Improspectives

Improv skills lead to success

Posts Tagged ‘responding

Gamification: The Six D’s

leave a comment »

I’m most of the way through the Gamification course I’m taking on Coursera. I’ve learned a lot and hope to apply some of the techniques in my own work.

Much of the course’s material appears in For the Win, written by the Coursera professor Kevin Werbach and his coauthor Dan Hunter (both of whom are faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School). My previous four posts discussed four elements of gamification (such as meaningful choices and conflict) and how to incorporate them into business and improv. The authors also identify six steps to gamification (For the Win, p. 86), which I think provide an excellent framework for business and theatrical endeavors.

The authors’ six D’s are:

  • Define business objectives
  • Delineate target behaviors
  • Describe your players
  • Devise activity cycles
  • Don’t forget the fun!
  • Deploy the appropriate tools

My next six posts will address these D’s one at a time, starting with how to define your objectives.

Improv and Gamification: Potential Conflicts

leave a comment »

I’m taking the free Coursera course on Gamification, taught by Kevin Werbach from the Wharton School of Management. The book For the Win, which Werbach coauthored with Dan Hunter, mentions four basic elements of gamification:

  • Motivation
  • Meaningful choices
  • Structure
  • Potential conflicts

Their final item, potential conflicts, addresses how game elements can come into conflict with organizational goals and intrinsic (internal) motivation. The traditional management case study of conflicting elements is suboptimization, where an employee focuses on a specific task to the detriment of the overall project or even the entire enterprise.

As an example, suppose you’ll receive a substantial bonus for releasing a product to market by a specific date. It’s natural for you to evaluate your incentives and get that product out the door regardless of what corners you need to cut. If the product’s not as a good as it could have been, your employer must take a substantial portion of the blame. After all, they structured your incentives in a way that rewarded you for focusing on the subgoal instead of releasing a quality product.

In improv, you can suboptimize by going for the joke instead of playing a good scene and letting the laughs come naturally. I was especially guilty of this practice early in my career, but I’ve gotten away from it. The idea is that you want to keep the scene moving forward smoothly instead of stopping it with a joke. A joke’s punchline is an artificial endpoint that stops progress, pulls focus from the scene, and forces everyone to reset. Are jokes always bad in improv? No, but they make everyone’s job harder, especially when more than one person is going for the joke in a scene. Then it’s a travesty.

Improv and Gamification: Meaningful Choices

leave a comment »

I’m taking the free Coursera course on Gamification, taught by Kevin Werbach from the Wharton School of Management. The book For the Win, which Werbach coauthored with Dan Hunter, mentions four basic elements of gamification:

  • Motivation
  • Meaningful choices
  • Structure
  • Potential conflicts

The second item, meaningful choices, is a foundation of well-being and self-esteem. Everyone likes to feel that they have some control over their lives — that their choices make a difference in how events turn out. Improvisers’ choices have direct and immediate impact on the show, for good or ill. Your scene partners can find ways to exclude you, of course. A former member of our group was a guest performer in another city, but the other players on the team apparently didn’t care to have him around. They were polite to him before the show, but after he exited a scene, one of the other players stepped on stage and said “You know the guy who was just here? I killed him.”

So much for collaboration.

It’s little better to have teammates ignore offers you make within a scene, preferring to wait for another player to come on and further the action. It’s hard to make progress when no one listens to you, even if you are the junior member of a group.

The same considerations hold true for the office. I’m not saying less experienced workers should be given complete autonomy, but they should have their opinions given a fair hearing. There’s very little that’s more demotivating than disappearing into the bowels of an organization and losing the connection between your work and a company’s success. Of course you can add points, badges, and levels to attach some (albeit artificial) meaning to their tasks, but Werbach and Hunter point out that it’s possible to gamify work unethically, in such a way that the “game” structure works against the employees’ best interests. Much like the sales competition in the movie version of David Mamet’s play Glengarry Glen Ross (first place is a car, second place is a set of steak knives, third place is you’re out of a job), you can use gamification for good or evil. One of their colleagues turned down such a consulting assignment. Rightfully so.

Improv and Gamification: Introduction

leave a comment »

You can divide improvisation into two rough categories: short-form and long-form. Short-form improvisation consists of games (also called “scenes” or “forms”) that last about 3-8 minutes and, generally, have specific guidelines to which the players should adhere. Many organizations, including ComedySportz and Theatresports (from which ComedySportz was derived, with the permission of Keith Johnstone), use team-on-team competition to enhance the audience’s experience. Winning a round gets a team points, which are compared on a scoreboard, and provide a clear metric for the state of the show.

