Survivor Session 1 Pre-training Handout : simplebooklet.com

Welcome to “The Survivor Elevate Games: Building Bonds to Outlast WorkplaceChallenges”—a high-energy, challenge-based workshop where you and your tribe will competefor glory, growth, and the grand prize!Before you enter the arena, we’re giving you a powerful advantage: this curated Pre-WorkshopReading Packet. Think of these short articles as your strategic survival tools—each one mapsdirectly to a challenge you’ll face during the sessions.“You have been chosen, This is youradventure. Your story.”You’ll find:A quick summary of each articleA set of Questions for Thought to sharpen your strategyKey insights that can give your tribe a competitive edgethe full articlesWhy Read? Tribes that come in prepared willthink faster, collaborate better, and win smarter.These readings are packed with practical movesfor building trust, repairing missteps, masteringinclusive language, and leading with clarity.Pro Tip: Read 1–2 articles per day in the weekleading up to the workshop. Jot down any “aha!”moments—you might just use them to win aTribal Council vote or dominate a challenge.Let’s get ready to outthink, outtalk,and outcollaborate the competition.

Page 4

Page 5

Challenge 1: Rebuilding First ImpressionsArticle: “A Second Chance to Make the Right Impression” by Heidi GrantSummary: This article explores the concept that first impressions are not always accurate and can be reshaped over time. HeidiGrant emphasizes the importance of understanding how others perceive us and offers strategies to manage andimprove these perceptions. By being aware of our behaviors and the signals we send, we can take proactive steps tocorrect misunderstandings and build more accurate impressions in professional settings.Questions for Thought:Reflect on a time when you felt misunderstood in a professional setting. What contributed to that perception?What strategies can you employ to reshape a negative first impression?How can understanding others' perspectives help in managing your own image?

Page 6

Article 1A Second Chance to Make the Right Impressionby Heidi GrantFrom Harvard Business Review Magazine (January–February 2015)SummaryAll too often, when we think we’re projecting a certain image to others, they perceive us very differently. Thishappens in part because people tend to make judgments unconsciously and automatically, influenced by variousbiases. But research from social psychologists can help us understand the flaws in human perception and make surewe’re judged fairly. According to the author, someone meeting you for the first time—or reassessing you later—islikely to be viewing you through various lenses: the trust lens, to decide if you are friend or foe; the power lens, toassess your usefulness; and the ego lens, to confirm a sense of superiority. Halvorson suggests specific ways you canuse this information to put your best foot forward. To be trusted, project warmth and competence. To appeal tosomeone more powerful, demonstrate your instrumentality in reaching his or her goals. And to be seen positivelythrough another person’s ego lens, be modest and inclusive. If you need to overcome a bad impression, you cancomplement these strategies with others that will make people want to revise their opinions of you. By thinkingstrategically about how we all form our impressions, you’ll find it much easier to come across as you intend and beseen in a favorable light. ~Years ago a friend of mine, Gordon, interviewed for a position at a prominent university. During his daylong visit tocampus, he had lunch with a senior faculty member (let’s call him Bob) who had final say over the hire. After theirfood arrived, Bob said of his meal, “You know, this is great. You should try this.” Even though Gordon knew it was adish he wouldn’t like, he felt pressured to have a bite so as not to offend his potential future boss. The lunchcontinued pleasantly, with Gordon enumerating his accomplishments and Bob responding positively. Gordon wastherefore more than a little surprised when he didn’t get the job.“No one is truly an openbook...”

Page 7

He learned why a few years later, after he’d been hired for a different position at the same university. Apparently, whenBob had said “You should try this,” he had actually meant something like “You should try this sometime” or “My lunchis excellent,” and he was deeply disturbed that a job candidate would have the audacity to eat right from his plate. Hehad no desire to work with someone so disrespectful and ill-mannered.Gordon’s experience is an example of an all-too-common problem: unwittingly making a bad first impression.Not coming across as you intend—particularly in your initial encounter with someone—can cause big problems in yourpersonal and professional life. People may mistrust you, dislike you, or not even notice you. Sometimes the fault is yourown: You screwed up and you know it. But more often than not, bad first impressions stem from certain biases in howpeople perceive one another. And this happens routinely: Research shows only weak correlations between whatothers think of us and how we see ourselves. So if you’ve ever felt underestimated, sensed that you inadvertentlystepped on toes, or thought that false and hurtful assumptions were being made about you, you were probablyright. The way we see one another can be irrational, incomplete, and inflexible—and largely (but not entirely)automatic.The way we see one another can be irrational, incomplete, and inflexible—and largely automatic.To be fair, perceiving people accurately is hard. No one is truly an “open book.” Studies show that although strongbasic emotions—surprise, fear, disgust, and anger—are fairly easy to read, the more subtle emotions we experiencedaily are not. So how you look when you’re slightly frustrated probably isn’t all that different from how you look whenyou are a little concerned, confused, disappointed, or nervous. “I can’t believe he ate rightoff that guy’s plate...”

