Communication styles training

Indeed, Team4Teams stands out from most fellow providers.
This gives the customer the opportunity to choose.

What you don't get (at least not by default) is a comprehensive online questionnaire like those at DISC, Insight Discovery and other providers. They are impressive and also expensive. We don't opt for them because they disappear too quickly into a drawer.

What you do get is a simple questionnaire with a short handout about which we find that participants keep it with them for a long time. The emphasis is on practical, summarised and inviting to discuss with each other. 'Catching' the behaviour no provider can do that, including us. It is better in our estimation to let the team be the team and invite them to grow towards each other. So that requires aligned behaviour that is also sustained (and will require adjustments). And this is where communication helps. Communicating with style is what we call our programme.

That could be a reason for choosing Team4Teams.

The workshop, clinic, training and master class including the (online) questionnaire are available in Dutch and English.

This is perhaps the most frequently asked question. We use experiential learning, i.e. 'organising' experiences, in which the team learns from working together in the here-and-now. These experiences are important to gain awareness and share together that improvements are possible. In a positive collaboration, everyone helps. If the team is not yet at this level, we explore with the team what may be causes of this (in behaviour) and what behaviour is desirable instead.

Team cooperation is key, in case there are participants who do not yet know the communication styles then information is also shared. And always involving the attendees.

Each training course also includes a team assignment. More time also gives more room for practical working methods and depth.

We do, but always in combination with support for the team. We believe that the team, which may have remained aloof, plays a role in the situation that has arisen. Our statement is 'the team first, the rest comes later‘.

How often is a coach offered to an acting colleague where the team can make a difference? What are the chances for this person if the team decides to be aloof and perhaps dismissive?

There is also another side: the team is usually shy about a situation and would like to contribute, but with a positive contribution. With the arrival of a coach, team members then feel disengaged, or in a more remote situation they let go of the situation, the coach will fix it. All situations are undesirable and ultimately very costly.

So in short: first the team and individual guidance can follow, is then contextual (in relation to its own history and current team), is thus actually supportive of what the team itself can do. In doing so, changes also become changes of the team.

The credit for this change therefore belongs to the team as a whole.

No (and yes). Team4Teams' communication styles distinguish between a Surviving, Disengaging and Cooperating setting in a team, so basically 'yes'. However, we do not use the Scale for, but the deepening insights of communication styles.

Behaviours that create action and positive growth bring the four style groups together, they support results and create efficiency and save time and effort. Both the workshop, clinic and training emphasise this. There is more time in the master class, in which we tailor what suits the situation.

Behaviour can also be Survivable or, conversely, Disengaged. In case plays, attention is paid to immediate and undesirable behaviour, but attention is also paid to the silent group. This group deviates because of the perceived unsafe situation, so the negative situation persists. The language does align with the Scale, which also sets us apart from other providers.

A team looking for applications in which the Scale of Collaboration provides support is better off (first) opting for Team Building with Reflection. In it, team behaviour is discussed lightly and airily, with a laugh and in depth, using the Scale as a roadmap to good teamwork.

Team4Teams has now been using its own questionnaire for more than a decade. It incorporates the experiences of trainers and participants. Initially, 'tests' focused on the person, a character or personality. We liked that. We looked for a form in which team members' behaviour could be indicated without making it personal or 'capturing' people: You are a...

We are proud of our own questionnaire, the content hardly differs from existing questionnaires, but what we do with it is never personal, always focused on the interaction in the here-and-now of a team. Meant for learning and movement. A team member is not a style, he or she uses a style of communication. And with reasons. Getting into conversation about that aligns preferred styles. That helps. Modern approaches to organisations such as DISC and Insight Discovery don't differ that much from this anymore. Price is currently the biggest difference. Our questionnaire is attractive in price; besides, the participant does not get a detailed report. The emphasis is on summarised use in training. To learn from together.

An online questionnaire costs €40 per participant plus VAT. For that, the participant receives the results on 1 A4 and three pages of explanation during a meeting. In training (8 hours), there are (depending on the programme) two extra pages with team exercises on them.

True. There is an online questionnaire in which the participant fills in the questionnaire online about his or her own preferences in a given context. The answers are mixed, so steering (say someone thinks there should be the same number of crosses in each column, or instead is shocked because they are all in danger of being in one column) is not possible. We thus motivate them to fill in what suits the participant. Only then does it benefit the participant. So online works better than on paper.

In addition, online it is also possible to indicate colleagues' preferences. What does the participant experience from his or her colleagues. Which answer best suits colleague Jeanette? On the day itself, participants will then not only receive a result from themselves, but also how (in summary) colleagues rate her on a day of good, collaborative work.

The online version is firmly protected and we do not share the results with anyone other than the trainer on duty and the participant himself. The accompanying trainers do not share the results with anyone either. Of course, the participant can share the outcome with whomever he or she wishes and we encourage that too.

