are handed (“something fun for the team”) is not the question they are actually answering (“why do these two departments not work together”). The first request leads to family one. The second to family two. The third family answers neither, and that is exactly why it is sometimes the right one.
How those four measures work is set out on About the Guide.
In short
For energy and a quick connection in a group that barely knows itself, competition works. To see where collaboration between groups breaks down, you need a format in which the parts have to fit together, and the time to talk about it afterwards. For one shared moment that crosses language and department lines, synchrony is the shortest route.
The filters on the selection start from the same distinction: objective first, form second. If you are not sure which family your question belongs to, put it to us through Contact.
—
For a starting point, read how to choose a team building. For a large group, the Guide sets out what changes with large groups.