Page 8

Your “I’m kind of hurt by what you just said” face probably looks a lot like your “I’m not at all hurt by what you justsaid” face. And the majority of times that you’ve thought, “I made my intentions clear” or “They know what Imeant,” you didn’t and they don’t. Psychologists call this disconnect the transparency illusion.It’s important to understand that your words and behaviors are always subject to interpretation. Imagine that you’re ata meeting, and you begin staring off into space while a colleague is speaking. Are you bored? Are you thinkingdeeply about what she is saying? Are you wondering if you remembered to turn off the coffeepot? Your colleague hasno way of knowing why you are behaving as you are, but she will pick an interpretation—because that’s what ourbrains do.There is good news, however. We now know that errors in reading people are highly predictable, because perceptionis governed by rules and biases we can identify and anticipate. It is therefore possible to ensure that you’re making theright impression more often, and to correct any misperceptions that others have about you.Understanding PerceptionAny new person you encounter—a potential boss, a prospective client, a new colleague—is likely to evaluate you intwo phases. In phase one, the person makes an initial assessment of you quickly and without conscious thought,relying on a variety of heuristics, stereotypes, and other assumptions—using cues like your physical appearance, yourorganizational role, and your body language to fill in the blanks. This is less out of laziness (though there is some ofthat) than out of necessity. In a brief first meeting, the perceiver has too much to notice, understand, and act on togive you undivided, unbiased attention. In phase two—if there is a phase two—the perceiver has to work a lotharder, paying closer attention, gathering disparate data, and making sense of it to draw informed, thoughtfulconclusions about you. It takes serious mental effort to weigh all the possible factors influencing your behavior and toreconsider the snap judgments made in phase one. So the perceiver needs to be motivated to do it and not toodistracted.In both phases, but particularly the first, the people forming an impression of you aren’t simply passive observers.They have, without necessarily realizing it, particular questions they are trying to answer about you. It’s as if theyare looking through a distinct lens, or set of lenses, that shapes their view of you. The most powerful of these arethe trust, power, and ego lenses. (Additional lenses, driven by personality, might also be present, but they’re typicallyless important.)

Page 9

Other Lenses of PerceptionAlthough the trust, power, and ego lenses are the ones that people use most often to form judgments...The trust lens is employed when people want to figure out if you are friend or foe. Perceivers answer thatquestion by tuning in to two particular aspects of your character: your warmth (your expression of friendliness,respect, and empathy), which suggests that you have good intentions, and your competence (evidence that youare intelligent, skilled, and effective), which shows that you can act on your intentions.The power lens comes into play when there is a disparity of power, especially when the perceiver has more thanyou do. He or she gazes through this lens to assess your instrumentality: “Prove yourself useful to me, or get outof my way.”The ego lens gives the perceiver a sense of who’s on top. Subconsciously, people often want confirmation thatthey, or their group, are superior to other individuals or groups.Turning back to Gordon, there are several ways in which Bob’s lenses no doubt influenced the outcome of thelunch interview. Gordon readily displayed his competence by reviewing his track record, but he failed to showwarmth—indeed, the misunderstanding that led him to sample Bob’s food ended up conveying a lack of respect.Competence without warmth is a terrible combination, because it suggests that you may one day be a potent foe.Also, in focusing solely on his own accomplishments while talking with someone more powerful, Gordon failed toemphasize his instrumentality. If he had better explained how his previous experience would help him to furtherBob’s goals at the university, it might have been a whole different ball game. As it was, looking through his trust,power, and ego lenses, Bob probably thought, Why hire an accomplished outsider who might work against meand make me look bad?Trust EgoPower

