Building Blocks in a Circle
Purpose: This exercise is particularly suitable (in the context of bullying prevention) for recognizing how the group deals with each other (in conflicts). It becomes clear who is listened to and who is not, what is the reaction to mistakes and with whom is this shared and much more. This exercise, the intensity of which can be controlled via the trainer’s feedback, provides an overview of behaviour patterns or critical issues that are otherwise only visible to a limited extent.
Issue addressed: Bullying and violence prevention; Social relationships.
Relevance to mental health: Through the exercise and the repeated motivation to achieve better results as a group, the fighting spirit of the group can be awakened, and the young people can surpass themselves. Negotiating the common strategy makes the young people reflect on themselves and their role in the group; this reflection is particularly moderated and guided by the trainers. The exercise makes it clear which important roles must be taken on in a group exercise and that these roles are not static but can be variable. A learning process that deals with group dynamics and individual growth.
Intended change: Group dynamics become visible and the group must solve a task together, which can lead to empowerment and individual growth.
Romanian pilot experience: In the Romanian pilot implementation, this type of activity supported participants in becoming more aware of their role within a group and how their behaviour influences collective outcomes. The exercise encouraged participants to reflect on communication patterns, leadership dynamics, and the importance of listening to others. It contributed to improving cooperation, fostering more balanced participation, and increasing awareness of how conflicts emerge and can be managed constructively within a group.
Context of pilot implementation
This activity was implemented as part of a pilot action carried out within the MEET project by the Jugendinitiative Triestingtal. This method was carried out with young people in the school context but also in the youth counselling centre and in street work, with different group sizes. Young people aged 12-16 participated. The exercise was carried out both as an introductory method, warm-up, but also for deepening and as a conclusion and was considered suitable for all different phases of a workshop. There were always two facilitators present at the workshops who moderated the method together.
Romanian pilot experience: The Building Blocks in a Circle activity was implemented in Romania across multiple contexts, including youth centre sessions and school-based workshops, involving groups of 12 to 24 participants aged between 14 and 18. The activity generated high levels of engagement, particularly due to its interactive and competitive nature. Participants were motivated to complete the task and improve their performance in repeated rounds, especially when working against time or in parallel teams. Facilitators observed that the activity effectively revealed group dynamics, including the emergence of informal leaders, unequal participation, and situations where multiple participants attempted to impose their ideas. In several cases, lack of clear coordination or competing leadership led to confusion, slower task completion, and tension within the group. The activity also highlighted how participants reacted to pressure and rule enforcement. Restarting the task due to rule violations generated frustration, but also created opportunities for reflection on communication, cooperation, and fairness. Participants became more aware of how behaviours such as interrupting, not listening, or raising their voice influenced group performance. In inclusive education settings, the activity supported social interaction and cooperation, although challenges such as limited space and difficulties in expressing opinions calmly affected group dynamics. Facilitators used these situations to introduce assertive communication and conflict management strategies, helping participants understand that disagreement can be constructive when managed respectfully. The Romanian pilot confirmed the effectiveness of the activity as a tool for developing teamwork, communication, and conflict management skills, while making group processes visible and easier to reflect upon. In the Romanian pilot, the activity proved particularly relevant for mixed groups with different levels of confidence, participation, and communication skills. It was especially useful in contexts where some participants were more dominant while others were less likely to express their opinions, as the activity made these differences visible and opened space for reflection.
Theoretical background
Every group is a social system with informal hierarchies and established patterns of attention. Under task pressure, these structures become particularly visible: Whose suggestions are taken up? Who remains unheard? The exercise makes these otherwise difficult-to-observe dynamics transparent — both for teachers and, through guided reflection, for the group itself. The stepwise increase in time pressure applies the principle of induced stress: moderate pressure raises engagement, while excessive pressure erodes cooperative behaviour and activates exclusion mechanisms. It is precisely in this zone between manageable and overwhelming that patterns emerge which remain hidden in everyday school life. Research shows that exclusion typically unfolds in subtle, gradual ways that are difficult for facilitators to detect. The exercise creates a controlled situation in which it becomes visible whether all students are included, whether mistakes are judged differently depending on a student’s social position, and whether minority opinions are systematically overruled — all of which are preconditions for targeted prevention. The structure of the exercise — acting, observing, reflecting — follows Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Social competencies can hardly be developed through instruction alone, but they can be cultivated through direct experience followed by guided reflection. The explicit rules of the exercise function as a stressor that tests the group’s own regulatory system: Who takes responsibility when a rule is broken? Who becomes the scapegoat? The teacher’s appreciative feedback after each round simultaneously models a constructive approach to failure — making it an intervention in its own right.
