Running the "different styles, same goal" activity

This activity gives two students of different styles the same crisis, each facing it on their own, and their answers split in a way neither can call wrong. That split is the lesson.

Before class, each student has their Career Discovery results, so each already has a named style, one of four: Accelerator, Analyst, Harmonizer, or Pragmatist. Have them open Understanding Styles in their report, the part on how their style works with the other three. About thirty minutes.

This is a working-styles activity, so keep it on the four styles and how they meet, not on the five work types.

Say to students: style differences are not bugs to fix, they are features that make teams stronger.

Pair each student with someone of a different working style. Give each pair the Different Styles, Shared Goals worksheet. The full worksheet is ready to download and hand out.

The scenario, handed to both partners. Your student organization finds a $2,000 shortfall three weeks before its biggest event. The venue is booked. 200 tickets are already sold. The two of you co-lead the response.

1. Each partner answers the crisis alone. No comparing yet. Working on their own, each student writes:

• a first thought
• the first three concrete actions
• the information they need
• who they would bring in
• how they would communicate it
• what they fear goes wrong

Answering alone lets each one land on an instinct before they see the other, so the difference between them is real and their own.

2. Compare, then build the decision-point table. Partners put their answers side by side. Name your biggest surprise, where you aligned, and where you split. Then, for each of these four decisions, each student writes their own instinct, their partner's, and why they differ:

• first priority
• speed versus deliberation
• who to involve
• communication approach

Then each partner writes one thing their partner considered that never crossed their own mind.

3. Read your instincts back through your style. Here the difference stops being personal. Each student opens Understanding Styles and reads their instincts against it, and against its guidance on working with the other three styles. The clash was two named styles meeting, just as the report describes.

4. Build one combined approach, and land it. Together, write the best combined first move, using both instincts. Name where you would clash if you truly co-led this, and one way to prevent it. Then each student writes one thing they will do differently next time, and the one style difference they most appreciate in their partner.

Independent variant, for a solo or async slot. A student can run this alone. Answer the crisis, then read your instincts against your own Understanding Styles profile, no partner. The compare becomes the report's read of how your style moves, and how the other three would have moved.

Close on three truths:

• your first instinct is your style talking
• the split is a pairing, not a ranking
• the combined approach beats either partner alone

Each student leaves holding a filled decision-point table, one combined move, and one thing they will do differently.