1190589

research-article2023
MTRXXX10.1177/23792981231190589Management Teaching ReviewLambert et al.

Experiential Exercises

Management Teaching Review

Knowing Me, Knowing

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2023

You: Self-Reflection and Article reuse guidelines:

Understanding Diversity sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/23792981231190589
https://doi.org/10.1177/23792981231190589

for Effective Teamwork—A journals.sagepub.com/home/mtr

LEGO® Building Activity

Neil J. Lambert1 , Xiaoting Luo1, and Akinyo Ola1

Abstract
Effective teamwork is a crucial transferrable skill for students’ learning experience
during their studies and future careers. Understanding the making of effective
teams, how teams differ from mere groups of individuals, and the potential value
and challenges of diversity for team performance is essential for students as current
and future team members, leaders, and creators. The LEGO® building activity
at the heart of this exercise presents an interactive and engaging way to provide
crucial insights and reflection opportunities concerning diversity and teamwork. This
activity introduces participants to the value and challenges diversity can raise for
teamwork. In addition, it encourages participants to recognize the importance of
effective communication, having a common purpose and collective accountability,
transparency and information sharing, and psychological safety and trust. The exercise
was developed for international postgraduate business and management students in a
face-to-face classroom setting. An alternative online activity is also presented.

Keywords
LEGO® building activity, teamwork, diversity, self-assessment, classroom exercises

Team diversity in the form of members’ different work styles and practices, perspec-
tives, values, interests, and cognition, whether stemming from their different educa-
tion and experience profiles, genders, ethnicities, or other characteristics and traits, is

1
University of Bristol Business School, UK

Corresponding Author:
Neil J. Lambert, Senior Lecturer in Global Management, University of Bristol Business School, Howard
House, Queens Avenue, Bristol BS8 1SD, UK.
Email: [email protected]
2 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

critical for team performance. While diversity is significant for ethical, legal, and
moral reasons, research and practice also testify to its importance. On one hand, it can
enhance team performance outcomes, including enhanced capacity for innovation and
creativity (e.g., Lyon & Ferrier, 2002; Mannix & Neale, 2005), while it can also
adversely affect team performance. This double-edged sword of diversity (Carter &
Phillips, 2017) elevates the importance of the “enabling conditions” or “mediators”
that transform diverse groups of individuals into effective, high-performing teams.
The presented exercise represents an interactive heuristic approach to understanding
the importance of such elements in successful teams and considering possible actions
organizations and individuals themselves take to support them.
The exercise requires some pretask arrangements and logistics for the instructor
(Appendix A) and students undertaking prework in the form of a self-assessment ques-
tionnaire (Appendix B) before engaging in a LEGO® building activity (Appendix C).
In the two rounds of the activity, participants work in small groups (five or six partici-
pants) to experience and understand the benefits of all members having a common
purpose and collective accountability, effective communication, clear information
sharing and transparency, and psychological safety and trust. Participants compare and
discuss their experiences from the activity and self-assessment questionnaire results as
part of discussions exploring diversity in this context.
The exercise can be applied across many disciplines and is suitable for different
educational and professional development levels. A single instructor can run the exer-
cise with 5 to 60 participants. The whole exercise runs in a single 45-minute block. We
have regularly run the exercise with up to 10 groups in a class (60 students in total).
While the nature of the learning experience involving the LEGO® building activity
prevents online delivery, an online variation is available (Appendix D). The session
concludes with a debrief (Appendix E), and suggested student readings and additional
resources are available (Appendix F).

Theoretical Foundations—Diversity and Team

Performance
For our purposes, team diversity relates to the possible objective and subjective charac-
teristics members hold that can lead them to perceive other members as “different.”
Evidence for the relationship between diversity and team performance has been incon-
clusive (Martins et al., 2013; van Dijk et al., 2012), at times due to differences in the
performance measures used and how diversity is specified (e.g., Horwitz & Horwitz,
2007). On one hand, there is evidence of the adverse effects of diversity on team perfor-
mance. Yet, simultaneously, a positive relationship is identified, which has witnessed the
emergence of two distinct lines of thought and inquiry (Urionabarrenetxea et al., 2021).
The first, a social categorisation/similarity attraction approach, mentions the
adverse effects of diversity on team performance outcomes through, for instance, the
misunderstandings, interaction difficulties between members, and uncertainty it can
create. As a result, group homogeneity and similarity, not diversity, are suggested to
enhance performance (Carter & Phillips, 2017). In contrast, an information/decision-
making approach advocates for diversity’s opportunities for developing new ideas and
Lambert et al. 3

