Posts Tagged ‘Games’

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Game

Friday, August 6th, 2010

FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST…

In tangling with a subject that’s loco, one runs the risk of going loco oneself. It’s probably why I’ve been struggling with this post, to the point of being driven crazy by it, for a week. Here we go, this time for sure, hoping that some semblance of sanity awaits you and me on the other side of the exercise.

The ‘Wall Street Game’ is destroying the economy. The end? Okay, on the chance that it’s not, that there’s still hope for dealing successfully with the godzillagram knocking on our door, let’s, just for the torture of it, keep going…

The game played by Goldman Sachs and all the predatory satellites in its system goes beyond crooked. It’s criminal. And worse than criminal, it is a crime that can’t be prosecuted. Here’s why: The game has been designed so that it cannot be played by human beings. It can only be played by programs. In milliseconds-long synapses of electrons that can be parsed only by machines, programs perpetrate crimes with no witnesses, no fingerprints, no conscience, no heart. The humanity, and along with it, the culpability, has been bred out of these programs. They are pure, unassailable, law-unto-themselves, math. Data for data’s sake. Programs designed to interact with other programs without any of the patience, tolerance or thought that will give a human being pause.

WebOfDebt1The originators of these programs are as guilty of their crimes as Smith & Wesson are of the next murder committed with one of their handguns, which is to say they cannot be held accountable. “That’s just the way the game is played,” say the originators. Exactly. This does not mean, however, that the way the game is played is any good, or helpful to the 95% of U.S. households that, together, control as much wealth as the top 1% do. What the programmers call ‘innocence,’ and ‘what no one could have anticipated,’ and ‘God’s work,’ is actually ignorance by design. What comes across as confidence is actually just a con. On Wall Street, nobody really knows anything. The machines are in control. So don’t bother asking.

Here is a good explanation by Ellen Brown of how the Wall Street game is rigged. Brown, author of Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, does an excellent job of unmasking the mechanics of the game that swings advantage toward the casin–errr–banks. She points a finger in particular at High Frequency Trading (HFT) software (I didn’t know its code originated with the Hollywood Stock Exchange of the dotcom era. Interesting.) that gives Wall Street’s traders the ability to make money in thousandths of a second with programmed trading.

I call this game ‘Global Owning without Local Consent.’ Go Loco, for short. It’s just that crazy.

Because it relentlessly seeks victims to separate from their money like hustlers of a quantum three-card monte game, Go Loco systematically destroys the potential of money to be productive. Money is too busy changing hands and getting hustled to be put to work any other way. In this game, money talks only to itself, like a patient in an asylum.

We see the outcomes of this insanity all around: Foreclosures on every block; constant and permanent erosion in the jobs market; crippling household and national debt; crumbling infrastructure; broke education systems; a dispirited class of permanently unemployed. The game saps entrepreneurship of its passion by punishing risk-taking. It smothers human creativity with machine rationality. Because it is based on consumption, it regards sustainability as an enemy. Because it is pure data, it has no resonance as a narrative. No soul. It is a cousin to the game played by people who sit under a mountain in Utah and fly drones that blow up villages halfway around the world. Hey, it’s all just a game, right? Yes, it is. A terrible, horrible, no good, very bad one.

At GameChangers, we define a game as consisting of Rules, Roles, Environment and Objective(s). Here’s a breakdown of the Go Loco game in terms of these four elements:

Terrible Rules:
The rules of a productive game are known by all its players. This is not the case with Go Loco. Far from it. Its rules are so opaque and complex that no one holds an entire playbook. Its most significant rules are programmed like a virus (with no known antidote) to infect every significant, or anomalous, movement of money across the networks that carry financial data. The rules do not determine or care where the money is going, any more than a rattlesnake cares where a mouse is taking a kernel of corn. They are designed only to sense movement like the snake senses the mouse, then, like the snake, strike with blinding speed. The rules are machine-enabled executions of that old business bromide, “Follow the money.” With the added instruction: “And when you catch the money in an unlit alley, jack it and get some.”

Horrible Environment: Viola Spolin, the godmother of modern improvisation, said, “Act on environment, and environment will act on you.” Because the environment for the Go Loco game is ‘inside machines,’ those who ‘act on’ the game naturally begin behaving like machines themselves. The tasteless offices in which they work, the sameness banality of their attire, their fear of creative disruption, and their relentless calculating for advantage, all reflect the electronic latticework across which these players crawl like spiders on crack. Because players’ insides have a machined sameness to them, extra emphasis is placed on surface labeling, on cosmetics and appearance. How you appear becomes much more important than how you actually are, because how you actually are is so…unremarkable. All you talk about is money. Give a man a billion dollars and try talking to him about anything but the billion dollars. It can’t be done.

