Reducing Friction, Restoring Focus — Wiese Stage Build Crew, Garbicz Festival 2025

In mid-2025, I was invited to support the Wiese Stage build crew at Garbicz Festival — a highly motivated team with a strong shared history, known for their creative execution, emotional depth, and ability to deliver under pressure. However, behind the scenes, the pre-production phase was revealing signs of structural fatigue: communication overload, duplicated efforts, and emotional pressure on a few key individuals.

My role was not managerial, but that of a neutral facilitator under The Friction Dept.: helping the team identify hidden bottlenecks, clarify decision-making flows, and regain psychological safety — especially in high-stakes moments.

2. Intervention Process: Step by Step

The process unfolded in five distinct stages:

Step 1 – Opening Conversations with Leadership

The intervention began with 1:1 conversations with the project founder and the crew’s operational leader, exploring friction points from their perspectives. This surfaced tensions around delegation, responsiveness, and information bottlenecks — setting the tone for honest, respectful work ahead.

Step 2 – Interviews with Team Leads

Next, I conducted anonymous 1:1 interviews with department leads across areas like build, stage design, painting, and technical logistics. This gave voice to issues that hadn’t been fully named, such as role confusion, reactive scheduling, compensation stress, and lack of recognition.

Step 3 – Synthesis & Reporting

From these interviews, I compiled an anonymized internal report:

• What’s working well

• What’s not working

• Actionable improvement ideas

  This report was written in neutral language, focusing on shared patterns — not individual behavior.

Step 4 – Alignment with Core Leadership

The report was presented to the founder and lead coordinator. This led to a high-stakes but clarifying meeting between the two, where many assumptions, emotional tensions, and organizational gaps were surfaced and discussed openly.

Step 5 – Action Plan & Communication

From that meeting, a clear action plan was created: defining roles, structuring communication, and adjusting decision flows. These next steps were then communicated with the wider group of team leads to align expectations and restore clarity across the system.

3. Key Friction Patterns Identified
   

✅ Strengths

• Strong interpersonal trust and emotional intelligence

• Resilience and improvisation under time pressure

• Autonomy in teams like Design, Build, Paint

• Loyalty to the stage’s creative legacy
  

⚠️ Frictions

• Overloaded and unfocused communication channels

• Unclear ownership of scheduling and timelines

• Lack of written agreements for fees and roles

• Onboarding gaps for new contributors

• Leadership bottlenecks and delayed decisions

• Emotional fatigue due to unclear support structures

4. Turning Point: The Painting Plan Breakdown

One of the most critical moments came with the painting phase of the Wise Stage. A visually complex and time-intensive design had been approved — but:

• The available painting crew was too small

• The lead painter’s availability was reduced

• The timeline conflicted with other critical construction phases

Despite signals of risk, no action had yet been taken. The situation was becoming urgent.

To address it, I called an emergency alignment meeting with the crew lead, design lead, and production logistics. In that session, we:

• Acknowledged that the current design was not executable

• Reviewed the minimum painting surface needed to meet safety and aesthetic standards

• Aligned on creating an MVP (Minimum Viable Paint) version of the design

• Adjusted the construction timeline to protect the painters’ window

• Delegated action steps to ensure all departments were updated (e.g., recruitment, design updates, communication)

This marked a critical shift: from assumed alignment to shared clarity — and from quiet frustration to collaborative realism.

5. Founder Bottleneck & Personal Learning

The emergency meeting, although effective, created friction with the founder — who had spoken with the painting lead privately, but had not communicated the outcome to the rest of the crew.

This situation revealed a typical but difficult dynamic: leadership holds knowledge, but without distribution, it becomes a bottleneck.

From this, I drew an important facilitator’s lesson:

• Avoid initiating emergency interventions without first exhausting paths for alignment

• Propose a light agreement defining under what conditions a neutral facilitator may act (e.g. “if no response within 48h, X may be triggered”)

• Follow every high-impact move with transparent syncing with key leadership

6. Leadership Mediation & Delegation

In a facilitated session between the two central leadership roles, we surfaced:

• Frustration from being left alone with operational pressure

• Anxiety around energy capacity and perceived absence

• Lack of clarity around invisible tasks and external coordination

Out of that session, we co-created:

• A daily 15-minute check-in routine

• A visual board with color-coded task flows

• Delegated decision-making power for day-to-day issues

• An “energy level” scale (1–10) for leaders to communicate availability

The tone shifted from reactivity to shared responsibility.

7. Structural Adjustments Implemented

Following the intervention, these core structures were activated:

• Department-specific communication channels (e.g. build, lighting, announcements)

• Designated contact points for each domain (build, stage, logistics, lighting)

• A shared crew schedule integrating night shifts and dependencies

• Weekly leadership syncs with flexible participation from tech teams

• A volunteer FAQ and onboarding checklist (in progress)

• Visual Gantt-style timeline to identify overlaps and gaps

• Simple payment agreement templates to confirm terms early

8. Cultural Recognition: Proposals for Morale Care

During interviews, many crew members expressed emotional fatigue and a sense of being replaceable. In response, I proposed lightweight practices aimed at restoring dignity and visibility:

• “Festival MVP” whiteboard for shoutouts

• DIY badge-making station (for inside jokes, skills, roles)

• Optional 5-min “Gratitude Circle” each morning

• On-the-spot reward cards (e.g. extra break, fun task swap)

• Surprise snack packs and mini care kits (e.g. sunscreen, lip balm, earplugs)

Whether implemented or not, these ideas were designed to bring care back into culture — without relying on heroic effort.