Gamification, the practice of applying game elements to business and social activities, has become increasingly popular. Kevin Werbach of Penn’s Wharton School and Dan Hunter of New York Law School (and adjunct faculty at Wharton), two leading gamification proponents, wrote For the Win, a book that’s available inexpensively on Amazon through Wharton Digital Press. In their book, they describe how companies have gamified internal processes and customer/product interactions to add fun to what might otherwise be boring situations. If you’ve ever become mayor of a business by checking in on FourSquare, you’ve been gamified.

Werbach and Hunter go into significant detail on how gamification works, but I’ll focus on four points (mentioned on p. 44 of the book) over the next few posts. They are:

  • Motivation
  • Meaningful choices
  • Structure
  • Potential conflicts

I’ll tackle each point  from the perspective of an improviser who also spends time in the business world.

If you’d like to learn more about gamification, you can take Werbach’s Gamification course on Coursera.org. The next section of the course starts on April 1, 2013, but he offered it in the Fall of 2012 and, with luck, it will be available again for readers who learn about the course after the current session ends.

Improv and Engineering

leave a comment »

Many individuals, with quite a few improvisers among them, think of engineers as nerds who think of nothing but binary digits, circuits, and why they can’t get dates on Saturday night. The truth is that many technically-minded people are incredibly creative. Designing devices and systems requires engineers to combine elements in novel ways.

A friend posted a link to an article about Dartmouth professor Peter Robbie. Robbie graduated from Dartmouth in 1969 with an English degree, but went on to get his Master of Fine Arts from Cornell. Now he uses improv in his engineering design class for Dartmouth’s Thayer School  to help students collaborate more effectively.

You can find the full article about Robbie’s work at Dartmouth here. It’s well worth your time to read it.

 

Knowing and Respecting Your Audience

leave a comment »

How many times have you heard a prominent entertainer say something like this:

I create art that I enjoy and trust that my audience will feel my passion and live my dream with me.

This sentiment sounds great, but it’s just another variation on the “law of attraction” crap made popular by the book The Secret and used by preachers who rely on their congregation buying into the “gospel of prosperity” to fund their own lifestyles.

For every successful entertainer, there are tens of thousands (at least) who create art they love and yet, somehow, can’t get their audiences to buy into what they’re doing. It’s not because you don’t love what you do enough — your audience just has different tastes or your work isn’t of sufficient quality for them to appreciate it. Remember, your audience decides whether they’re entertained, not you.

That last bit can be hard to admit, especially for individuals who are new to a profession. Regardless of whether you’re a speaker, an entertainer, a writer, or a lawyer, you’ll suffer through significant growing pains while you figure out what works and what doesn’t. I’m not saying you should join the race to the bottom and crank out derivative drivel. Please, in the name of all that might or might not be holy, don’t. What you should do is put out the best product you can and listen intently to audience feedback. If they understand you want to improve and are putting forth your best effort, they’ll be much more likely to offer helpful advice instead of the normal platitudes.

And who knows — you might find someone who likes what you do and is willing to champion your work. It’s a numbers game, after all. The more work you do and the more you pay attention to and incorporate feedback from your audience, the more likely you are to entertain with art you love and connect with individuals who can help you.

Repetition Doesn’t Have to Be Boring

leave a comment »

Humans crave variety. It’s easy to get bored in a job where you repeatedly encounter the same scenarios, whether as part of a customer service job or, perhaps surprisingly, as a lawyer. Yes, a lot of the law is repetitive, especially for young lawyers learning the basics of their practice area. In a field bound by precedent, you spend a lot of time adding details to templated filings your firm has used for years.

Improv provides a welcome relief from the drudgery of the office, but it’s possible for improvisers to get into ruts. If you work with the same group for several years, you end up doing a lot of shows with the same cast. Sure, every show’s different, but they’re not that different. And, humans being what they are, the suggestions you get won’t be that different if you keep asking for the same things. So ask for new suggestions! Don’t go for the standard categories of occupations and animals — ask someone to describe their imaginary friend or a machine they’d like to invent.

For those of you in the corporate world who don’t have a lot of flexibility in how you do your job (yet), make those hallway conversations count. Don’t try to be funny all the time, but use your listening skills to make offers that advance conversations and learn more about your colleagues.

Bonus hint: You can often get superb customer service if you make your rep’s day better. Be nice. Answer their questions directly. If there’s a moment where the conversation pauses because the computer’s slow, make an offer! If you’re talking with a cable company about a bill, mention a show you watched and liked. If it’s a store, mention a good experience you had. The person helping you might not want to interact with you, but if they do, you might have a brief but fun conversation about a topic of mutual interest. You will have gotten what you wanted (and maybe a little extra) and made someone else’s day brighter. Isn’t that why we perform?