No Good Roles: Wall Street’s game is to business what pornography is to sex. Don’t for a second believe it has anything to do with love, or with having a relationship. It’s all about volume, baby. It’s as real as reality TV. What do we have that we can sell? How many units can we move? When the autistic boy who senses the world at different frequencies than you and me puts his hands to a machine running a program playing the game, the voice he hears will be saying, “Faster, pussycat, kill, kill!” Is it pure coincidence that Lawrence Fishburne’s daughter sold herself to the Matrix? Or did she hear the voice, too, and simply obey its instructions?

Very Bad Objectives: In improvisation, a game’s objectives are win/win. All the players benefit from the communication, learning, and transformation that result from playing. The Go Loco game is, by contrast, win/lose. Bigtime.

A lot of people will tell you winning and losing is inherent in the nature of trading, someone wins and someone loses, and the objective is to win more than you lose, and that this dynamic drives markets. There are two problems with excusing the Go Loco game for this reason: 1) It ignores the power of collaboration, which is where most of the growth potential exists in the networked business environment; and 2) in this game, the winners win so much (when’s the last time you made $28,000 in milliseconds? For doing nothing?) and the losers lose so much, the game produces extreme cycles of bubble-and-burst, of richer-and-poorer, that only promise to get more extreme, because the more the Go Loco programs eat, the hungrier they get. It is a zero sum game they play, and they will play it until the sum of all accounts not controlled by the programs is zero.

Now what? The big problem we have now is that in one breath we can find agreement that the current game is rotten, in the next breath we will be arguing over what to do about it, and as long as we’re arguing, the rottenness persists. The way to break through this dilemma is to quit worrying about what the new game should be and focus on changing the old one. One way to begin changing the old game is by changing the conversations we have:

From being about money, to being about how money is put to work.
From consumption to sustainability.
From fast food (or fast anything) to local food (or local anything).
From destination to journey.
From connecting the dots to connecting.
From owning the story to sharing the story.
From programmed to human.

Make moves that programs cannot see, with a gait that describes the glorious, inchoate lurching of love! Trust your intuition! Express what’s in your heart instead of your head for a change. Howl with your dog! Prove that it is we, and our beautiful gift of a planet, and not the programs, who are truly alive! Change the game!

Apparatus and Apparition

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

Observing the interwebs abuzz today about the long (up to an 11-hour wait in L.A.!) iPhone lines, and the lines already forming (three days ahead of the first screening!) for the next Twilight sequel, I am reminded of this scenario:

Piaggio1A friend of ours who works in sales gets honored often as a leading performer at his company, a large and established organization which is one of the 87 current members of the S&P 500 that have been members since its inception in 1957. The honoring happens at lavish banquets attended by the company’s top managers and featuring a pricey speaker.

Understand that our friend is a madman, who rides his three-wheeled Piaggio motorcycle with the governor of the state where he lives, has 28 tattoos— including one on his (hairy) chest of a man pushing a lawnmower, next to which he shaves a smooth swatch as if the tattooed lawnmower has mowed his chest; and as a hobby he spent a couple of years performing standup comedy as a Catholic priest (he’s Jewish).  None of the tattoos is visible outside our friend’s business suit. Nobody at his company knows he does stand-up under a stage name while wearing a Roman collar.   He plays the company game, but it is far from the only game he plays.

Our friend told us that the speaker at a recent banquet where he was honored as his division’s Salesperson of the Year gave a speech about ‘Finishing First.’ About how nothing else would do. About how a person has a choice between finishing first and being a loser. How in sales, there is no prize for second place, first place is the only place that matters. You either make the sale or you don’t.

Our friend approached the speaker after his speech and struck up a conversation that went like this.

FRIEND: Nice speech.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
FRIEND: What’d you get for it? Forty thousand dollars?  Am I close?
SPEAKER: Uh..that’s in the ballpark.
FRIEND: You know, our first choice for a speaker was Colin Powell, but he wanted two-hundred thousand dollars and we couldn’t afford it.  So it looks like finishing second worked out pretty well for you, didn’t it?