9. Crew Feedback: Testimonials

“I was stuck in the mud — dragged into tasks that weren’t mine, overwhelmed by chaotic communication and last-minute schedules. The Friction Dept. showed up, broke the ice, cleared out the noise, and helped the team realign. For the first time, I could focus only on my role. — Stage Designer, Wise Stage Build Crew

“I think you had a huge impact on us as a team — you’re not even aware of ❤️” — Project Leader, Wise Stage

10. Estimated Cost Avoidance

Based on conservative internal calculations, the following losses were likely avoided due to early realignment:

Risk Area	Estimated Cost Avoided
Missed painting delivery	€4,000–€6,000 (material waste + redo labor)
Volunteer disengagement	€2,000 (lost hours × 10 people × 2 days)
Burnout-driven dropout	€3,000 (emergency replacements or rehiring)
Total Avoided Cost	€9,000 – €11,000

This does not yet factor in future benefits: improved retention, smoother onboarding, or decreased leadership burnout in future editions.

11. Retro

Executive Summary

This year’s retrospective interviews paint a clear picture of the Wise Stage crew. The atmosphere was described as highly collaborative, supportive, and free of drama. Crew members consistently highlighted a strong team spirit and a high level of trust in one another.

One of the biggest changes compared to previous years was the visible presence of leadership throughout the build. Seven out of nine interviewees mentioned this as a major factor in improving morale and coordination. Clearer delegation and a higher level of professionalism across roles were also noted as key reasons for the smooth execution.

At the same time, the team pointed to recurring structural challenges. More than half of the interviews mentioned pre-production gaps, where designs arrived without enough translation into build instructions. Volunteer turnover was raised by both builders and painters, and tight budgets placed added strain on both materials and people.

Despite these challenges, most participants agreed this was one of the smoothest builds in recent years. Crew members spoke about feeling safe, connected, and motivated — and about wanting to carry these strengths forward while addressing the gaps that remain.

These insights come directly from nine retrospective interviews across builders, painters, and technical leads. Together, they reflect both the cultural strengths that make this crew unique, and the structural weaknesses that need to be addressed to sustain excellence year after year.

Key Wins

• Team Spirit: 8 of 9 interviewees described the atmosphere as collaborative, supportive, and free of drama.

• Leadership Presence: Noted by 7 of 9 interviews as the most significant improvement compared to previous years.

• Clearer Delegation: Multiple participants described the build as “more professional” thanks to clearer roles and responsibilities.

• Light Crew Improvement: 5 participants explicitly praised the light crew for their reliability and technical quality, solving last year’s issues.

Frictions and Challenges

• Pre-production Gaps: Mentioned in 6 of 9 interviews. Builders felt designs lacked translation into actionable steps, causing delays.

• Materials and Tools: 5 participants cited frustrations with delayed paint orders, poor-quality pigments, tool chaos, and missing or incorrect rentals.

• Volunteers and Retention: Raised by both painting and build crews: high turnover, early exits during teardown, fee cuts, and lack of small motivators.

• Budget Pressure: Seen as a constant background issue, reducing stability and increasing strain.

• Cross-Team Conflicts: Reported in 4 interviews: miscommunication between design and build, artistic clashes between video and lights, and tensions between painting and logistics.

Changes Compared to Previous Years

Positive changes:

• Leadership involvement was the highest in five years, boosting morale and coordination.

• Light crew described as “a major improvement.”

• More co-organization and clarity across leads.

Negative changes:

• Budget cuts strongly felt, reducing stability and material quality.

• Volunteer model less reliable, increasing the burden on leads.

• Fewer paid assistants, heavier responsibilities concentrated on fewer people.

Impact of the Reflection Process

• Safe Space: 100% of interviewed leads said they valued having space to reflect and be heard.

• Connection: Several participants said the process helped surface small issues before they escalated and reinforced bonds across the team.

• Learning: At least two participants expressed personal interest in leadership and coaching after experiencing the process.

Benefits of The Friction Dept.

Based on interviews, the value of this process was consistently recognized:

• Crew Voice: Everyone had a chance to speak and reflect, which was missing in previous years.

• Early Intervention: Surfaced problems before they escalated, creating smoother collaboration.

• Support for Leaders: Key leads described feeling “supported, seen, and less alone” in their roles.

• Positive Continuity: Several members explicitly said they want this process repeated in the future, ideally expanded with workshops or team-building activities.

Our Advice

• Plan earlier: Involve build and technical leads in pre-production 4–6 weeks before arrival.

• Translate designs: Assign a role to bridge design and build, ensuring clarity.

• Invest in quality: Allocate modest additional resources for reliable materials and equipment.

• Stabilize volunteers: Guarantee one paid assistant per department, reduce reliance on short-term volunteers.

• Motivate the crew: Keep fees consistent with previous years, add small perks to sustain morale.

• Protect resources: Establish a contingency buffer to avoid last-minute strain.

Closing Note

This year showed clearly that the crew’s greatest strength lies in its culture: trust, spirit, and creativity. These qualities cannot be bought, and they give the stage its unique identity.

At the same time, recurring structural gaps in planning, materials, volunteer stability, and budgeting continue to create avoidable strain. These are not insurmountable problems; they are areas where modest improvements would have an outsized impact.

The stage is more than wood and paint; it is the result of trust, skill, and commitment. By protecting that culture with better planning and resources, the crew can raise the standard while making the process sustainable.