Why people play games and why leaders should encourage the games they play!

Involvement is key to engagement. So help people learn by playing games!

In our recent international survey of executives, exploring the most important traits of engaged employees, 30% of respondents listed that “they are involved and involving” as their no 1*.

The noise in the engagement space has been deafening at times. It’s often confusingly contradictory for the uninitiated but far too seldom rooted in actual experience. Ian Buckingham, in various guises, has designed, directed and produced engagement programmes that have supported the development of some of the most iconic brands down the years from Orange and Microsoft through to ZFS and IBM. So while the push communicators and theorists complain and pontificate, please take a tip from TBT  and “let people play games”!

Game theory models strategic situations, or games, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. It is based on creating a safe space in which to experiment with scenarios some of which, at some point, will be applied “back at the ranch”. It is used in the social sciences (most notably in economics, management, recruitment, operations research, political science, and social psychology) as well as in other formal sciences (logic, computer science, and statistics) and biology (particularly evolutionary biology and ecology).

While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games), which can readily be applied to business, it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several broad types of games. Prominent examples include cooperative and non-cooperative games and games with perfect and imperfect information. Both are situations that employees are often likely to face during the course of their careers but which the books of instruction creators, standards and kpi setters won’t really be able to help them with.

Down the years, we have developed a range of engagement approaches that embrace game theory. These include the use of scenario modelling and forum theatre. Ian describes a number of these approaches in Brand Champions.

Two of the games we’ve developed include the storytelling-based executive role-playing game Brand Champions™ designed to mobilise change agents as part of a transformation programme. The other is Brand Challenger™ a powerful strategy development and future-based scenario-planning game that engineers and then resolves a crisis stimulating innovative thinking and teamwork.

The Challenger™ product helped a global insurance company generate game-changing innovations within its product set but most importantly unleashed the untapped potential of their first line managers, transforming the culture within the space of 18 months. It is helping transform the branding model of an FS challenger brand and helped the senior executive of a utility company position the organisation credibly as a true challenger brand.

The Brand Champions™ game has helped executives within the petro-chemical industry transform the way they develop strategy and communicate health and safety , with remarkable early impact on their core performance figures. It has helped an “under-siege” tourist board permanently change their culture by creating a network of champions and rapidly bonded a senior team within the building industry to cope with the recent economic downturn and to stay several steps ahead of an aggressive corporate takeover.

In each case, we were able to create a “safe place” through the medium of scenario-based game playing, that enabled the participants to be critical but constructive; to make suggestions but take responsibility for implementing them and, most importantly, to generate solutions to very pressing business challenges and own them as a team.

It’s a commonly acknowledged wisdom that children, like all mammals, play games to learn important lessons about life through trial and error, hopefully conducted in a safe place. As is so often the case, in the stuffy and sterile corporate halls, we forget that not only do we develop through taking risks and making mistakes, but we learn mostly by being involved. If properly and credibly designed, games provide the safe place for innovating; risk taking and critique. They are an invaluable involvement opportunity.

But in these tough times, are you encouraging game playing? Or have you locked up the board demanding focus on the day job?

*contact us if you would like more details.

We sometimes need to don a mask before we find out who our colleagues are

One of the symptoms of a disengaged workforce is a lack of authenticity – when people leave their personalities at the workplace door. But if they don’t care enough, or are too insecure to be themselves, they’re not going to be fulfilling their potential.

Yet leaders often bang on about “going the extra mile” or “the need for innovation and initiative”.

Engagement is a simple concept, which hasn’t really benefited from the reams written about it. It’s just a term describing a state of focused attention. Whether we’re talking about colleagues, customers, the community or even shareholders, the aim is usually to bring about a positive reaction through a strong, positive connection. The hope is that this connection will result in additional effort – and ideally the nirvana of self-managing teams.

The problem is, that rather like rubbernecking on the motorway or simply following the crowd, engagement isn’t necessarily the same as having a good time for a long time. It can’t guarantee positive outcomes if the conditions and culture aren’t right. Cynics are usually powerful “engagers”, for example, as most of us can confirm – and the bewitching era of “spin” has cast a long shadow.

Oddly enough, one technique that works well as an engagement device is the use of the alter ego or avatar. It’s ironic, but creating and then discussing a “virtual persona” is both liberating and very revealing. Especially within cultures where there’s a fear of criticism or unwillingness to be open (and there are a few about at the moment), it gives people the licence to critique as well as praise, whether the “alter ego” is deliberately brand-focused or not.

It’s an approach that has worked very well at a range of organisations I’ve worked with, especially those with reputation issues to address. And anyone who was at Melcrum’s recent SCM conference would have seen the event company Involve use the process, which is also well showcased in my recent book Brand Champions: How superheroes bring brands to life.

So why not try creating your own brand superhero alter ego? Ask yourself, “what are the superpowers I wish I had to get me through the day at work”? Perversely, if you acknowledge that authenticity is at the root of engagement, why not encourage people to don masks, capes and insignia next time you’re working on an engagement intervention?