“When I saw the look on his face I felt bad for saying it,” says our friend. “But I couldn’t resist.  It was such an obviously lame premise.  There are all kinds of situations where finishing first has nothing to do with your success.”

So you’re waiting in line for the iPhone or the Twilight.  Cool.  It’s a happening.  A social event.  Remember, though, that meaningful transactions happen in the line, with other people, not at the end of it, with an apparatus or an apparition.

Enjoy the ride and you won’t ever have to worry about whether you’ll be the first to arrive.

Who Is Josh Weinstein?

Monday, June 21st, 2010

On his excellent MBAStoryteller site (yes! more MBA storytellers!) Nabil Laoudji, who’s in the Sloan MBA program at MIT, posted this 2006 video by Josh Weinstein.

Weinstein’s video demonstrates brilliantly how our perceptions shape our opinions.  That’s the obvious learning.

There are other, subtler ideas expressed in this video, too, which is why I really dig it.  It has lots of subtext:

The absence of knowledge makes perceptions more malleable. Because Weinstein is unknown to his subjects, slight adjustments in his appearance seem to cause wild fluctuations in perceptions (the edits themselves also shape perception, but I’ll comment only with subjects’ behavior here).  Anyone or any brand that seeks to limit knowledge?  This is why.  Manipulation of perceptions.  In a business environment where knowledge is so easily shared and transferred, limiting knowledge in order to manipulate perceptions is not good business.

Consistent character encourages learning. Weinstein’s character, a slightly bemused, inquisitive observer of human nature, seems consistent throughout.  As a storyteller, he uses this truth to get honest reactions from his subjects—that is, because he’s consistently in character, we can be pretty sure the subjects’ reactions are their own, and not something he has manipulated them into doing   Imagine if, instead, he’d played different characters in the interviews—aggressive, stupid, coy, flirty—we would not have been half as interested in or trusting of what his subjects had to say.  He and we would not have learned half as much.

Interrogation is not dialogue. The questions all go one way.  Weinstein does this to control the narrative and make a point.  Generally, however, dialogue is much more productive than interrogation.

This is what a lot of market research looks like. Like market research, Weinstein’s film is a series of snapshots.  It is an interrogation of the audience, not a dialogue.  Because of the way the interviews are conducted, the audience’s multi-faceted responses are nearly all flawed.  It doesn’t matter how much data you have if its facets are flawed and unrelated.  Many facets do not a diamond make. It is the interrelationship of the facets, their connection to one another, that illuminates the stone.

Admit your ignorance. Nearly everyone in the video is willing to guess about Weinstein’s identity, and in doing so they accept a ‘rule of the game’ that underscores their ignorance.  This is a fine storytelling device for Weinstein’s video, but it’s a toxic game in business.  For some managers, however, this is THE  game.  A conversation consists of them waiting for a ‘gotcha’ moment, when they can prove you wrong, ignorant, or both.  People pretending to know what they’re talking about are just as much to blame for this game as those who expose them.   Beware of games designed to show up anyone’s ignorance!  Admitting your ignorance is a first step toward learning.  Guessing, or faking knowledge, is not.  Ultimately, Weinstein’s video delivers the goods in the form of questions answered, but not before he demonstrates just how elusive the goods can be.

Harpo’s Rules

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

Harpo1Underneath his fright wig and his goofy screen persona, Harpo Marx was one beautiful human being.  In his autobiography, Harpo Speaks, he lists his family’s rules.  It’s some of the wisest advice a father ever gave his children:

1.  Life has been created for you to enjoy, but you won’t enjoy it unless you pay for it with some good, hard work. This is one price that will never be marked down.

2.  You can work at whatever you want to as long as you do it as well as you can and clean up afterwards and you’re at the table at mealtime and in bed at bedtime.

3.  Respect what the others do. Respect Dad’s harp, Mom’s paints, Billy’s piano, Alex’s set of tools, Jimmy’s designs, and Minnie’s menagerie.

4.  If anything makes you sore, come out with it. Maybe the rest of us are itching for a fight too.

5.  If anything strikes you as funny, out with that too. Let’s all the rest of us have a laugh.

6. If you have an impulse to do something you’re not sure is right, go ahead and do it. Take a chance. Chances are, if you don’t you’ll regret it–unless you break the rules about mealtime and bedtime, in which case you’ll sure as hell regret it.