Romanian pilot experience: Observations from the Romanian pilot confirm that experiential and action-based activities are particularly effective in helping young people understand abstract concepts such as group roles, cooperation, and perspective. Participants demonstrated a stronger understanding of these concepts when they experienced them directly through the activity, especially in situations involving pressure, competition, or the need to coordinate with others.
Target group
- Age: 12 years and above
- Profile: any type of youth
- Context: non-formal or formal education, minimum 5 and maximum 30 participants.
Context of use
Location: School, NGO, youth centres, community centres, outreach etc. Any room or open space.
Types of skills and dimensions addressed:
- Socio-emotional skills: empathy and understanding of stress and anger mechanisms
- Relational skills: group communication, inclusion
- Self-regulation skills: emotional self-regulation,
- Awareness skills: awareness of one’s own emotions and possibilities to regulate them.
Activity description – step by step
Step 1: Introduction
Duration: 10 minutes
Procedure: The rope is laid on the ground in a shape of a circle, which is then filled with numbered bricks (at least five more than the number of participants). The participants are given the task of getting the blocks out of the circle in the correct numerical order as quickly as possible (facilitator measures the time). Various rules on how to do this can be agreed upon ahead by the group but not by the facilitator. Before starting, the group is given 5 minutes to work out a common strategy.
Table 1. Actions – Step 1.
| Facilitator’s Actions | Participants’ Actions |
|---|---|
| Prepare the set up with the rope and block | Agree on a common strategy to perform the activity. |
| Explain the game to the participants and instruct them to decide within 5 minutes on the rules and strategy before they start the activity. |
Reflection: This exercise encourages participants to collaborate and train their problem-solving capacities as well as conflict management.
Step 2: “Building blocks” Main part
Duration: 30 – 40 minutes
Procedure: The exercise starts when the first person enters the circle. From this point onwards, no more talking among participants is allowed. Only one person at a time may be in the circle or cross it with one part of their body. At the end of the exercise, each participant must have at least one block with them. Participants who are ‘directly neighbouring’ the previous active pupil (who removed the block) are not allowed to act next. If a rule is broken, the exercise starts again. After the first round, the instructor gives appreciative feedback and praise. It is then pointed out that it is certainly possible to complete the exercise in half the time (that was measured). If the group agrees, the process is repeated from the beginning. Once the set time target has been reached, feedback is again given in an appreciative manner and a new, much more challenging time goal is set. If the group agrees to this, the process starts again. This procedure can be repeated several times.
Table 2. Actions – Step 2.
| Facilitator’s Actions | Participants’ Actions |
|---|---|
| Measure the time of each activity round | Engage in the activity following the rules and agreed strategy. |
| Praise participants when the round is completed and suggest a new round in less time. |
Reflection: This exercise gives the participants the opportunity to try out collaborative group dynamics, with discussion of a strategy before and a silent performance afterwards. The group tries to solve an increasingly difficult challenge together.
Romanian pilot experience: During the implementation, facilitators observed that participants initially focused on completing the task rather than on how they worked together. As the activity progressed and the level of challenge increased, group dynamics became more visible, including leadership behaviours, exclusion patterns, and differences in engagement. These observations provided essential material for the reflection phase.
Step 3: Debriefing and evaluation (if needed)
Duration: 10 – 15 minutes
Procedure: The reflection depends on the perceived actions/dynamics in the group. If there have been major actions of conflict or marginalization, it can be difficult to reflect immediately in the large group. It is then advisable to hold individual conversations in advance (especially with the person(s) concerned). It is particularly interesting to observe closely as a facilitator during this exercise: Who is being heard? Who is not listened to? How are mistakes dealt with – differently or the same for everyone? Is everyone integrated or are other opinions overruled?