Page 10

Coming Across the Right WaySo how can you use this knowledge of perception and its lenses to your advantage and consistently and effectivelytelegraph your intended messages? The first and most obvious strategy is to present the right kinds of evidence to helpothers draw the correct impression, keeping the lenses of perception in mind.To get someone to see you accurately through her trust lens, project warmth and competence. Give the rightphysical signals: Make eye contact, smile when appropriate, nod in agreement, listen carefully without interrupting, situp straight, and stand tall. And, especially if this is to be a lasting relationship, be a person of your word. Those whoare perceived as principled and reliable are the most likely to be seen as strong allies.To create the right impression in your perceiver’s power lens, be sure to demonstrate your instrumentality at everyreasonable opportunity. Make it clear that you want to help her be more effective in reaching your mutual goals.And to be seen positively through her ego lens, be modest and inclusive. Go out of your way to affirm the strengths ofothers, and try to create a sense of “us,” so that your perceiver can celebrate your achievements rather than feelthreatened by them.If you started off on the wrong foot and need to overcome a bad impression, the evidence will have to be plentifuland attention-getting in order to activate phase two thinking. Keep piling it on until your perceiver can no longer tuneit out, and make sure that the information you’re presenting is clearly inconsistent with the existing ideas about you.For instance, imagine that you missed a deadline on your first assignment for a new manager. Meeting your nextdeadline might or might not correct his impression of you. But what if you beat the next five deadlines by a week eachtime? That would certainly register. Your boss would naturally pay closer attention to see if the change lasts, and youwould have successfully nudged him into phase two.Another, complementary approach is to make your perceivers want to revise their opinions of you, thereby improvingyour image faster and with less effort. Here are a few strategies you might try:

Page 11

Activate the desire to be fair.Most people will tell you they strive to be open-minded and evenhanded in the way they judge and treat others.Psychologists call this having an egalitarian goal. Research suggests that when perceivers are genuinely committedto being fair, and when fairness has been recently reinforced in their minds, they will to a large degreespontaneously and automatically inhibit biases that might inappropriately influence their perceptions. It’s almostlike skipping phase one and heading directly to phase two, where the impression you create will be more accurateand more in keeping with your intentions.To activate the egalitarian goal, you can compliment your perceiver on his “fairness,” “unbiased assessment,” “keenperception,” or “uncanny accuracy” in evaluating people. If you don’t know the person well and would have no basisfor making such a judgment, you might suggest that in his line of work or position in the company, the ability toaccurately assess others must be a key skill. You wouldn’t be lying; most people do need to accurately read colleaguesand clients to succeed in their jobs. You can also try sharing your own challenges with fairness. Describe a time whenyou misjudged someone by letting some kind of bias get in the way. (To my embarrassment, I have a whole catalog ofsuch stories, like the time I nearly called security on a disheveled man in a dirty T-shirt and sweatpants wandering thehalls at Columbia. When I saw him again the next month, he was delivering a talk to the entire department on thecomplex new statistic he had just invented. A noted psychologist and statistician, he would later become one of mymentors.)Make yourself necessary.In many ways the easiest and most direct way to get other people to want to perceive you correctly—to make phasetwo processing worth their while—is to ensure that you have a role in their success. Psychologists call this outcomedependency. In a nutshell, it means that others can’t get what they want without cooperation from you. This is whythe powerless pay such close attention to the powerful. And this is why individuals who must rely on someone else todeliver will take the trouble to better understand that person’s character, intentions, and habits. If your perceiverneeds to be able to predict your behavior, anticipate your wants and needs, and respond accordingly, she’s got nochoice but to enter phase two.