7.  If it’s a question of whether to do what’s fun or what is supposed to be good for you, and nobody is hurt by whichever you do, always do what’s fun.

8.  If things get too much for you and you feel the whole world’s against you, go stand on your head. If you can think of anything crazier to do, do it.

9.  Don’t worry about what other people think. The only person in the world important enough to conform to is yourself.

10.  Anybody who misteats a pet or breaks a pool cue is docked a month’s pay.

Hope your Father’s Day was as happy as mine!

The Game is the Frame

Sunday, June 13th, 2010

In a conversation with John Seely Brown and Erick B this past week at a party in Westwood hosted by the Deloitte Center for the Edge, we talked about creating value at the edges of networks, where the flow of information is fiercest.  (The new book, The Power of Pull, co-written by JSB with John Hagel and Lang Davison, explores this subject in depth.  My review to follow.)

JSB asked Erick and me how social networks (Erick’s area of expertise) and improvisation (mine) create value.

I asked rhetorically in return, “Why do pictures have frames?”

The conversation continued for a minute or so and then JSB repeated, “Why do pictures have frames? That’s a good subject for an article!”

So here it is, JSB.  An improviser’s answer to the question, “Why do pictures have frames?”  (Erick B?  You got anything?  Bring it!)

Frames impose discipline. How many times have we all heard the phrase, “Think outside the box”? Scary many.  Over the past ten years, it has succeeded “paradigm shift” as the #1 business cliché.  Worse than a cliché, it’s bullshit, because it implies that a good creative process is not subject to restrictions.  That it’s totally free. Random and unfettered.  A good process, in fact, begins with restrictions.

A sculptor chooses a rock.  The rock is a frame. The sculpture is already in the rock, and it’s the artist’s job to coax it out.  The rock tells the artist what tools to use.  How much time to allocate.  How much force to apply to the coaxing process.  The nature of the rock suggests where the sculpture will eventually live.  The artist can only create within the limitations of the rock, and yet, within those limitations, there is unlimited potential to bring something delightful to life.  The artist uses the frame of the rock to test his or her own limitations to make something of value.  Our limitations are not in the rocks we choose, but in ourselves.

For improvisers, the game is the frame.  The game liberates potential because players know that everything required for a great performance is already in the game, waiting to be discovered.  In terms of business, ‘framing games’  put the emphasis where it belongs, on human potential, and not on a particular system or platform.

ArtFrame1Frames create focus. The eye knows where to go.  The geometry of the frame introduces–to both the artist and the beholder–spatial and temporal relationships.  These relationships between the art and its environment, and between elements of design within the frame, give meaning to what’s inside the frame.   Likewise, the act of framing helps define relationships within networks; and between a network and the business environment.

Frames provide context. Unless the immense amount of communication coursing through a network is given context, it tends to be read as raw data by platform- and metrics-obsessed managers.  Data is not narrative.  Data is not theme.  Data without a framing game to give it context is meaningless, like water without a container.   All it does is evaporate.   The molecules are still there, but its usefulness vanishes into thin air.

Frames invite valuation. Let’s face it, business needs numbers.  The margins must be there.  How much is the time of a employee at the edge, in steady communication with players outside the company’s network,  worth?  Framing games make valuation possible.  (Not easy.  Possible.)

In The Power of Pull, JSB, Hagel and Davison describe ‘shaping strategies’ for networked organization, which are analogous to the framing games described above.

If this has whetted your appetite for the subject of ‘why pictures have frames,’ you can deepdive into this conversation between the renowned academics, David Bordwell and Henry Jenkins, part 3 of a series about framing transmedia narratives.

Eight Empty Arguments

Friday, May 28th, 2010

EmptyGasTank1A friend of ours working inside a large U.S.-based organization marvels at how much time gets wasted on what he calls Empty Arguments.  Empty Arguments, he observes, result in too many unfocused meetings and conversations involving too many people, and require too much follow-up and clarification.

In exploring this theme with him, we came up with eight Empty Arguments that suck up bandwidth and limit a company’s potential to innovate, adapt, and act quickly on opportunity:

1.  Who’s in charge.

The quest for, and maintenance of, one’s status is one of the most prevalent and profligate business behaviors there is.  It results in wasteful games like that old standard, “Kissing The Boss’s Ass.”