approaches. Such pooling of complementary abilities, ideas, knowledge, skills, per-

spectives, and values (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), this approach advocates, leads to
enhanced team performance through the presentation of new options and improve-
ments in the quality of decision-making (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007).
In reconciling these different approaches, Urionabarrenetxea et al. (2021) consider
the conflict generated by diversity to constitute two dimensions, each working in dif-
ferent directions. They consider “task conflict” to encompass judgemental differences
among members concerning how best to fulfill their common purpose and objective(s).
In contrast, what Urionabarrenetxea et al. label “relationship conflict” concerns per-
sonal disputes between team members. They also identify a need for contextualisation,
whereby the effect of diversity on conflict, and therefore the impact of conflict on team
performance, varies under different conditions, including the presence of effective
leadership, experience, and group cohesion (Urionabarrenetxea et al., 2021; see also,
O’Neill & MxLamon, 2018; van Veelen & Ufkes, 2019). Consequently, it is not diver-
sity in itself that (automatically) leads to enhanced (or reduced) team performance
outcomes. Instead, the critical factor is how diversity is managed in terms of team
creation, leadership, and support.
Such interest draws attention toward the necessary “enabling conditions” and
“mediators” transforming groups of otherwise unconnected individuals into effective,
high-performing teams based on developing common purpose and direction, collec-
tive accountability, clear communication, transparency and information sharing, and
psychological safety and trust (Anantatmula, 2016; Delizonna, 2017; Dhawan, 2021;
Emmerling & Rooders, 2020; Katzenbach & Smith, 2005; Sunstein & Hastie, 2014).
Scholarship and practice consider these conditions to be developed intentionally
through individual, group, or organizational actions and processes and through experi-
ence and time together (i.e., “emergent states”).

Learning Objectives
After completing the exercise, participants will be able to:

•• Experience the importance of a common purpose, accountability, clear com-

munication, information sharing, and transparency for effective teamwork.
•• Understand the value and challenges diversity can present for developing effec-
tive, high-performing teams.
•• Identify possible actions for developing effective teamwork.

Instructions for Running the Exercise

Overview
Small group work is at the heart of this exercise, at the center of which is a face-to-face
LEGO® building activity, varieties of which have been used extensively in various educa-
tional and professional development settings. Instructors often use such activities to
develop abilities, competencies, and understanding regarding teamwork, team
4 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

communication, creativity, problem-solving, and leadership (Martin-Cruz et al., 2022).

The popularity of this approach stems from the engagement and learning benefits of real-
time face-to-face teamwork using physical resources over other asynchronous and digital
formats (Heracleous & Jacobs, 2008; Hinthorne & Schneider, 2012; Roos & Victor, 2018;
Wengel, 2020).

Logistics
Groups use a predetermined number and combination of colored bricks. In addition,
each group member possesses a unique (within their group) assignment requiring a
particular construction specification or procedure. These “Individual Assignments”
include, for example, ensuring that each row of the tower contains a minimum number
of bricks, or a specific color brick must be the first laid in a particular row.
Regarding preparation, the instructor creates a separate kit for each group contain-
ing the building materials and printouts of the team instructions and Individual
Assignments (see Appendix A).
As prework, each participant evaluates and categorizes their approach to work and
working style using a Leadership Compass self-assessment questionnaire (Be The
Change Consulting, 2010; Appendix B). In our experience, not only does this question-
naire provide an accessible four-category tool for groups to explore and map diversity/
similarity of approaches to work between members before considering the task conflict(s)
such diversity/similarity may present but without such an instrument, such explorations
can lack focus, structure, and descend into discussions of largely superficial differences.

Step-by-Step Instructions
The LEGO® building activity has two rounds.

Round 1: Group members build their tower together but cannot communicate or show
their Individual Assignments to other group members.

Round 2: Groups start the tower-building activity again. However, in addition to being
able to communicate with each other during the building process, in this
round, group members must first share their respective Individual Assignments
and conflicts they experienced in the first round and together formulate a plan
before they restart building.