Page 12

To create outcome dependency, try to identify opportunities for collaboration. For example, if your supervisor hasunderestimated you, consider asking for an assignment that would allow you to work with her more closely. It’s natural toshy away from people who don’t think highly of you, but you need to fight that instinct and instead stick to them like glueif you hope to correct their misperceptions. Things will get much more comfortable once they begin to realize that you’renot so bad after all.Seize the right moments.Human beings have a deep and fundamental desire for control. Not having it—because of stressors such as uncertainty,lack of choices, coercion, or micromanagement—reliably leads to feelings of helplessness, apathy, and depression. Whenpeople experience a loss of control, they naturally try to get it back. And if they can’t do that by attacking the problemdirectly (for example, telling the micromanaging boss “I quit”), research shows that they may become more vigilant anddetail-oriented about other matters, including the process of observing others.You can take advantage of occasions when your perceiver is feeling at the mercy of outside forces: when your boss isstressed about meeting year-end goals, or when a colleague is struggling to complete a project on time or has lost animportant client. Focusing on getting to know you better is a way for people to feel as if they’re reclaiming control. So justby being present and, if possible, stepping up to help, you can highlight your strengths when your perceiver is most likelyto notice.Are you wondering if Gordon was ever able to overcome that bad first impression he made with Bob? Yes, he was, with anapproach that involved several of these strategies. First, he thought long and hard about the work that Bob (now adepartment head) was doing, and he took every opportunity to reach out and support Bob’s agenda. He also made sure toproject warmth during their interactions and to express himself with greater humility. After about a year, Bob invited himto participate on several key committees, and Gordon felt that the pair had established a level of trust. Nowadays, they evenhave friendly lunches once in a while—without sampling each other’s food.We all want to make good impressions that accord with the images we intend to project. Research consistently shows thatpeople are happier and more satisfied and have better relationships and greater feelings of purpose when theybelieve they come across authentically. Life is simply easier and more rewarding when others “get” you and provide youwith the opportunities and support that are a good fit.But you can’t sit back and wait for those around you to accurately size you up. You need to think strategically aboutencouraging and incentivizing them to see you in the best possible light. If you do, then it is really never too late to makethe right impression.“It is really never too late tomake the right firstimpression.”

Page 13

Challenge 2: Building Trust in TeamsArticle: “How High-Performing Teams Build Trust” by RonFriedmanSummary: Ron Friedman discusses the foundational role of trust in high-performing teams. He identifies keybehaviors that foster trust, such as reliability, openness, and mutual respect. The article providesactionable insights into how teams can cultivate a trusting environment, leading to enhancedcollaboration and performance.Questions for Thought:What behaviors have you observed that build or erode trust within a team?How can transparency and communication impact team trust?In what ways can you contribute to a culture of trust in your team?

Page 14

Article 2How High-Performing Teams Build Trustby Ron FriedmanJanuary 10, 2024If you’re like most seasoned leaders, you’ve heard a lot in recent years about the value of trust.Employees who trust their organizations show higher engagement, creativity, and productivity. Those who don’texperience more stress, increased burnout, and are more likely to quit. Fostering trust, therefore, represents a crucialimperative for any leader looking to create a high-performing team.Conversations about cultivating trust at work often focus on the relationship between managers and employees.While useful, this approach represents only half the equation. As important — if not more so — is establishing trustbetween teammates. After all, most employees work in teams, and the lion’s share of their daily experience involvesinteracting with colleagues, often in the absence of a boss.So, how do the best teams build trust among themselves?To find out, my team at ignite80 surveyed 1,000 U.S.-based office workers, with the goal of pinpointing behaviorsthat differentiate high-performing teams and understanding we can learn from their approach.“Trust creates a culture ofinclusion.”

Page 15

To identify members of high-performing teams, we invited respondents to complete a survey about theirattitudes, experiences, and behaviors at work. Embedded within our questionnaire were items askingworkers to: 1) rate their team’s effectiveness, and 2) compare their team’s performance to other teams intheir industry. Workers who scored their team a 10 out of 10 on both items were designated members ofhigh-performing teams, allowing us to compare their behaviors against those of everyone else.Our research found that high-performing teams are exceedingly rare; only 8.7% of respondents gavetheir teams qualifying scores. We also identified five key behaviors related to trust that set these teamsapart.High-Performing Teams Don’t Leave Collaboration to ChanceWhen launching a project, many teams follow a predictable cadence: They assign tasks and startworking. High-performing teams, on the other hand, are more than three times more likely to begin byfirst discussing how they will work together, paving the way for fewer misunderstandings and smoothercollaboration down the road.How exactly do you have a conversation about collaborating? In his new book, How to Work with(Almost) Anyone, Michael Bungay Stanier provides a series of prompts teammates can use to conductwhat he calls “Keystone Conversations” before starting a project. Colleagues take turns sharing: 1) thetasks at which they excel, 2) their communication preferences, and 3) successful and unsuccessfulcollaborations they’ve experienced in the past. Critically, Bungay Stanier also recommends proactivelycreating a strategy for when things go awry, by inviting team members to devise a plan for handling anybreakdowns in collaboration, should they occur.“So what’s the plan,fam?”