In the improvisational model, who has high status in a scene depends not on one’s job title or institutional pedigree, but on the circumstances of the scene.  Leadership does not always have to come from the top.  It is as likely to emanate from the center, in the form of rapid consensus-building, or from the rear, in the form of decisive and enthusiastic support for a scene, a player or a productive game.

2.  Scapegoating (a.k.a. The Blame Game, a.k.a. It Wasn’t Me, a.k.a. I Never Got Your Email)

This Empty Argument is another classic time-waster, a purely political game that’s a huge drag on productivity.  In the improvisational model, teams succeed and fail together.  Everyone is in charge, everyone accepts credit, and everyone shoulders blame.

Just look at how much time and effort BP is spending on assigning blame for the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  President Obama made a good move yesterday by accepting full responsibility, a move designed to clear the air of this Empty Argument.  Edit. Done. Move on.  Whenever you, as a manager, sense any energy being devoted to scapegoating, edit the scene and move on.

3.  The Big Idea (a.k.a. The Killer Concept, a.k.a. The Gamechanger, a.k.a. The Moby Dick)

The quest for a Big Idea can turn into an Empty Argument in a three ways:  1) Stalking, capturing and processing a Big Idea can blind your team to other opportunities (this was an okay game on a whaling ship in the 1840s, not so much in the networked business environment of today); 2) so many people inside and outside the organization have to weigh in on a Big Idea that its original intention and power gets watered down or lost; and 3) the Big Idea will inevitably get divvied into a series of Little Ideas, so why not simply start with Little Ideas?—all of which will have the potential to morph into Big Ideas! Start small and build, don’t begin big and diminish!  Enhance, don’t dilute!

Focus on purpose and all your Little Ideas will align themselves with Big Themes.  Focus on process and Big Ideas will emerge organically.  Focus on people, because Big Ideas don’t change the game quarterly, people do, on a daily basis.  Big ideas come and go.  Purpose, process and people are the stars you can steer the ship by.

4.  The research.  Research is a snapshot taken in the past.  It can tell you a lot about where you’ve been but very little about where you’re going. It is a dial on the dashboard but is not a way of charting your course or predicting what the weather will be like in the future.  Research can inform a scene, but it should almost never be what the scene is about.

PalinHand15.  How to spin a story. Scripting, editing, re-writing, getting bottlenecked on approvals, and then spinning a narrative for your audience is a really Empty Argument. As much as I abhor her politics and her prideful ignorance, Sarah Palin gets a lot of credit as an improviser. The reason she can stay relevant and a beat ahead of the news cycles is that, unlike John McCain and most other politicians, she’s not scripting or trying to spin anything, she is relating to her environment in real time, in her own authentic way.  It drives the liberal news spinners crazy.  (President Obama does the same to the righties.)  Nosy neighbor?  Build a fence!  When Palin makes notes on the palm of her hand during a speech, the Ivy League-educated (I do not include Brown grads in this) grademaking machines in the liberal media try to spin it as “Doesn’t do her homework.”  Palin, however, knows intuitively that 90% of the people who see this image will have it made this move themselves.  We can relate.  The lesson:  Living your narrative is more effective than trying to live up to a narrative you’ve scripted, then convincing others to buy into it, too (see Woods, Eldrick “Tiger”).

6.  Labeling. In the Networked World, curation is an essential skill.  The ability to provide context for ubiquitous content is important, and should be an area of constant focus.  The Empty Argument here begins with the notion that everything has to fit into the known universe of the organization or brand, that there will be an institutional meme to deal with every anomaly.  In a networked environment, there are so many anomalies that this is an impossibility.  Don’t waste time arguing about how to label everything. This dampens originality and creative energy.  Approach every situation as its own anomaly.  Act first, label later.

7.   The platform. This is one of the newer Empty Arguments that have gone viral in large organizations.  Decisions about which technology platforms to use has become a high-stakes game that often involves tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of discussion and debate.  Here are a couple of reasons why platform Arguments are often Empty:  1)  There are too many platforms to assess with any certainty, thousands of them.  No one can be an expert in all of them.  For this reason, decisions about platforms often as not come from a personal agenda, and not from any qualified assessment of all the options.  2)  The platform is secondary to the narrative.  By arguing about platforms, a company is pulling focus from its narrative.  This is putting the cart ahead of the horse.  Performance has very little to do with platforms.  Great design is great design whether it’s computer-generated, hand-drawn or modeled in clay.  Narrative first, platform later.