Filling it in does not take that much time (depending on someone's preferred style, 5 to 20 minutes at most) but on the day itself, we spend as much as 45 minutes on it, counting start-up and wrap-up and that is actually a waste of time.

A final advantage of the online questionnaire is that it gets the team started even before the day itself. Attention to cooperation thus starts earlier and is therefore more effective. The participants can also see the results for themselves immediately, which also stimulates discussion about it.

And sometimes there is resistance to an online questionnaire. Then it can simply be done on paper and on the spot in the training itself. The results are for the participant, no one needs to see them. The participant sits down with the communication style preference of his or her choice, which is not 'checked'. The participant is obviously only of use 'if he or she also wants to participate'.

The short answer to that is 'no'. Nor is a questionnaire available separately from a training course. The learning return lies not in filling in the questionnaire, but in attending a joint training, where interaction is discussed and leads to learning returns.

The way a person communicates depends heavily on location, circumstances and interaction with colleagues.

In a team experiencing a lot of stress, people react in a different way than in a learning team.

The way a team interacts with each other and how they welcome and support a new colleague has much more influence on whether someone's communication style is a good fit than a test beforehand.

In addition, consideration should be given to whether the candidate gives 'honest' answers to the questions asked, or responds more from a guiding role to what is considered desirable.

DISC and Insights Discovery, like Team4Teams, use four communication styles in the colours red, yellow, green and blue. In terms of content, there is not much difference between DISC, Insights Discovery and Team4Teams. We do place different emphasis, though. So a follow-up with a team coach from us provides new insights. We focus on team cooperation, using the rich knowledge gained in The Scale of Cooperation.

These are our options:

1. You use the DISC / Insights tests (in case your organisation can request its own tests, have new colleagues also fill in a test beforehand) and book a Team4Teams communication styles training course, clinic or workshop without a questionnaire. More time gives more depth, but a master class is then not necessary. The team coach will coordinate with you and choose the theme for the team day with the team. The participants will know their preferences and it will be about how a style is used in the work situation. What works and what is not yet working? The more challenging the situation is, the more the team will learn.
   In case firm contradictions have arisen in the team, we are happy to recommend a route towards this training. Then one step is not sufficiently effective. Safeguarding also then becomes a focus of attention.
2. You ask the team to complete the Team4Teams questionnaire (again) with a focus on a recent situation. This takes each team member (well) less than half an hour.
   The questionnaire 'asks' for context, such as
   • 'the mutual cooperation in the office', 
   • 'the collaboration between sales and production',
   • 'the consultation between the customer contact group and quality assurance' or
   • 'the cooperation during [name of incident].

The outcomes support the team in raising communication issues. What is going well' is important in this, because a team can build on this and 'what could be better' is also discussed, with the language of communication styles as added value. With this new language, the team communicates more easily and the connection with customers, in and with the MT, management and members of other teams is also supported.
For government, contact with citizens sometimes counts as an additional focus, in healthcare contact with patients, clients and the family, and in education contact with students, pupils and parents.

3. We support supervisors who use DISC, Insights, Discovery or Management Drives to achieve extra impact with the team centrally. The shyness among supervisors to embark on an improvement journey is high, so is the impact of our support. The time given to supervisors makes it extra complex.

True. Arjen Lubach is quite harsh in his shows and has long been dismissive of improper use of testing in organisations.
And we actually understand that quite well.

The show amplifies the effect of improper usage and therefore it works on our laughs, besides there is also an important core in it that every trainer should be allowed to adopt.

First, who are we talking about:

• Coaches help with the question 'what can I do?
• Teachers want to teach the class something (something not yet known, a skill) - responding to the how-question: 'how can I do this?'
• Trainers who practise a skill with participants learn from experience. Team coaches deepen that, blending between the 'how and whyquestion': 'why should I do it (like this)?'
• And there are gurus, also called teachers or experts, who can explain to you who you are. Lubach focuses on the latter group. Who you are, no matter what test you use, makes you feel inferior and unimportant. It is oppressive and limiting.

Among other things, the tests ask you to choose, only one answer is possible and you thus place yourself in a limiting preference which is not necessarily there.

Every Team4Teams team coach is aware of the limitations that a questionnaire brings and will share this with participants. 'Don't take the questionnaire too seriously' is an important part of any training. It is about preferred behaviour in a specific context.

A questionnaire provides direction once participants complete it with a concrete context in mind. 'The collaboration during our weekly meetings' indicates a behavioural preference in this context with colleagues present at the time. And about which the conversation will take place with new language and more depth.

Last but not least: Is there resistance or distance in a team? Is there commitment and a shared goal? That matters quite a bit. We deploy communication styles when it is clear where the team is at The Scale of Cooperation. Only then is nuance possible and - in case there is a lot of resistance and distance in the team - communicating with style helps to be more collaborative.