My work is about impact. An agency will look to me for swift solutions to urgent issues. There is rarely time allocated to building rapport with a team. I must build trust as I go.
It’s not a simple challenge. The work isn’t possible without a minimal level of trust, but I’ve yet to justify a specific trust building session.
How quickly can I get from meeting a team for the first time, to having their commitment to experiments aimed at improving shared ways of working?
It’s been an interesting challenge finding out.
I’ve used a similar approach a few times now when meeting a new team. I’m putting it out in the world as another opportunity to review it for potential improvements, and to open it up to feedback from those who have relevant experiences and insights.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that three hours is the minimum I can make work. Any less and trust hasn’t had time to form.
I use the time in the form of three sessions of one hour spread over a couple of weeks. The thinking behind spreading the sessions out is that when building trust it’s important to give the individuals time and space to consider one session before the next. Time to talk about the approach and the latest session to then enable maximum progress in the one that follows.
I tend to focus the sessions on three themes: introductions, surfacing potential, and commitment to progress.
I think the sessions would work well in person, but to this point I’ve always run them virtually. That means I include a request for everybody’s cameras to be on, which can feel a little awkward, but the sessions do benefit.
Starting as strangers
Most people who join these sessions are meeting me for the first time. I start by sharing who I am, why I’m there, and what gives me the right to be working with them.
I’ve found that transparency here is critical. Unknowns feed into people’s anxiety. So I share the preparation I’ve done, what we’ll cover in each session, and what likely comes after.
I leave lots of space for questions and clarification. I leave long pauses after speaking, giving people the opportunity to share their thoughts.
Open questions are my go to. I’ve learned that yes/no questions shut down the discussion. Giving people lots of time, or asking for input on a board creates more openness.
Code of conduct
I’ve come to realise that trust doesn’t appear just because I’m in the room. A team brings its own culture, its habits of communication, its unspoken rules. Without some guard rails, those existing dynamics can quietly hold back what we’re trying to achieve.
That’s why I start by naming a few simple ground rules. The rules are never elaborate, and I adapt them depending on the team.
What matters is the purpose: to give people permission to speak without fear of blame or repercussion.
Once those expectations are shared, I can feel the shift. People lean in a little more. The conversations become bolder.
Finding possibilities
I try to meet a team where they are. If people can’t recognise themselves in the picture, they won’t buy into change.
So the early activities are about surfacing the present. What does the team look like today? How does it feel to work here?
Simple exercises can reveal a lot. They get people talking, and they allow us to draft a simple team canvas without anyone feeling like we’re doing heavy lifting.
The specifics vary, and I’ll share more detail another time. What matters here is the spark. The moment when a team begins to see that things could be different.
Choosing what to try
When the ideas start coming, I’ve found it works best to keep things easy. The less focus on who suggested what, the more people are willing to share. Often it’s not obvious who suggested each idea, and that makes it feel safer.
What’s interesting is how quickly a handful of favourites appear. Almost every time, four or five ideas rise to the top. It’s rarely about the brilliance of the ideas, and more about our tendency to fall in line with the group.
I do try to make sure strong voices don’t drown out the rest. If one or two people speak too early, the whole group can sway with them. Giving others the first word can change the balance.
And I make a point of saying that no idea is lost. Even if it doesn’t get picked straight away, it’s still on the table for later.
Priorities
The voting gives a clear steer on what to try first. It shows where the energy is.
A quick chat afterwards helps. People often read the same idea in different ways, and clearing that up early avoids confusion later.
Once there’s agreement, we put it into a simple statement. Something like: “We believe that if we [make this change], we’ll see [this positive outcome].”
One team, for example, agreed: “We believe more consistent ticket details will save us time in triage and cut down on admin.”
Metrics
It helps to have a rough idea of how success will be measured before trying something new. A baseline makes it easier to see if the change has made a difference.
It doesn’t need to be perfect. At this stage nothing is fixed. It’s just about checking whether the right data or measures are there if we need them.
Details
It’s worth thinking about what could get in the way of each experiment and how to reduce the risk. A small obstacle spotted early can save a lot of trouble later.
It also helps to be clear on who needs to be involved. Sometimes you need support from nearby teams, and occasionally the wider business has to be involved.
Making it real
Once the team has agreed on a set of experiments, and the details are sketched out, the final step is commitment. This is the moment where the group says, “yes, this is worth committing to.”
It’s about drawing a line under the discussion and turning ideas into action. By the end, the experiments are confirmed, roles are clear, and people are stepping forward to lead the way.
It’s reaching a shared commitment that helps turn the endless talk into potential for meaningful change.