8.  Who’s right and who’s wrong. When you script your narrative, there’s only one ‘right’ way to deal with a problem and every other way (see ‘Labeling’ above) is, by definition, ‘wrong.’ Improvisers understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem, and that the ability to collaborate and come up with original solutions to original problems is far more effective than arguing about who’s right and who’s wrong in any given scene.  Improvisers focus on whether or not behaviors are consistent or inconsistent with themes and environment.   This liberates all sorts of possibilities that aren’t present when the argument centers on right vs. wrong.

So…let’s put a cost estimate on these Empty Arguments:

The organization where our friend works, a relatively well-run company by American standards, employs 120K people around the world.  Figure 10K of them are managers who have a say in the direction of the company and its brands.  Our friend estimates that a third of a typical manager’s day (call it 3 hrs/day) is spent engaged in Empty Arguments.  That’s 30K management hours a day across the enterprise.  At an average cost per manager of $100/hr, that’s $3M a day, which equates to approximately $270M worth of wasted time per quarter!

Improvisation gives employees the ability to see and minimize the Empty Arguments listed here, and many others, too.   If the managers at my friend’s company can spend one less hour per day on Empty Arguments, it will save the company $1M per day, or $360M per year in resources that can be  put to better use.

That’s a lot of Empty.

Sponsors Step Up!

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

There’s still time to join DHL-Africa, Special Olympics, Alive & Kicking, Africa Ten and GameChangers as sponsors of The Ball’s epic journey to the 2010 FIFA World Cup!    Follow the journey at http://theball.tv

TheBallFetishman1If your brand has an ounce of artistry to it, an iota of creative mojo, you will see, as DHL-Africa and Special Olympics have seen, as Tali Krakowsky wrote for Creativity Online, that the game IS the campaign, and because this is the game upon which the world’s attention will be centered for the next 90 days, this is where savvy brands will be. What are you waiting for, the NEXT World Cup?  Your ESPN luxury suite passes?  Those come later.  The game is NOW.

Packages available:

30-DAY LEAD-IN TO FIFA WORLD CUP* KICKOFF
Tanzania 30th Apr — 9th May
Malawi: 9th May — 18th May
Zambia: 18th May — 25th May
Namibia: 25th May — 2nd June
Botswana: 2nd June — 6th June
Arrival: South Africa: 6th June

TheBallMagness1FIFA WORLD CUP PRESENCE

6th June—–12th July:   TV and other media; personal appearances; presentations; five-on-five mixed celeb/Special Olympian Games with 2 New Sponsor players

“SPIRIT OF FOOTALL” DOCUMENTARY
(In partnership with Africa Ten Enterprises, producers of the feature World Cup documentary, “Africa Ten”) ‘Name above Ttle’ sponsorship is available.  Post-production and distribution partnerships also available.  300+ hours of HD footage of three football-loving blokes on an adventure that gets to the heart of why they call it The Beautiful Game.

ENDORSEMENTS AND REPRESENTATION

Post FIFA World Cup sponsorship of Spirit of Football and the central characters on The Ball’s Journey to the World Cup: Christian Wach, Phil Wake and Andrew Aris.

OPTION ON 2014 FIFA WORLD CUP SPONSORSHIP
TheBallKwekuStudents2010’s sponsors have right of first refusal in their category for The Ball’s Journey from the birthplace of modern football, Battersea Park in London, through North America, to Rio de Janiero, site of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

Make your brand part of this great story when the eyes of the world turn to South Africa in June!

Contact:  Phil Wake (phil@spiritoffootball.com) or Anna Weltner (anna_weltner@yahoo.com) to see how you can support the quest.


*The Spirit of Football is not affiliated in any way with FIFA.  We’re using the name so you know which World Cup we’re talking about!TheBall_WithPilots1

The Beautiful Game

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

SoccerGame1_BorderSports is a recurring subject for GameChangers.  How can it not be, with our work so tightly bound to the playing of games?  All you have to do is thread back through this blog to see how many times sports and their players produce a ‘learnable moment’ that can be applied to business.  Most sports provide a useful model for how structure (e.g. the rules, roles, environment and objectives that constitute the game) liberate performance, creativity and innovation.

Sports is also a recurring theme for the culture and politics of the times.  There is a lot of meta meaning bound up in sports.  For example…

Jackie Robinson’s is the story of de-segregation, and of breaking through any significant barrier in your chosen profession.

