---

The Challenge

Front line managers inherit a network of competing priorities, personalities, and power dynamics on day one — then figure it out through trial and error. Nobody trains for this. It's treated as something you absorb over time, which means the early months are expensive and the patterns that form are often the wrong ones.

The brief from Keka was clear: build stakeholder skills that transfer to Monday morning, not just make sense in a classroom. That ruled out lecture. It ruled out frameworks dropped into slides. It meant building an experience where the learning happened inside the doing.

The Session

Two physical activities, one day, zero passive learning. No slides. Every insight came from the game itself, then got tied back to real stakeholders the managers were already carrying into the room.

Activity 1 — Bloom: Bloom is a card-and-resource garden game I designed specifically for stakeholder management. You get five actions per round across eight rounds. Every plant in your garden represents a stakeholder — different needs, different timelines, different conditions for success. Hazards represent conflicts and blockers. Pruning represents managing expectations. The garden as a whole is the map, and one plant always affects the others. You can't tend everyone equally, and that's the entire point. The game creates the mental model without ever stating it as a theory.

Activity 2 — Lego Stakeholder Map: After Bloom built the conceptual structure, each manager used Lego bricks to build a physical 3D model of their actual stakeholder ecosystem. Every brick, colour, and connection stood for a real person, relationship, or dependency. You can't be vague with Lego — when it's sitting on the table, everyone sees the gaps, bottlenecks, and hidden dependencies. Managers presented their models to the group and fielded questions from peers. Patterns emerged that no one had articulated before.

Five frameworks anchored the debrief: FIDO for stakeholder classification (the most-cited takeaway), Power-Interest-Impact Grid for prioritisation, Employee Archetypes for reading and adapting to personalities, Conflict Management for stakeholder friction, and Relationship Mapping for visualising influence lines.

What Happened

13 out of 13 participants engaged fully. Not a single disagree or neutral response across all four evaluation metrics.

• 100% understood the learning objectives
• 92.3% will apply the learning to their current role — zero disagreed
• 100% said the learning was enriched by facilitator examples
• 100% had ample opportunity to ask questions

What stuck, in their words: FIDO, the garden metaphor, prioritising stakeholders, conflict management. All frameworks. All transferable. Nothing abstract.

"You can't be vague with Lego — when it's sitting on the table, everyone sees the gaps, bottlenecks and hidden dependencies."

The Result

Zero negative responses across every measure. For a group of 13 managers covering a full day of serious work, that's not a participation trophy — it's evidence that the design hit the right level of challenge and relevance. The frameworks FIDO and the garden metaphor were the most-cited takeaways, which tells me the mental models landed and were immediately connected to real situations.

The Lego maps in particular created conversations that wouldn't have happened in a slide deck. Naming your stakeholders in 3D — in front of your peers — does something that a 2x2 grid on paper does not.

---

Get in touch Learn about Bloom More case studies

Why Bloom Was the Right Game

The Keka HR engagement was part of a Front Line Manager development programme. The specific challenge: first-time managers who were technically strong but hadn't yet developed a systematic approach to stakeholder relationships. They understood the concept of stakeholder management. They were applying it inconsistently in practice.

Bloom was designed for exactly this pattern. The game makes the difference between transactional and relational approaches visible in real time — not as a concept, but as a lived experience with measurable consequences within the game. By round four, participants who had played transactionally were significantly behind those who had invested in relationships early. The gap was visible, discussable, and impossible to explain away.

What the Numbers Show

The four outcome metrics from the Keka session:

• 100% understood the session objectives — no participant left unclear about what the session was designed to develop
• 100% found the content relevant to their role as a front line manager — this is the credibility test, and it passed cleanly
• 92.3% committed to applying what they learned — 12 out of 13 left with a specific application intention, not just general awareness
• 100% engaged — 13 out of 13, no neutral or disagree responses on engagement

The 92.3% application commitment is the most significant metric. Application intent is the most direct predictor of behaviour change — it measures whether participants left with a specific plan rather than general inspiration. One participant chose not to commit to a specific application context, which is honest; every other participant did.

What Participants Said

Participant feedback on the session described the game as more memorable than previous training formats, specifically because the dynamics that emerged during play mirrored situations they recognised from their actual work. When a game produces responses like "I do that with my stakeholders and I never realised it before," the debrief converts that recognition into a development plan rather than just an insight.

The session ran for 2 hours. In that time, 13 front-line managers generated more specific, personally relevant development insight than most multi-day leadership programmes produce for equivalent cohorts. That efficiency is what serious games offer when the game design is precise and the debrief is structured.

What This Means for Training Buyers

A 100% engagement rate across a 13-person group running a 2-hour session tells you something specific: this format does not lose people. The participants who typically disengage from workshops — the sceptics, the people who consider themselves above classroom learning, the practical thinkers who need to see real-world relevance before engaging — stay present in a well-designed serious game because the game demands it. You can't disengage from a game you're playing. The competition and consequence keep people in.

Talk to Arvindh about a session for your managers →