You might just find out what their true values are and what’s occupying their minds… not to mention what’s filling their tights!

Take a look at this fascinating VT about living and loving your vocation by Marvel artist Gene Colan

or

Kurt Vonnegut on the shape of stories…..

Where are the leaders? Characteristics of a true ceo.

When Ian wrote Brand Engagement in 2007, just before the economic bubble burst courtesy of the collapse of the banking system, he talked about the dangers of hero-worshipping approaches to totemic leaders like CEOs. Why?

1. It places too much responsibility on 1 person to be the pivot around which the brand rotates

2. It is ultimately unrealistic to expect a single person (or small group of people like a board of directors) to be able to connect with all of their stakeholders when, rather like the Queen, everywhere they go “smells of fresh paint”

3. It disempowers the day-to-day leaders, the chief engagement officers or line managers who are the beating pulse of engagement for the “everyman” community

This important observation has been backed up time and again since in research, papers and reports. Ian’s point is that the communication role of the CEO has to be more “primus inter pares” or first among equals now. Communication simply can’t be controlled via the PR department, as we’ve seen once again with the Newscorp scandal. It has to be systemic and focused on multiple stakeholder groups, not just the perceptions of shareholders and the markets.

Around the same time, Ian conducted research into the characteristics that best define a chief engagement officer or ceo. The research embraced the views of 1,500 people in line manager roles and came to the following conclusions:

• openness
• honesty
• bravery
• charisma

were the  most admired qualities of leading communicators, whether local or several stages removed. Whereas at the top of the list of the most disengaging qualities was insincerity or spin.

Interestingly, Fombrum’s* traits of companies that employees would most like to work for include:

• they promote trust
• they empower
• they inspire pride

These dichotomies present a range of challenges. Not least, they challenge the wisdom of the constant debate about employee engagement as if responsibility rests within the HR department alone. Leaders should recognise that there’s a very compelling business case for creating an authentic, engaging organisation, first and foremost and that at the forefront of the movement to create that organisation should be the liberation of champion leaders in the ceo mould.

* ref his 1996 study as referenced in Ian P Buckingham; Prof Phillip Kitchen Who is responsible for corporate communications?,  Admap July/Aug 2005.

Not feral poor, or feral rich but a feral society!

Based on what we unfortunately see in the employee and social engagement space, I’ve sadly been predicting social unrest in my People Management blog for some time. It’s now happened within a range of communities. Realistically it’s more likely to escalate than go away!

David Cameron, the Tory leader, is lecturing all who will listen about a slow-motion moral collapse rooted in irresponsibility and points to discipline and the need for a war against so-called feral citizens, but from behind the bars of his gilded Etonian cage. “War against gangs” David, what have you said?

Ed Milliband, the champagne socialist labour leader has had the temerity to point the finger at the greed of the bankers and ruling classes, the feral rich, despite the irony of the fact that his party had over a decade to affect social transformation, yet reinforced many of the core problems instead.

Following the eruption of the simmering malcontent bubbling beneath the surface of brand England for decades, the chattering classes are now all a lather about a moral collapse, setting politicians against police against politicians against alleged “mindless thugs”. They’re all very much missing the point.

Sadly our old England has been staggering blindly for some time. Its much-lauded welfare state has become a millstone around its neck in an alleged free market economy, inadvertently breeding a flabby underclass and underpinning a so-called multi-cultural society about which no-one was apparently consulted but which clearly breeds insecurity by undermining an English identity that dare not speak its name.

But that alone didn’t light the fuse.

Cool Britannia has slowly become cruel Britannia as the family law system has so tragically fallen out of synch with the evolution of parenting models, robbing fathers of rights, rewarding so-called single parenting and denying generations of children much-needed male role models. And a generation of people who defended these islands against tyranny and then loyally paid their taxes now find themselves having to choose between heating and eating while community centres disappear and as their pensions collapse. In the meantime, energy companies and rail bosses continue to inflate prices to pay shareholders.

But this, on its own, hasn’t sparked the looting, rioting and fires.

As with the many businesses that have betrayed their stakeholders by saying one thing and practicing another, leadership, values and culture lie at the core of this problem. There’s no single golden bullet (not, not even a rubber one), or a quick fix. The way we engage with people and do things round here so obviously needs a complete overhaul and we need to start appreciating and celebrating what we do well.

But reflect for a moment on the scale of the leadership problem:

• Bankers paying bonuses indirectly funded by pension shortfalls and public sector cuts.
• Mass MP expenses outrage
• Seemingly constant sex scandals within the religious establishment
• Immoral and ill-mannered millionaire sports stars
• Spin vs authentic communication and relationship management
• Get famous at all costs” and trash tv
• Phone tapping journalists
• Lying CEOs
• Disingenuous marketing
• Telephone competition scandals within the TV networks
• Police corruption
• Barely justifiable wars in the Middle East wrapped in the veil of a de-stabilising “war on terror”
• The disease of negative journalism
• Rampant consumerism despite warnings about the impact on our ecology

There is clearly an all-pervading leadership vacuum which is undermining society by lowering the moral bar. Yet we’re shocked when the disaffected follow this lead and smash and grab, seemingly devoid of any moral self-regulation.