Rudy is the story of anyone who has to overcome long odds to achieve a dream.

Esther Williams‘ and Johnny Weismuller’s stories are about the marriage of sports and entertainment.

The recent film, Invictus, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, is about a visionary who sees a way to resolve a serious conflict via the playing of a game.

The Invictus theme is more or less mirrors what The Ball is all about:  Beginning this Sunday, January 24, three football (soccer for us Yanks) enthusiasts, Christian Wach, Phillip Wake and Andrew Aris, will kick a football from Battersea Park in London, the site where modern soc– er, football began in 1864, to Johannesburg, South Africa, site of this year’s World Cup, the first ever held on the African continent.  Their trip will take five months, and will run through 25 countries and 10,000 miles.

GameChangers:  On The Ball

GameChangers: On The Ball

The Ball is sponsored by DHL-Africa, Special Olympics-Africa, the Freestyle Football Federation (think of them as the Harlem Globetrotters of football), and Alive and Kicking, which distributes footballs to kids in poor villages around the world.  Alive and Kicking is donating 1,000 balls for the guys to distribute on their trip.  DHL is handling logistics, including ground transpo, express mail, visa approvals, border crossings and internet and mobile phone connectivity.  Africa 10, a documentary produced by Julian Cautherly and Will.I.Am of the Blackeyed Peas, has donated an HD camera and flash memory cards, and is co-hosting The Ball content on its website for the duration of the trip.  GameChangers is a patron, too.  Our role is to support the The Ball narrative.

At the January 24 kickoff, ‘The Beautiful Game’ will be played with ‘no rules’ (pre-1864 version of mayhem in the streets with a ball); ‘old rules’ (c. 1864 genteel and casual, if it strikes your fancy, smoke a pipe while you play); and ‘modern rules’ (the athletic, free-flowing game of today).  Following the kickoff event, Dan Magess of the Freestyle Football Federation will attempt to set a world record for ‘keepy-uppy’, keeping a football in the air without touching it with your hands.  Current record is over 23 hours.  And with that, The Ball will begin its journey to Jo-burg for the World Cup.

This will be the third and most ambitious World Cup journey for the group, which operates under a non-profit organization, Spirit of Football.   Wach and Wake kicked The Ball from London to Seoul in 2002 and London to Munich in 2006.  This is Aris’ first year with the group.

The meta story of The Ball is how a simple idea can sweep aside our differences, and lead the way toward a shared sense of purpose, and the pitch on which all can play.

Kick away, lads, kick away!SOFKickoff1

We Will Be Brilliant

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Haiti2There is a terrible rip in the fabric of the planet. The Earth has buckled under Haiti. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, suffering, homeless, hungry, helpless in the streets. The alarm ripples across networks in waves of emotion produced by a billion links and images knitted together by tens of thousands of stories. The global disaster relief game is on. We will play it brilliantly.

We will give money via mobile phones. We will send medical help and heavy equipment and food and tents and fuel. Some of us will catch a plane or a boat there ourselves. We will take time off from helping in New Orleans to give Haiti a hand. We will triage this awful wound that anyone who is truly attuned cannot help but feel. It is nature of networks that when people anywhere are hurting, we hurt, too. And so in helping the people of Port-au-Prince, we are also helping ourselves.

Disasters bring out the best in us. Neighborliness. Empathy. Selflessness. Soul. We will be focused and energetic. We will be purposeful. We will honor our instincts. Our differences will vanish, our collaborative natures take over, our shared destiny will be made, for a time, more clear.

And after the rubble no longer echoes with the cries of those it has buried alive, after those who have been hurt have been treated and those who are hungry have been fed and those on the streets have been sheltered…after the aid and energy we’ve sent toward the stricken parts have exhausted themselves and the survivors have settled into a freshly impoverished routine…we must remember this:

Our brilliance is always with us, and does not require a disaster like this one to make its presence known.

Pat on the Back

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

A VERSION OF THIS FIRST APPEARED ON THE HUFFINGTON POST WEB SITE…

I am at our local hardware store on Vermont Avenue in L.A. where I’ve recently been spending a lot of time and money on our fixer-upper, when I see one of the store’s employees give another one a pat on the back.  It makes me smile because it’s something I don’t see too often in the workplace these days: generous, a gesture of appreciation — for what, exactly, I cannot tell.   A favor returned?  Encouragement?  A conflict resolved?   Good news?   A joke?  All I can tell for sure is that it’s a connection between two people who, in that instant, are enjoying their scene.

