Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: bf0793fd10c9ca70de94c8969e20a7fd95ebf45235a4ce86a1b40c0c06e46dc5

# Meddlers Game

Small groups map out an organizational structure on a flat surface using modular hexagonal tiles, role tokens, and face avatars to represent teams and collaboration. Teams position their units to test functional versus cross-functional trade-offs and evaluate structural risks.

**Time:** 45 minutes. UWT suggested duration. The evidence describes an open-ended workshop game; 45 minutes provides sufficient time for challenge framing, active modeling, and comparative debrief.
**People:** 4 to 24. Small working groups of 3 to 6 participants at separate tables or breakout boards

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Map and compare organizational team structures on a 2D surface to visualize dependencies, cross-functional collaboration, and communication bottlenecks.
**Use it when:** Use when teams, managers, or departments face reorganization, scaling pressures, cross-team handoffs, or shifting product ownership.
**Skip it when:** Skip when team architecture is rigidly mandated by external regulation or when the session focuses solely on individual interpersonal dynamics rather than system structure.

## Materials and tools

- 1 Meddlers kit per group of 3 to 6 (or printable hexagonal team tiles, role hat cutouts, and avatar face tokens)
- 1 fine-point marker per group
- 1 shared tabletop or white poster board per group
- 1 timer displayed to the room
- 1 scenario challenge sheet per group (see participant materials)

## Before participants arrive

1. Print and cut hexagonal function tiles, role tokens, and face avatars if using paper kits.
2. Set up a table for each subgroup of 3 to 6 people with one complete kit and markers.
3. Display the challenge scenario and legend rules where all tables can see them.

## Say this to open

Today we are playing the Meddlers game to explore how we structure teams. We will model our organization on a flat surface rather than an org chart hierarchy. In this exercise, hexagonal tiles represent team units, small hats represent roles, and faces represent individual people. Adjacent connected edges mean teams share direct value and collaborate closely. Working in small groups, you will arrange your tiles to meet a specific organizational challenge, then explain the risks and benefits of your layout.

## How to run it

### 1. Establish the challenge and legend (7 minutes)

Form groups of 3 to 6. Distribute one Meddlers kit and one challenge card to each table. Review the legend: faces are people, hats are roles, and hexagons are teams. A team with only one role is functional; a team with mixed roles is cross-functional. Adjacent tiles mean direct collaboration. Clarify that teams should stay under 10 people.

### 2. Map current or baseline setup (8 minutes)

Each table arranges tiles to reflect either their current reality or the starting conditions described on their scenario card. Group members place faces inside team tiles and assign role hats. Have each group note one communication pain point or handoff delay evident in this baseline layout.

### 3. Redesign the value network (15 minutes)

Groups rearrange their tiles to solve the scenario constraints. They can move roles, split large units into smaller teams, or link hexagon edges to show collaboration. If anyone invents a hybrid role or places a token across boundaries, they must write the rationale. Stop when time expires.

### 4. Peer tour of structures (8 minutes)

One person stays at each table as host while others rotate to view another group's layout for 4 minutes, then switch. The host explains the benefits and trade-offs of their design. Visitors look for single points of failure, overloaded shared services, or split ownership.

### 5. Whole-room synthesis (7 minutes)

Gather the whole room. Call on two tables to share one significant structural change they made and the primary risk they accepted. Summarize recurring themes regarding functional specialization versus cross-functional speed.


## Debrief questions

- Which dependencies or bottlenecks became visible only after laying out the tiles physically?
- What trade-offs did your group face between functional specialization and cross-functional autonomy?
- What is one structural experiment from today that could be tested safely in your actual department?

**Finished output:** A physical or digital modular map of team structures, including an identified list of operational benefits, dependencies, and structural risks.

## Remote

Run in an online whiteboard tool such as Miro using a Meddlers template with draggable hexagon tiles, role icons, and name tokens. Place each subgroup in a breakout room with its own board frame. Run the gallery walk by having groups pan to neighboring frames.

## Hybrid

In-person participants work around physical tables with kit pieces while remote participants work in a mirrored whiteboard board. Use table cameras or designate one digital scribe per in-person table to duplicate the physical layout online so remote and local participants review the same models during the tour.

## Access and participation choices

- Provide high-contrast, pre-labeled tactile tiles for participants with visual or motor impairments.
- Participants may choose active roles such as builder, scribe, or tour presenter, or observe quietly without speaking during the tour.

## If the session gets stuck

**A group attempts to build a conventional top-down hierarchical tree with the tiles.**

Remind them that Meddlers models a flat value network. Ask which teams deliver direct output to customers and connect tiles along the path of delivered work instead of reporting lines.

**Teams get stuck arguing over ideal job titles instead of designing the network.**

Instruct the group to bundle similar skills under generic functional roles (for example, Builder, Tester, Designer, Coordinator) so they focus on team boundaries and flow.


## Terms used here

- Value Network: A model where teams collaborate as interconnected nodes exchanging value rather than a top-down reporting chain.
- Cross-Functional Team: A team grouping people with different specialized roles to deliver complete outcomes together.
- Functional Team: A team composed entirely of people sharing the same role or specialization, such as a dedicated testing or design group.

## Participant material: Meddlers Challenge Scenarios

Choose one challenge scenario for your table:

Scenario A: The Growth Crunch
You have a business unit of 18 people supporting two large corporate clients and two small emerging clients. Currently, everyone reports into functional pools (engineering, design, support). Redesign into collaborative value units where no team exceeds 8 people.

Scenario B: The Distributed Scale-Up
You run a 15-person software startup providing a service to 100 enterprise customers. The company will double in size across two distinct geographic hubs over the next 6 months. Model an organization structure that maintains product ownership without creating communication silos.

Scenario C: Enterprise Matrix
You manage three cross-functional feature teams and two specialized platform/infrastructure teams across three offices. Redesign team borders and touchpoints to minimize blocking handoffs between feature work and shared infrastructure.

Legend Guidelines:
- Hexagonal Tiles = Teams / Value units (keep under 10 members per unit)
- Connected Hexagon Edges = Direct collaboration and continuous value exchange
- Hats / Labels = Distinct skill roles (for example, Product Owner, Architect, Engineer, Support)
- Faces / Tokens = People allocated to the team

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Management 3.0 practice materials as the Meddlers Game, credited as a change management exercise created for Management 3.0 Foundation Workshops and inspired by tabletop gaming.

Retained the core Meddlers mechanics from Management 3.0 evidence: flat 2D network modeling using hexagonal team tiles, role hats, face tokens, rules on functional versus cross-functional teams, edge connections indicating value exchange, and a constraint of fewer than 10 people per team. UWT structured the session into a timed 45-minute workshop flow with an explicit 5-step process, concrete scenario challenge prompts, hybrid accommodation steps, and focused debrief questions.

[Management 3.0](https://management30.com/practice/meddlers/)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/meddlers-game-for-change-management-management-3-0-practice/