Timing: 10 mins


  • Stop Watch


Round one
Each person pairs off with another, preferably someone they do not know.
Each pair then chooses who will be the manager and who will be the worker.
The manager will direct the worker to walk 60 normal paces within two minutes using only the following 6 commands: Go, Stop, Left, Right, Faster, Slower.
After two minutes are up, ask for a show of hands for how many completed the 60 paces.

Round two
There are no managers or workers. Each individual can direct themselves. Again, the goal is to walk 60 paces in two minutes. After two minutes are up, ask for a show of hands for how many completed the 60 paces.

Learning Points:

  • Comparison between command and control and self organizing teams and the underlying efficiency of the latter.

CREDIT: Ken Schwaber, co-creator of Scrum

Tempo: 10 mins

  • Cronômetro

Primeira Rodada

As pessoas deve formar duplas, preferencialmente com alguém que não conheça.

Cada par então decide quem será o gerente e quem será o trabalhador.

O gerente vai direcionar o trabalhador a andar 60 passos normais durante dois minutos usando apenas os seis comandos seguintes: ande, pare, esquerda, direita, mais rápido, mais devagar. Depois de terminados os dois minutos, solicite que mostrem quantos completaram os 60 passos.
Segunda Rodada

Não existe mais gerente ou trabalhador. Cada indivíduo pode direcionar a si mesmo. Novamente, o objetivo é andar 60 passos em dois minutos. Depois de terminados os dois minutos, solicite que mostrem quantos completaram os 60 passos.
Pontos de aprendizado:

  • Comparação entre times comando-controle e auto-organizados e a efieciência implícita do segundo.

CRÉDITO: Ken Schwaber, co-criador do Scrum

Duración: 10 minutos

  • Cronómetro

Primera Ronda

Cada persona debe encontrar una pareja,  preferiblemente alguien que no conozca.

Después, cada pareja elige quien será el Gerente y quien el Trabajador.

El Gerente dirigirá al trabajador para  caminar 60 pasos normales en dos minutos utilizando sólo seis comandos: Avanzar, Parar, Izquierda, Derecha, Más rápido, Más lento.

Después de completados los dos minutos, pida que levanten la mano los equipos que hayan completado los 60 pasos.
Segunda Ronda.

No hay Gerentes ni trabajadores. Cada uno puede dirigirse a si mismo. Una vez más, el objetivo es caminar 60 pasos en dos minutos. Después de completados los dos minutos,  pida que levanten su mano quienes hayan completado los 60 pasos.
Puntos de aprendizaje:

  • Comparación entre el mando y control y la auto-organización de los equipos y la eficiencia subyacente de este último.

CRÉDITO: Ken Schwaber, co-creador de Scrum

Время: 10 минут


  • Секундомер


Первый раунд
Участники разбиваются на пары. Желательно, чтобы партнеры были незнакомы.
Затем каждая пара решает, кто будет менеджером, а кто – подчиненным.
Подчиненный должен сделать 60 обычных шагов в течение двух минут. Менеджер руководит им, используя только следующие 6 команд: Вперед, Стоп, Влево, Вправо, Быстрее, Медленнее.
Через две минуты попросите поднять руки тех, кто сумел пройти все 60 шагов.

Второй раунд
Теперь нет ни менеджеров, ни подчиненных. Каждый сам решает, куда и с какой скоростью двигаться. Цель та же – пройти 60 шагов за две минуты. Через две минуты попросите поднять руку тех, кто сумел пройти 60 шагов.


  • Сравнение командного управления с самоорганизующейся командой, подразумевая эффективность второго подхода.

Авторство: Кен Швейбер, один из создателей методологии Scrum

Перевод: Татьяна Януш

6 thoughts on “60 Paces60 Passos60 Pasos60 Шагов

  1. An alternate approach to this could be to combine the Marshmallow Game with the manager driven approach to solving a problem.
    All teams are given spaghetti, tape, and a large marshmallow. The challenge is to build the tallest standing structure.
    Team 1: Only the manager can give instructions. The team members must do what the manager tells them to do. The manager designs and orders every step of the construction. The team is discouraged from asking questions or providing suggestions. Just follow orders.
    Team 2: . The manager and an architect decide what to do. Team members can ask questions, but their suggestions are forbidden.
    Team 3: Just get it done. Everyone is a worker. Iterate until you have a free-standing structure.

    This approach may work well if the team is in a small space without room to move.

  2. I want to emphasize the management overhead when people from multiple teams are required to deliver a feature – to setup the ground for cross functional feature/scrum teams with different line management style.

    Thought of a version which uses pairs of workers each able to do one function, with each a manager, but need to work together – eg left right person and front back person. With one manager per worker should work ok.
    But then say come on we cannot have manager 1:1 so let’s have a manager for 3 persons. Now the teams need to get orders from multiple managers each having to split their time between teams.
    With significant obstacles and surprises thrown their way.

    I’m not a bottleneck, I’m a free man should come to mind qt this point…

    Then can go to self organized team, or stop on the way at feature team with one manager at least…

    Will try it and report. If anyone has a better idea how to get this learning point across would love to hear!

  3. If the space is small enough (based on the number of players), then I think this game can also serve to enforce the importance of communication. If the manager cannot see what the players are doing, then there will obviously be a lot more collisions, and few people would complete the 60 paces. In addition, when players are directing themselves, they also rely on seeing (or hearing) what the other players are doing in order to avoid collisions and complete their paces. I think a variation of this could be to blindfold the players and force them to rely on verbal communication to prevent collisions.

  4. Hi Mike,

    I’m preparing this game for a learning exercise. When I played it in my scrum training course, all the “workers” walked in the same space and the manager’s job was to prevent their worker from crashing into each other. Of course, under manager direction, people eventually crashed. When we controlled ourselves nobody crashed. I don’t remember how big the space was. Is it more of an “eyeball” for the size of the group or do you have some guidance on the size of the space?



    1. Hi Alan,

      So I do kind of eyeball it when I run this. The room needs to have some space for walking and movement that is not too awkward nor so expansive that problems don’t emerge for a long time. I would say that so long as there is room for everyone to comfortably sit in the room with some space between tables (2-3 ft) and at the edges of the room (3-5 ft) it is fine. Hope that helps Alan, best of luck with it!


Comments are closed.