We earn our money by learning from the Past and by being correct more often than not about the Future.  But we do our living in the Now, and nothing says Now like a pat on the back.

And yet, there’s a problem with this, at least where the workplace is concerned.   Touching is a vital element of communication, but between the computer culture and the corporate playbook, it is being systematically eliminated from the game.

To get the complete picture, I phone Martin Ett, an HR consultant with ObsessiCom Outsourcing Services, and ask him to interpret a pat on the back like the one I witnessed in the hardware store.

“It depends,”  says Ett.

“On?”

“A lot.  Was it a display of affection?  If so, was it sexual in nature?  What was the duration of the gesture?  We recommend a three-second limit on casual contact, including handshakes, conversational touching, hair or clothing adjustments, and lint-plucking.  Back-patting falls under the three-second rule.

PatontheBack1A“There’s also the nature of the contact itself to consider,” Ett went on.  “Was there rubbing involved or was the contact static?   Was it hand contact only, or was it of a hugging nature so that bodies were touching?  This is an important distinction, because hugs are becoming increasingly problematic in the workplace.  Many employers prohibit what we call ‘full frontal clutching’ while still allowing what we call ‘casual side-to-side linkage.’   We’re seeing strong anti-clutching trends across the corporate landscape.

“I’d want to talk to each of the employees separately,” Ett continues, “to determine both intention and interpretation, an ‘I-to-I Analysis,’ we call it.”

“Eye-to-Eye? I ask.  Misinterpreting.  “Is that like a 360?”

“You mean a 720?  Uh, no.  It means was there alignment between the patter’s Intention and the pattee’s Interpretation of the incident?

(Incident?)

I get where this is going but there’s no stopping him now.  I put the phone on speaker and tend to my Farmville on Facebook as Ett continues: “Did the pat make the pattee defensive or uncomfortable, or imply some kind of future obligation?  Also, what was the proximity of the parties? Was one of the parties backed into a corner, or was there space for the pattee to avoid the pat if it was unwelcome or unwarranted?”

“It happened in the hose aisle,” I say.  “It’s cramped in that store.  Space is tight.”

Hose aisle,” repeats Ett, gravely.  “That could be an issue.  Context is key.  I’d need to know more about what exactly goes on in the hose aisle.  Is one of the parties the hose manager, or is that aisle considered neutral space?  Was there actual hose involved?  Because that’s a whole new kettle of worms…

Kettle of worms? When did a pat on the back turn into a scene from a Wes Craven movie?

PatonBack2A“Also what, specifically, was ‘the back’ being patted? I’d want to know that.  Was it in the region of the upper, or Cervical, vertebrae?  If it was on the upper back it was probably okay, assuming of course, it didn’t last for longer than three seconds and no rubbing was involved.  Middle, or Thoracic vertebrae, are a gray area, especially numbers T-One through T-Four.  You find HR people very divided about this, and there are no clear guidelines, so my advice is to steer clear of the Thoracic region entirely, just to be safe.  The lower, or Lumbar region, is a definite no-no.  And a pat on the Sacrum will get you a visit from Security, no question.

“Was one of the employees the other one’s superior?” continues Ett.  “If so, the gesture could be taken as intimidation or harassment.  Was the patting public or did it happen in private?  Was this an isolated incident, or was it part of a pattern?”

“I don’t know,” I say, feeling a bit harassed myself now, for even bringing it up.  “They just seemed like a couple of guys enjoying a moment.”

“Couple of guys, eh?  We’re seeing a big increase in same-sex sexual harassment these days.”  Ett says it with the ominous satisfaction of an exterminator describing a cockroach invasion in the building where you live.

“What about giving myself a pat on the back?” I ask.  “Do you have a rule against that?”

“Are you making fun of me?” Ett replies.  “If you are, you’re barking down the wrong well, buddy.  There are rules about that.”

Next time I see them, I’ll warn the guys over at the hardware store they’re skating on some very thin skin.

The problem with rules of the game like those cited by (the fictional) Martin Ett is that they define workplace interactions in the context of the Past or the Future while minimizing the impact of the Now.   Because of this they tend to suppress rather than expand our ability to communicate in a productive, meaningful way.

In this kind of sanitized environment, we may be making our money and limiting our liability, but it has very little to do with how we’re living our lives.PatonBack3B