Table 3. Actions – Step 3.
| Facilitator’s Actions | Participants’ Actions |
|---|---|
Invite participants to reflect and share how they felt during and after the activity. | Reflect on the experience, alone and in the group. |
Following questions can start the reflection: What helped us to cope with the task, what hindered us? | |
| Allow for options based on individual needs. |
Reflection: This step helps the participants to reflect on their group dynamics, possibly on conflicts and exclusion, or on what has facilitated collaboration. The participants can observe that challenges are part of groups, but also that it takes different people with different resources to successfully find a solution. There can also be insights about the group’s shared communication that can be discussed.
Romanian pilot experience: The reflection phase helped participants become more aware of how communication, inclusion, and decision-making influenced the group’s success. Many participants recognized that not all voices were equally heard and reflected on their own tendency to either dominate or withdraw in group situations. This stage supported the development of self-awareness and encouraged participants to consider how they can contribute to more inclusive, respectful, and effective group interactions.
Required Materials: building blocks or similar, rope, watch.
Possible Adaptations:
The intensity of this exercise should be managed in such a way as to create a challenging situation for the participants. One possibility for this could be this sentence: ‘The last group in which I supervised this exercise did it in … seconds.’ If major conflicts, signs of exclusion, etc. become apparent, it is advisable not to increase the intensity any further.
Romanian perspective: Based on the pilot experience, it is recommended to adapt the level of complexity and time pressure depending on the group’s cohesion and experience. In groups with lower trust or communication difficulties, more time should be allocated for strategy discussion and facilitator guidance. In more cohesive groups, increasing the level of challenge can help highlight group dynamics more clearly and stimulate deeper reflection.
Reactions observed during the pilot activity
Romanian pilot experience: In the Romanian pilot, qualitative observation proved particularly valuable in assessing the impact of the activity. Changes in participation, communication patterns, and group interaction were clearly visible during the exercise and reflection phase. Participants demonstrated increased awareness of group dynamics, even when these changes were not fully captured through self-assessment tools. Facilitators observed that engagement and cooperation improved throughout the activity, especially in repeated rounds where participants aimed to improve their performance. The level of trust within the group influenced both participation and openness during reflection. Groups that felt safe and supported showed more willingness to discuss their behaviour and interactions. Participants showed high levels of engagement and motivation, particularly due to the interactive and competitive nature of the activity. At the same time, moments of frustration appeared when rules were broken or when disagreements arose regarding strategy. Some participants naturally assumed leadership roles, while others remained more passive or hesitant to contribute. As the activity progressed, many groups improved their coordination and became more aware of the importance of communication, listening, and cooperation. The activity also revealed how participants react to pressure, competition, and mistakes, providing valuable insights into group dynamics and individual behaviour within a team.
Austrian pilot experience: The facilitators noticed a high level of motivation among the young people to participate and to achieve increasingly better results in the exercise. The process of learning and how exactly another strategy is developed also changes with each new attempt. It is also interesting to see how often a group sticks to the same strategy before making an adjustment. The atmosphere during the exercise is often heated and excited, up to tense. It is easy to recognize if individual young people do not feel heard and what their solution strategies look like. In addition, this is an exercise in which it can get extremely loud and emotions can escalate. The trainers are therefore required to moderate these feelings well, while still allowing them.
It can be observed how high the frustration threshold of a group is and how the group deals with it when rules are not followed. In addition, emotions can flare up and the motivation to develop ever better strategies can be ignited. Groups that work well together are more open to reflection afterwards.
Risks and warnings
- Please be aware of (perhaps strong) upcoming feelings in the group or individuals. Two trainers should explain the method and be present.
- Do not force the sharing of personal experiences.
- The tool does not address trauma but instead focuses on raising awareness.
Romanian perspective: In the Romanian pilot, it was observed that competitive elements and time pressure may lead to frustration or tension within the group, especially when communication is not effective. Facilitators should carefully monitor group dynamics to ensure that all participants are included and that no one is consistently overlooked or marginalized.
It is important to balance challenge and support, adapting the activity to the group’s needs and maintaining a safe and respectful environment throughout the process.
