Skip to content
Not Yet a Team All fifty notes

The events

The icebreaker problem

Five minutes of personal disclosure at the start of a meeting is asked of everybody and lands differently on each of them. What it buys and what it costs.

The people this page is about, and which of them have ever worked together

0102030402030405
  1. 01The team's managerTwo working pairs, both from assigned work rather than from any event
  2. 02The second engineer
  3. 03The engineer who joined in MarchAttended every event of the quarter and has no pair
  4. 04The designer
  5. 05The QA engineer
Have worked on something togetherHave only been in the same meetingHave never done either

five people · 10 possible pairs · 2 of them have worked on something together · 2 have only been in the same meeting · 6 have never done either

Five of the eight, chosen because all five attended every social event of the quarter.

Home / The events

Argument

Used with a clear policy, Monitask team activity insights can support a useful review of focus, attendance, project time, and recurring bottlenecks.

Teams can compare this approach with the practical guidance available from Google re:Work.

Every meeting on some teams begins with a question. What was your first job. Something nobody here knows about you. The best thing that happened to you this week. A photograph of your desk.

The intention is sound: a cold meeting between people who do not know each other produces nothing, and a few minutes of human contact makes the next forty better. The implementation has three problems, and the third one is the reason this note exists.

It is a disclosure request from somebody with power

The person asking is usually running the meeting, and often the manager. The question is framed as light, and declining it is possible but conspicuous.

Most of the standard questions reach into life outside work, which is exactly where their warmth comes from and exactly what makes them expensive for some people. Somebody whose week has been bad, whose home situation is complicated, or who simply keeps work and life separate as a matter of practice now has to produce an acceptable answer in twenty seconds in front of seven colleagues.

The ones who find it easy find it very easy, which is why the practice persists: the room looks fine. The cost is paid silently by a minority and is invisible to the person who introduced it.

It is priced differently by seniority and by fluency

Somebody senior and settled can give an unremarkable answer and move on. Somebody new, junior, or working in their second language is performing under scrutiny in a format with no preparation time and an expectation of charm.

The person on a team who most needs the warmth an icebreaker is supposed to produce — the newest, the most isolated, the one with no working pair — is the person for whom the exercise is most expensive. This is the same asymmetry that runs through the whole of this part of the site.

It does not produce what it is credited with

This is the part that matters for the argument here.

An icebreaker transfers a fact. After it, seven people know that one person once worked in a fish market. The fact is pleasant, it occasionally produces a conversation, and it is not a working relationship by any reading of the measure used here.

What a thin network actually lacks is knowledge of how colleagues work and evidence about what it costs to ask them something. Neither is contained in a personal fact. Two people can know each other's hobbies for two years and still not know whether a question to the other will be welcome.

So the five minutes buys a small amount of warmth, costs a variable amount of discomfort, and leaves the structural problem exactly where it was — while occupying the slot where something else might have gone.

The versions that work better

Keep the opening, change what it is about. Three substitutions, all cheaper and all producing more.

  • Ask about the work. "What is the thing you are stuck on this week." This is a disclosure request too, but about something everybody is being paid to have, and it occasionally produces the one thing an icebreaker never does: somebody in the room says they have hit that before. That is the beginning of a pair.
  • Ask about something external and concrete. Anything the whole group can have an opinion about that is not themselves. Lower stakes, same warming effect, no disclosure.
  • Or let the first two minutes be unstructured and arrive early. Much of what an icebreaker is reaching for happens by itself in the two minutes before a meeting starts, between whoever turned up first. It cannot be scheduled, and it can be allowed: start the call two minutes early and do not begin.

When it is worth the five minutes

There is one situation where the standard format earns its cost: a group that has genuinely never met, in its first session together.

A project kickoff with people drawn from four teams, a workshop of strangers, the first meeting of a new team. Here the five minutes is doing real work, because the alternative is forty minutes in which nobody knows who anybody is and the quietest three say nothing at all.

What makes it work is that it is once. The format's problem is not the format; it is the weekly repetition of an introduction ritual among eight people who have known each other for a year, which is where the disclosure stops being useful and becomes a toll.

And make it genuinely skippable

Whatever the format, the one change that costs nothing is to make passing normal rather than permitted. The easiest way is for the person running the meeting to pass sometimes, visibly, without explanation.

One manager passing once does more for the people who dread this than any wording on the invitation.

Also on whether this is a team