At times like these, the problems of businesses are put into stark relief. But just as employee engagement is key to performance, citizen engagement through consultation and involvement to re-define and live values will be key to restoring pride to this green and pleasant land. The problems we’re facing as a society are echoed in many businesses. The question is, will it be the finger-pointing people in the suits or those pushing the brooms who will take the lead? Either way, we can all play a part in bringing about change. Feral and independent initiative are not the same thing.

Read more about the link between business, brand, values and meaning in Ian’s provocatively different and ground breaking: Brand Champions..

Manager; staff and other dodgy designer labels

What’s in a label, eh? Well, quite a lot it would appear.

One of the games we play when running workshops with executives is rather unimaginatively titled ‘The Manager Game’. The title may be modest but its aims are lofty as we look to deconstruct misconceptions and challenge the prevailing culture and status quo.

In short, two groups are created by picking people at random and they are then sent to different rooms in the same building. Team A is given a brief titled ‘Managers’. The rest are given exactly the same brief but titled ‘Staff Briefing’. They are both set the same simple exercise, such as introducing a hot-desking policy, re-organisation or preparing for a VIP visit.

Without fail, the management group of people lock themselves away and fret over ensuring they have a strategy, plan, project outline and roles and responsibilities. The staff, however, usually do nothing but muck about and play games until paranoia and boredom sets in, at which point they usually set out to find the managers with the aim of solving the problem together.

So what’s the point?

Well there are many but what always stands out is the way people suddenly start behaving differently as soon as you pin a label on them.

Reflect for a second on what it feels like to be called “back office” or even “burden” (yes it happens!) on the organisation chart. What does it mean to be singled out as a so-called brand champion and what does that imply for those who aren’t named if you aren’t trying to create a general champion culture? Most importantly, how helpful is it to be given the title of manager or leader if no-one invests the time and development effort to help you explore your strengths and improvement areas or unpack the opportunities, expectations and responsibilities that come with the tag?

A small point – but much food for thought for those bearing the labels of HR generalists, OD specialists, L&D professionals; marketers and the so-called brand development functions alike.

Why “somewhere over the rainbow” just isn’t good enough when the answer to employee engagement clearly waits back at home!

 Kevin Thomson bemoans the culture of surveying the engagement out of employees and strongly suggests helping them become true brand champions with some home spun magic.

We’ve mentioned this before, but the flurry of surveys on employee engagement goes unchecked. They’re usually backed up by a conference or event at which a wider audience is asked to pay for the “reveal”. A sample from a recent survey:

 Does your organisation fully understand the direct connection between employee engagement and business performance?

Please choose your answer:

Yes, employee engagement is all our CEO talks about.
We’re definitely getting there and internal comms is heavily involved in developing a strategy to link the two.

Somewhat but senior leadership is working with HR on this rather than with internal comms.
No, there’s a long way to go before anyone truly understands this link.

 

Are repeated questions like this really necessary when we already have hard data from, amongst others, Gallup:

 Actively disengaged employees erode an organization’s bottom line, while breaking the spirits of colleagues in the process. Within the U.S. workforce, Gallup estimates this cost to the bottom line to be more than $300 billion in lost productivity alone. In stark contrast, world-class organizations…. have an engagement ratio of more than 9:1 (versus 2:1 average) Gallup Employee Engagement Report  What’s your ratio?

 Critics like Scarlett International, however, say that only 3/10 CEO’s are actively engaged in doing anything about engagement? So why bother to ask?

 The fact is that employee engagement begins at home. It’s reflected in the way employees talk about the brand in the social space, in the way recruiters pitch your vacancies, in the public face presented by your website and your customer satisfaction ratings not in generalised feedback from research houses in “neverland”.

 If your organisation recognises the brand jeapordy that a gradual breakdown in relations between employee and brand implies, rather than stirring up the employee hornet’s nest with provocative questions that simply describe but don’t address the core problem, isn’t it worth asking a simple question that flips engagement on its head and implies that someone, somewhere, intends to take ownership of the issue?

 Q: How engaging are we as an organisation?

 The engaging brands take ownership of all stakeholders. They actively engage their employees, their customers, their communities and their corporate relationships. They don’t wait for the prodding of third parties. They factor employee engagement into their key matrices and work hard at identifying the engagement levers. We know because we’ve partnered with many of them since first recognising the causal link between engagement and performance. We’ve been honoured to feature many of them in what have become some of the foundation texts in the communications, organisation and brand development space. And we’re heartened to see how they have “kept the faith” and addressed the inevitable business challenges that stemmed from the finance and culture based global economic downturn.

 We’ll be publishing details of best practices from those self-same engaging organisations. So watch this space and please do join the conversation with wisdom which is based on workaday facts more than fantasy, which is hearty, healing and very much home spun…..