The two-round approach is crucial for the experiential journey participants under-
take. It enables participants to experience the different challenges and opportunities in
each round for completing the activity, notably, the benefits presented by communica-
tion, transparency, and information-sharing in creating a plan in Round 2 to achieve
the collective tower-building objective while simultaneously accounting for every
member’s Individual Assignment. Participants experience firsthand that such account-
ability is vital for fulfilling their Individual Assignments due to the obstacles and dis-
ruptions these can present for each other and for fulfilling the collective tower
Lambert et al. 5

objective. Indeed, the collective tower objective is only complete when all Individual
Assignments are fulfilled.
Following these two rounds, groups discuss the extent of their group’s diversity (or
similarity) based on the four categories identified in the prework questionnaire. In
addition, manual (i.e., hand or card raising) or electronic polling can demonstrate the
extent of diversity across the class. In our experience, the extent of diversity identified
through the questionnaire can vary significantly between groups, with some reporting
similarity between members and others reporting notable diversity. Next, participants
consider possible explanations for the identified diversity (or similarity) within their
groups, for example, possible similarities/differences in educational background, work
experience, personality traits, gender, country and cultural background, and so on.
Through the initial discussion, participants recognize different task-related diversity
concerns within their groups, reflecting different approaches to learning and work, per-
spectives, values, interests, and cognition within the group. We then ask groups to consider
the Individual Assignments within the LEGO® building activity as a proxy for task-related
diversity dimensions and to consider the potential (task) conflicts they could present for
completing such a collective activity. In this respect, rather than specifying different design
or building specifications, participants are asked to imagine that Individual Assignments
reflected team members’ different approaches to work and working styles identified by the
prework questionnaire or perhaps different individual interests and objectives, communi-
cation and leadership styles and preferences, or simply differing views, judgments, and
ideas on the best way to complete such the activity, and to consider how these might impact
team performance in completing the collective task. Participants then discuss how the
group could accommodate and harness such diversity to secure desired performance out-
comes while mitigating potential adverse effects. Finally, the exercise asks participants to
articulate logical explanations for any measures they advocate.

Variations
An alternative activity is available for online delivery based on a sudoku puzzle (see
Appendix D).

Instructions for Debriefing the Exercise

The debriefing provides an opportunity for participants to deepen their understanding
of different dimensions of diversity in teams, the potential positive and adverse effects
it can have on team performance, and the actions available to members, leaders, and
creators of teams to harness the benefits of diversity (Appendix E). We start the
debriefing by asking participants about their experiences of the LEGO® building
activity and the lessons it provides for effective teamwork. In terms of their experi-
ences, participants’ responses often focus on the challenges they experienced of not
knowing what other group members were trying to achieve in Round 1 and the bene-
fits in Round 2 of transparency and effective communication between team members
and in (co-)creating a plan to complete the collective activity which accounted for all
Individual Assignments. Following this initial discussion, we ask participants to
6 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

consider what insights the activity presents concerning team conflict(s) and diversity,
notably task conflicts through group members’ similar/different approaches to work as
identified in the prework questionnaire. Essential elements here include differentiating
between task and relationship conflicts. In this respect, we ask participants what they
understand such conflicts to entail before asking them how these might connect with
diversity and team performance. An important issue we look to cover here is the dou-
ble-edged sword of diversity for team performance outcomes.
When we are satisfied, we then ask students to identify possible actions available to
team members, leaders, and creators as they seek to harness diversity’s benefits while
at the same time mitigating the potential challenges it can present. Examples often
raised by students include the use of team charters as well as effective team onboard-
ing and induction sessions, particularly for new members. Indeed, in the past, many
students have considered the value of psychological safety and trust that can be engen-
dered over time and experience spent together (i.e., emergent states), identifying the
importance of continuity in team membership and out-of-work social engagement and
relations. If not forthcoming from students, we raise these items as a further aspect for
students to consider.

Conclusion
This exercise sensitizes participants to the opportunities and challenges diversity pres-
ents for effective, high-performing teams, simulating their understanding of different
possible dimensions of diversity in the workplace and how an organization might
embrace it effectively. In addition, this exercise encourages participants to recognize
the value of enabling conditions for building high-performing successful teams.