Page 16

Ultimately, the precise prompts your team uses to establish collaboration norms matter less than engaging in adialogue on how you will work together. Doing so contributes to trust by signaling respect for one another’s strengthsand preferences, securing agreement on process, and inviting team members to speak up when they noticeopportunities for improvement.High-Performing Teams Keep Colleagues in the LoopAnother factor that differentiates high-performing teams is their tendency to proactively share information.Greater transparency doesn’t just foster trust — it’s also been shown to fuel creativity, performance, and profitability.In contrast, when colleagues withhold information from their teammates, there are frequently deeper issues at play.“Knowledge hiding,” as it’s referred to in academic literature, often suggests a lack of psychological safety oran underlying power struggle. In our study, we found that members of high-performing teams are significantly more likely to take responsibility forkeeping others informed rather than expecting a manager to do so. In other words, they don’t just avoid hoardinginformation — they go out of their way to keep colleagues in the loop, creating a culture of inclusion.“Don’t be a knowledge-hider!”

Page 17

High-Performing Teams Share CreditReceiving praise for a job well-done isn’t just rewarding, it also contains an important team-building opportunity — onethat high-performing teams leverage often.Instead of soaking up praise alone, members of high-performing teams are more likely to share recognition for theiraccomplishments with teammates by acknowledging or thanking those who played a role in their success. In so doing,they increase the likelihood of their colleagues feeling appreciated and promote a norm of reciprocity, both of whichcontribute to the experience of trust.It’s a clever approach — and not just because it fosters better teamwork. Recent studies indicate that when we sharecredit for our accomplishments, we appear more likable without seeming any less capable.High-Performing Teams Believe Disagreements Make Them BetterYears ago, psychologist John Gottman noticed something odd about happy marriages: thriving couples often fight morethan unhappy ones. More important than the sheer number of disagreements, Gottman’s research revealed, is the waya couple navigates them.Happy couples do all sort of things that make for more productive disagreements: They avoid name-calling and sarcasm,focus on what they need instead of their partner’s failures, and use “I” statements to communicate in a way that makestheir partner less defensive.Like thriving marriages, high-performing teams don’t experience less conflict. Where they differ is the way they interpretand respond to disagreements.Our findings indicate that high-performing teams are more likely to believe that workplace disagreements lead tobetter decisions (as opposed to damaging relationships). They also rate their teammates as more effective at preventingdisagreements from getting personal.

Page 18

These two observations are likely connected. A workplace disagreement can be perceived as an opportunity or athreat, and our interpretation influences the way we respond. Among high-performing teams, viewing conflict as asource of strength makes disagreement less harrowing, reducing the frequency with which colleagues lash out.High-Performing Teams Proactively Address TensionMembers of high-performing teams don’t just interpret conflict more adaptively — they’re also more prone totaking the initiative in resolving it. In our study, we found that they are significantly more interested in “hearing ifthey upset a teammate,” and more willing to proactively reach out if “something didn’t feel right between meand a teammate.”Both responses reflect a broader tendency among high-performing teams to embrace a growth mindset when itcomes to colleague relationships. This term is typically used to describe the way successful people respond tosetbacks: by believing that outcomes can be improved through effort, learning, and perseverance.Members of high-performing teams hold a similar perspective when it comes to workplace relationships. In oursurvey, they were significantly more likely to agree with the statements “even the best work relationships havetheir ups and downs,” and “most work relationships can be damaged and repaired.”In other words, they believe tension is temporary and, with a little effort, thorny relationships can be salvaged.Those views make them more likely to take action in the face of the occasional relational blip.. . .It’s no surprise that trust is at the core of high-performing teams. What our research reveals is the degree towhich that trust emerges as a result of everyday peer-to-peer interactions that facilitate better communicationand stronger teamwork.Building trust in the workplace can’t and shouldn’t fall solely on the shoulders of management. After all, trust isn’trelayed from the top down. It’s built organically on a foundation of behaviors exhibited by all team members thatempower everyone to produce their best work.

Survivor Session 1 Pre-training Handout

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3