The paper-bridge group task: influencing without authority, and reporting on it afterwards
Six candidates have 25 minutes to build a free-standing paper structure that spans a 60 cm gap between two chair backs and supports a 2 kg sandbag. Materials: 10 sheets of A4 paper, 1 m of tape, 5 drinking straws. Resting any part of the structure on the chairs is explicitly forbidden. At minute 8 nothing stands. Candidate A has taken all the tape, is talking continuously and reassigning tasks. Candidate B is holding an unused sheet and has said nothing. Candidate C's truss idea has been stated twice without acknowledgement. Candidate D proposes resting one end on the chair back 'because nobody will check'. Two candidates are watching the clock. You are candidate E.
1. What do you do in the next four minutes, and why that rather than simply taking charge?
Read the worked answer
The group's problem at minute 8 is not a shortage of ideas - it is decision latency and unallocated work. So the move is to convert talk into one decision and two jobs, fast.
Sequence:
- Close the illegal option in one sentence. 'The chair back is out - if the deck touches it we're disqualified and the assessor is watching.' Say it once, without a lecture, and move on.
- Make C's idea the group's decision, naming the author. 'C, the truss - will it span 60 cm with tape only at the joints? Yes. We're building that.' This fixes both the design gap and the inclusion gap in one move, and it is more effective than 'what does everyone think?'
- Split into two concrete tasks with owners. 'A, give B the tape; B, cut six 10 cm strips. A, you and I fold the deck sections. We stop building at minute 18 and load at 20, whatever state it's in.'
- Ask B a closed, specific question rather than an open one - closed questions reliably get a first response from someone who has gone quiet.
- Set the checkpoint out loud. The classic failure mode is running out of time with an untested structure.
Why not simply take over: seizing the materials like A would reproduce the behaviour that has already cost eight minutes, and it gives the assessor no evidence of inclusion or of building on others' ideas. The aim is to make the group effective, not to be visibly the leader.
2. What is the assessor actually recording in a task like this, and why does a 'clever' rule-bending move usually cost more than it gains?
Read the worked answer
Recorded behaviours typically include: initiating structure, planning and time management, including others, listening and building on ideas, clarity of communication under pressure, stress tolerance, integrity and rule compliance, and whether the candidate achieves influence without formal authority. The bridge itself is a proxy - a task that produces visible behaviour under time pressure.
Why rule-bending costs more than it gains: the structure's success is not the selection criterion; the behaviour it exposes is. A team that wins by resting the deck on the chair has demonstrated that it will trade integrity for a visible result under mild pressure - the precise trait that is disqualifying for an officer. Moreover, D's suggestion is a test in itself: how the group handles it reveals whether anyone has the confidence to state a standard without being unpleasant about it.
The two silent failures are equally costly. Dominance without listening (A) and withdrawal (B) both give the assessor nothing to score positively. A candidate who says nothing has produced no evidence, and no evidence scores as low as bad evidence. Note also that the tape hoarding matters: the assessor is watching resource sharing, not just the final structure.
3. In the interview afterwards you are asked, 'Did anyone in your group behave badly?' Draft the substance of your answer and state the rules you are applying.
Read the worked answer
Substance: 'One candidate suggested resting the deck on the chair back after the rule had been read out. I said that would disqualify us and pushed the truss design instead. I would rather have raised it as a question at the time. Separately, one candidate held most of the tape for the first half, which left two of us waiting; I should have asked for a share of it earlier rather than working around it.'
Rules being applied:
- Describe behaviour, not character. 'He held the tape and we waited' is an observation; 'he was arrogant' is a judgement and tells the assessor more about you than about him.
- Be proportionate and factual - one or two specific incidents, no inflation and no settling of scores.
- Include your own part. The question is a disguised test of self-awareness and followership; an answer with no personal reflection reads as blame.
- Do not disclose anything personal or confidential another candidate said - medical details, family circumstances, or interview content. That is a hard line, and crossing it is far more damaging than any group-task weakness.
- Apply the face-to-face test: if you would not say it to the person directly, it is a grievance, not an observation, and it does not belong in the answer.
The candidate who answers this calmly, briefly and with a lesson learned scores higher than the one who either denies everything or delivers a detailed character assassination.