Appendix A
Pretask Arrangements and Logistics
Provide groups with the following materials:

1. A copy of the corresponding Team Instructions.

2. Copies of the Individual Assignments—Because group members cannot
divulge these to one another, these Individual Assignments should be separated
(i.e., each one on a different piece of paper or card).
3. A building mat—optional but provides stability and, importantly, a focal point
for the building process.
4. Approximately 35 to 40 construction bricks, LEGO® or otherwise, are distrib-
uted across six or more different colors, including primary and nonprimary
colors. NB: Some Individual Assignments may need adjusting depending on
the available colors. The final selection can include different brick shapes and
sizes. We have found that providing nonstandard bricks can also enhance
engagement and enjoyment. Instead of LEGO® Serious Play®, we used stan-
dard LEGO® bricks.
Lambert et al. 7

We have enclosed all the above in a separate envelope for each group, allowing
materials to be stored, transported safely, distributed, and returned quickly and effec-
tively during the session.

Appendix B
Prework for Students
The self-assessment and evaluation task we use focuses on participants’ approaches to
work and working styles using a Leadership Compass questionnaire:
Be The Change Consulting (2010). Leadership compass. https://meded21.ucsf.edu/
sites/g/files/tkssra796/f/wysiwyg/W14%20Leadership%20compass%20self%20assess-
ment.pdf
The prework self-assessment should be circulated before the session for students to
complete beforehand and bring the results.

Appendix C
Instructions for Running the Tower-Building Activity

Prework. Participants self-assess a single personality trait or characteristic and bring

the results to the class.

Room Set-Up. Each group sits at its own table, with every member able to reach the
group’s building mat and bricks.

Activity Instructions. Provide the following instructions to groups for the LEGO®
building activity:

Tower building team instructions.

Your group’s task is to build a tower as high as possible with these bricks. Each of you
will randomly take an Individual Assignment card in a moment. Every group member must
take a different Individual Assignment. You must look to fulfill this Individual Assignment
while working together in building the tower.

In Round 1, you must not show or communicate your Individual Assignment to the rest of
the group.

It may be necessary for group members to undue the work of other group members to
fulfill their Individual Assignments.

In Round 1, you will have up to 15 minutes to build your structure. You may not speak
during the building process. You must continue building until the time is up. Your
instructor will announce when the time is up.
8 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

Provide groups with a copy of these instructions. One member reads these to the
rest of the group.
As the above activity instructions outlined, each member will randomly pick one of
the following Individual Assignments. While groups of five or six members are ideal,
seven Individual Assignments are included here if the allocation of students to a par-
ticular session requires a group with seven members. The activity still works regard-
less of which Individual Assignments are selected by group members from the seven
options available.

Tower Individual Assignment #1

You must ensure that each layer contains a minimum of two bricks.

Tower Individual Assignment #2

You must ensure that at least one primary-colored brick appears in each layer (i.e., red,
blue, yellow).

Tower Individual Assignment #3

Only you are allowed to build (I.e., put bricks together) the first three layers.

Tower Individual Assignment #4

It is your role to ensure that each layer has an even number of bricks.

Tower Individual Assignment #5

You must ensure the first layer has twice as many bricks as the second and fourth layers.

Tower Individual Assignment #6

You must ensure the following bricks are not together in the same layer: orange with
yellow, red with purple, or blue with green.

Tower Individual Assignment #7

You are the only one allowed to build (I.e., put bricks together) rows 5 and 6.
Lambert et al. 9

Appendix D
Variations
An alternative group activity based around a sudoku puzzle is available for synchro-
nous online delivery.

Pretask Arrangements and Logistics. Distribution may depend on the meeting hosting
platform and virtual learning environment used. However, during the session, provide
groups with access to the following electronic resources:

1. A copy of the corresponding Team Instructions in either MS Word or PDF

document format.
2. Copies of the Sudoku Individual Assignments—Because group members can-
not divulge these to one another, these Individual Assignments should be sepa-
rated (i.e., each one in a separate shared MS Word or PDF document).
3. The group’s sudoku puzzle in a shared editable MS Excel file.

We provide the above in a separate folder for each group accessed via hyperlinks
within a central, publicly shared online document (e.g., labeled Group #1 Resources,
Group #2 Resources, Group #3 Resources etc.). While groups can decide themselves
which Sudoku Individual Assignment each number will take (i.e., Sudoku Individual
Assignment #1, Sudoku Individual Assignment #2, Sudoku Individual Assignment #3,
etc.), the instructor might instead assign Sudoku Individual Assignments to group
members beforehand to save time in the session. NB: Team Instructions should be
adjusted accordingly.

Prework. Participants self-assess a single personality trait or characteristic and bring

the results to the class.

