Email communication is one of the most frequently used tools in business. How often does it happen that emails are misunderstood? To avoid this, it is worth knowing the 7C method, which will help you create effective and professional messages.

Teambuilding, or teamwork, is one of the most valued and necessary skills for employees in many companies. A cohesive and engaged team cannot work poorly. As much as 80% of a company’s success and efficiency depends on well-functioning and well-matched task teams. Therefore, there are many reasons why companies decide on training in teambuilding.  Developing full communication in the team, building trust, the ability to overcome mutual fears and resistance in the implementation of common tasks, developing conflict resolution skills, increasing employee motivation, or developing interpersonal communication that supports building a cohesive team, and many other factors. Games, activities, and exercises conducted during the training, developed according to an interesting scenario, will solve more than one problem in the company.   Team-building training aims to create a well-coordinated, efficiently functioning, and cooperative team, integrating it to serve more effective daily task execution. It also aims to make participants aware of the attitudes and behaviors that promote better group work. The main task of the training is to demonstrate that a team as a group of people can create more value than individual units combined. Exercises performed during the training have an integrating character and also build and strengthen the sense of trust among employees. If you haven’t used this type of training yet, it’s high time to catch up and send us an inquiry –   Training on building an effective team see#  

A discreet investigation into colleagues’ non-work-related interests can be surprising. Specialists and managers, after leaving the office, rush to repair bicycles, paint figurines, plane furniture, make liqueurs, and knit scarves. Sometimes we wish our team would show even a fraction of the enthusiasm at work that they reserve for their hobbies ☺ And contrary to appearances, it is achievable. The so-called ‘Ikea effect’ can help us with this.

Communication in conflict is an art. Everything is going quite well for us, we effectively exchange information, we have built more than one tower out of pasta during training, and everything is fine… until. Until strong emotions take over. All the coaching models we learned disappear from memory, leaving two people growling at each other. What to do when someone approaches and we feel an explosion is imminent? How to avert disaster at the last moment? Below you will find an overview of 5 rescue communication techniques in conflict. Communication in the team goes quite well for us… until strong emotions take over. Because communication in conflict is an art.

Ask your team members to take a moment to reflect on what was, what is, and what they expect in 2018. The task is to write down your comments, ideas, and thoughts in five areas: Past what happened, what we remembered from the last few months Present what is currently happening in our team Positives what we can benefit from – what are we satisfied with? Negatives what we need to change/improve – what makes our daily work more difficult? Future

The overload of professional and domestic duties and the lack of time to rest is a common cause of chronic fatigue, manifesting itself in problems with sleep, memory, and concentration.

The use of attribution errors is often unconscious and automatic. Their application can create communication barriers, so it is important to understand the mechanism of their operation. Moreover, after understanding its operation, the acquired knowledge can be used as tools to build greater openness towards our idea (innovation context) or towards the feedback we provide (teamwork context). The fundamental attribution error affects communication efficiency. It is the tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to internal factors while underestimating the role of situational determinants of those behaviors. However, when it comes to self-assessment, the opposite happens. People see causes in what they focus their attention on (Wojciszke, 2011). Two errors that can be identified in relation to attribution theory are: attributional egotism – when thinking about their own actions, people attribute the causes of their successes to themselves, while in the event of failure, they explain the failure by circumstances rather than their own mistakes attributional egocentrism – involves exaggerating one’s contribution to activities that are performed in a group Are you wondering how this relates to teamwork? Imagine that in company X, an employee poorly executed their tasks, causing the company to lose a significant contract. In a conversation with the boss, such a person will look for all possible situational reasons to explain their mistake. The boss, on the other hand, will try to show that it is the employee’s fault. The conversation will likely end with both parties dissatisfied. The supervisor will think that the employee does not want to take responsibility for their behavior, while the subordinate, not seeing their fault, will probably assume that the boss overreacted and there is no need to worry about the situation – after all, it was the circumstances’ fault. In the described example, one can observe how often we deal with attribution errors, which hinder our objective view of our behavior in situations where we have failed. An excellent example of this is a study conducted by Lau and Russel in 1980. They noticed that American football coaches, as well as the players themselves, attribute their victories to internal factors, such as being in good shape, the natural talent of the team, or hard work. On the other hand, when the team loses, the failure is attributed to external factors, such as bad weather, injuries, or cheating by the opposing team. This happens because if success is attributed to one’s own merits and failure to circumstances, self-esteem does not suffer. Moreover, cognitive factors can influence attributional egotism. People generally assume that they will succeed in a given task. If this is the case and the goal is actually achieved, such a situation is likely to be attributed to abilities. However, if the anticipated success ends in failure, it is explained by bad luck and circumstances. This creates communication barriers because each side perceives the situation differently.

5 dysfunkcji pracy zespołowej Lencioniego to model, który pozwala spojrzeć szerzej na pracę zespołową. Szczególnie przydaje się, gdy chcemy „zabrać się” za budowanie zespołu i stworzyć coś więcej, niż tylko grupę ludzi pracujących razem. Pozwala na dokonanie analizy sytuacji oraz wyznaczenie priorytetów – czym zająć się w pierwszej kolejności?

Using stereotypes is often unconscious and automatic, just like the occurrence of attribution errors. Their use can also create communication barriers, so it is equally important to understand their mechanism. As is commonly known, a stereotype is a simplified cognitive representation, a ‘mental image in our heads’ (Lippmann, 1992). This means that we attribute specific traits to certain groups. Using stereotypes can affect the effectiveness of communication. It often happens that we evaluate people we talk to based on their status. We then follow learned patterns concerning specific groups. If we classify someone into a specific group, we will attribute to them the general characteristics commonly associated with the community to which they belong. This will also affect our behavior towards that person. This may result in a communication barrier and many issues being assessed incorrectly. A good example that shows how stereotypes influence judgments about other people is a study conducted by Darley and Gross in 1983. The aim of the experiment was to check how schemas concerning specific social groups affect participants’ evaluations. The participants were divided into two groups. In both, a film was presented in which a little girl played in a toy-rich environment (first group) or a toy-poor environment (second group). Then the participants were shown the same child, this time solving a cognitive test in which she made a few mistakes and marked a few correct answers (50/50). After this activity, the subjects were asked to comment on her intelligence and potential for achieving success in the future. The study similarly assessed the intelligence of the girl. In contrast, individuals from the group who saw the child playing in a wealthy environment claimed that she would achieve greater success than those from the group who were shown the girl in a poor environment. This study clearly demonstrates that participants’ judgments were influenced by the stereotype of what it means to be poor or wealthy. Moreover, the participants were unaware that any schemas were affecting their thinking. The given example shows how stereotypical thinking influences the way we evaluate others. It is important to be aware of this to avoid making hasty judgments about people and situations, which will help us avoid misunderstandings and barriers in communication. How to apply this knowledge in practice?