Online Set-Up. This activity requires an appropriate online meeting hosting platform
that allows groups to leave the main class to work in separate virtual group breakout
spaces and return when needed. Activation of audio-visual functionality, including
students’ personal microphones and cameras, is necessary so that group members can
interact and communicate in these virtual breakout spaces. Every group member must
also be able to simultaneously see, input into, and edit their group’s shared sudoku
puzzle MS Excel file for the activity to work in the required manner.

Activity Instructions. Provide groups with the following instructions for the sudoku
puzzle activity:
10 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

Sudoku team instructions

Your task, as a group, is to complete a sudoku puzzle. In a moment, each of you will access
your Sudoku Individual Assignment—you have already been allocated a number (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, or 6) corresponding to the Sudoku Individual Assignment assigned to you for this
activity. Every group member must have a different Sudoku Individual Assignment. You
must look to fulfill this Sudoku Individual Assignment while working together to complete
the puzzle as a group.

Each group member will need to open the shared MS Excel file containing your group’s
sudoku puzzle so that everyone in your group can see, input into, and edit the group
sudoku puzzle MS Excel file—you will need to do so to fulfill your Sudoku Individual
Assignments.

In Round 1, you must not show or communicate your own Sudoku Individual Assignment
to the rest of the group.

In Round 1, you will have up to 15 minutes to complete the group’s sudoku puzzle.
Although we expect you to have turned on your microphones and cameras, you may not
speak (or communicate through the chat function) when completing the puzzle.
It may be necessary for group members to undue the work of other group members to
fulfill their Sudoku Individual Assignments.

You must continue until the time is up. Please return to the main room if you finish the
puzzle before the time is up. Otherwise, your instructor will announce when the time is up.

Groups access a copy of these Team Instructions on entering their group’s virtual
breakout space. Then, one member reads the instructions to the group before group
members access their individual assignments before opening their group’s sudoku
puzzle MS Excel file.

Sudoku Individual Assignment #1

Only you are allowed to input the numbers into rows 1 and 3.

Sudoku Individual Assignment #2

Only you are allowed to input the numbers into rows 2 and 6.

Sudoku Individual Assignment #3

It is your responsibility to ensure that the first two numbers included anywhere in the grid
by the group are even numbers.

Sudoku Individual Assignment #4

It is your responsibility to ensure that the first two numbers included by the group are in
the central 3x3 box at the top of the grid.
Lambert et al. 11

Sudoku Individual Assignment #5

Only you are allowed to input the numbers into rows 4 and 5.

Sudoku Individual Assignment #6

Only you can input the numbers in the 3 × 3 box in the bottom left-hand corner of the
grid.

As the above activity instructions outlined, each member will be assigned one of
the following Sudoku Individual Assignments.
Not all six Sudoku Individual Assignments are needed if a group only has five
members.
In Round 2, groups start the group sudoku puzzle again. However, in addition to
being able to communicate with each other, in the second round, group members must
first share their respective Individual Assignments and conflicts they experienced in
the first round and formulate a plan before restarting the activity. Depending upon
their progress in Round 1, groups can start the puzzle again in Round 2 or continue
from where they left off. If deciding on the former, they will need to clear any existing
inputs in their sudoku puzzle MS Excel file.

Appendix E
Debriefing
We suggest starting the debriefing by asking participants about their experiences of the
LEGO® building activity and the lessons and insights it provided. Essential elements
here relate to the value of having a common purpose, collective accountability, clear
communication, transparency and information sharing, psychological safety, and trust,
and the possible actions available to team members, leaders, and creators to secure
these. Possible considerations include using team charters and emerging states (i.e.,
time and experience spent together, developing trust and relationships).
It is then worth returning to the value of these elements in light of the value and
challenges diversity can present for teams, drawing on their experiences of the
LEGO® building activity and the results of their self-assessment prework to bring
together these critical concerns. The different approaches to work identified in the
self-assessments prework enable students to explore diversity within their team
based on this dimension and consider possible (task) conflicts such diversity may
present before considering ways in which conflicts might be avoided or addressed
and the advantages and disadvantages of similarity/diversity for team effectiveness.
Important takeaways for students here relate to understanding differences between
“task” and “relationship” conflicts, their relationship with diversity, such as the
12 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

different approaches to work identified in students’ prework, and their potential

impact on team performance.

Appendix F
Suggested Student Readings and Additional Resources

Suggested Student Readings. Here we provide sources that we found helpful as sug-
gested further readings given the academic, personal, and professional development
focus of our course:

Delizonna, L. (2017, August 24). High-performing teams need psychological safety: Here’s
how to create it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-
teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it
Dhawan, E. (2021, August 19). Managing introverts and extroverts in the hybrid workplace.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/08/managing-introverts-and-extroverts-in-
the-hybrid-workplace
Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. (2020, September 22). 7 strategies for better group decision-
making. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/09/7-strategies-for-better-group-
decision-making
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (2005, March-April). Discipline of teams. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
Mortensen, M. (2015, September 25). A first-time manager’s guide to leading virtual teams.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/09/a-first-time-managers-guide-to-leading-
virtual-teams
Sunstein, C.R., & Hastie, R. (2014, December). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2014/12/making-dumb-groups-smarter
Wittman, A.D. (2018, March 1). To reduce burnout on your team, give people a sense of control.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/03/to-reduce-burnout-on-your-team-give-
people-a-sense-of-control

Additional Resources
Coding Tech. (2018). Secrets of successful teamwork: Insights from Google [Video]. YouTube.
https://youtu.be/hHIikHJV9fI
Lorenzo, R. (2017). How diversity makes teams more innovative [Video]. TED. https://
www.ted.com/talks/rocio_lorenzo_how_diversity_makes_teams_more_innovative?utm_
campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
Productivity Game (2019). The 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni [Video]. YouTube.
https://youtu.be/Ro0NBgHo_a8

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Editor and Associate Editor for their valuable comments and
feedback throughout the review process, Hinrich Voss for his valuable comments and feedback
on an early version of this paper, and our students for their engagement and feedback during the
development of the presented exercise.
Lambert et al. 13

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Neil J. Lambert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1872-1776

References
Anantatmula, V. S. (2016). High performing project teams. In V. S. Anantatmula (Ed.), Project
teams: A structured development approach. Business Expert Press (pp.129–154).
Carter, A. B., & Phillips, W. P. (2017). The double-edged sword of diversity: Toward a dual
pathway model. Social and Personal Psychology Compass, 11(5), 1–13.
Delizonna, L. (2017, August 24). High-performing teams need psychological safety: Here’s
how to create it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-
teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it
Dhawan, E. (2021, August 19). Managing introverts and extroverts in the hybrid workplace.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/08/managing-introverts-and-extroverts-in-
the-hybrid-workplace
Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. (2020, September 22). 7 strategies for better group decision-
making. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/09/7-strategies-for-better-group-
decision-making
Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. (2008). Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors. Long
Range Planning, 41(3), 309–325.
Hinthorne, L. L., & Schneider, K. (2012). Playing with purpose: Using serious play to
enhance participatory development communication in research. International Journal of
Communication, 6, 2801–2824.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A
meta-analytic review f team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005, July-August). Discipline of teams. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2005/07/the-discipline-of-teams
Lyon, D. W., & Ferrier, W. J. (2002). Enhancing performance with product-market innovation:
The influence of the top management team. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4), 452–469.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference: The promise and real-
ity of diverse teams in organisations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2),
31–55.
Martin-Cruz, N., Martin-Gutierrez, A., & Rojo-Revenga, M. (2022). A LEGO® Serious Play
activity to help teamwork skills development amongst business students. International
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(5), 479–494.
Martins, L. L., Schilpzand, M. C., Kirkman, B. L., Ivanaj, S., & Ivanaj, V. (2013). A contin-
gency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating
14 Management Teaching Review 00(0)

role of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44(2),
96–126.
O’Neill, T. A., & MxLamon, M. J. (2018). Optimizing team conflict dynamics for high-perfor-
mance teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 378–394.
Roos, L. M., & Victor, B. (2018). How it all began: The origins of LEGO Serious Play.
International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 326–343.
Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2014, December). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/12/making-dumb-groups-smarter
Urionabarrenetxea, S., Fernández-Sainz, A., & García-Merino, J. (2021). Team diversity and
performance in management students: Towards an integrated model. International Journal
of Management Education, 19(2), 100478.
van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom:
A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related
diversity relationships with performance. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119(1), 38–53.
van Veelen, R., & Ufkes, E. G. (2019). Teaching up or down? A multisource study on the
role of team identification and learning in the team diversity-performance link. Group &
Organization Management, 44(1), 38–71.
Wengel, Y. (2020). LEGO® Serious Play® in multi-method tourism research. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(4), 1605–1623.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organisations: A review
of 40 years of research. Research in Organisational Behavior, 20, 77–140.