Bonus bonus hint: Don’t hit on the rep, even if they sound cute. In fact, especially if they sound cute. They’re in Atlanta and you’re in Missoula…enjoy the conversation and move on.

When Goals Don’t Match Incentives

leave a comment »

Several months ago I wrote about how improv and business relationships can resemble some of the classic 2 x 2 games, such as Chicken or the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Improv and business have characteristics in common with other games, too.

My last post mentioned Mikhail Tal, one of the fiercest attackers in the history of chess. He specialized in knocking the position and his opponent off balance and winning in the resulting complications. Tal lost a lot of games in dramatic fashion, too, but his games were rarely boring.

You can’t make progress in an improv scene or business if you’re afraid to shake things up. Unlike in chess, where you face an opponent over the board by yourself, improvisers and business people have colleagues who are working with you toward a common goal. At least, that’s the ideal. You probably know what kind of disasters can happen when you and your colleagues aren’t all moving in the same direction. But why would team members work at cross purposes? One possible reason is that an individual’s incentives don’t align with the project goal.

As an example, suppose you’re a programmer tasked with shipping a product update one month from today. Further, assume your annual bonus and (possibly) continued employment hinge on releasing your code by the deadline. I can guarantee that you will do everything you can, including cutting every available corner if necessary, to get that software out the door 30 days from now. Doing so meets your objective of getting the software out the door, but does so at the expense of the company’s overarching goal of providing quality products to its customers.

Economists and game theorists call this practice suboptimization, where individuals focus on part of a process at the expense of the project as a whole. Chess players can suboptimize by trying to reach an endgame with very few pieces on the board, regardless of what the position calls for earlier in the game. Improvisers can suboptimize by “working on a character” or “finding a way to work a song into this scene” no matter what happens in a scene. And, as argued above, companies can make their employees suboptimize by setting incentives improperly.

I wish I had a good answer for the problem of suboptimization in organizations. It’s relatively easy for individuals to avoid it if they can identify the larger goals they’re working toward, but it’s hard for employees to consciously work in a manner that won’t be directly rewarded. If it’s a choice between getting paid and doing what’s best for the organization, I say take the money and work with your boss to restructure your incentives after you cash the check.

How to Apologize

leave a comment »

It’s never easy to apologize, especially when you’ve angered the very people you count on for your livelihood. The National Hockey League, specifically its owners, potentially reversed seven years of increasing goodwill and fan excitement when it locked out its players in an attempt to force the players’ union to accept an odious Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The players (rightfully) dug in and, on January 12, the two sides ratified an agreement and 48-game schedule they could have reached months ago. So how do you make up for three months of no hockey and a loss of 34 games per team? One good place to start is by putting your money where your mouth is. The dispute was about money, so that’s the currency you use to apologize to your fans.

The social media team for the Calgary Flames, a team I’ve followed since I was an intern as the U.S. Consulate in Calgary during the summer of 1989 (the year the Flames won their only Stanley Cup), sent out these three tweets today:

calgaryapology

For the first two home games this year, you can get a beer spilled on you at the Saddledome for half price, buy Flames gear for 50% off until the end of the first game, and have a guaranteed win of C$50,000 (with another C$50,000 going to charity) for the 50/50 drawings at the first two games. That’ll go a long way toward regaining their fans’ support.

Apology accepted, but this is the third time we’ve missed games during Gary Bettman’s tenure. Don’t let it happen again.

“Yes…and” isn’t always your friend in business

leave a comment »

Improvisers are trained to accept other players’ offers so scenes can move forward. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for an improvised performance to succeed unless the actors say “yes” to others’ contributions “and” extend or heighten those offers.

In negotiations of all types, and especially in a business context, part of the battle for victory hinges on establishing the reality you’re discussing. As a writer, I have to place a value on my services and the benefits they bring to my clients. A potential client who’s interested in getting the best service at the lowest possible price could point out that they are a new company acquiring lots of content, so they aren’t in a position to pay me what I think I deserve. The “Yes…and” approach pushes me to accept what they’ve said as truth and take the contract as offered. The problem is that I’m not in a scene meant to entertain an audience — I’m in a negotiation over whether I get paid what I deserve. Many factors influence the decision, such as whether I’m bored or need the work, but in the end I have to live with the consequences of my choice. Accepting less than I’m worth drives down my value and, worse, my self-perceived value. Unless the situation is dire, you shouldn’t bend to the version of reality they’ve put forth.

You should also watch out for internal battles at a company, even one where you’ve worked for a while and established a trusting relationship with your colleagues. Your co-workers might misunderstand a situation or, if you’re competing for a promotion or assignment,  want to influence how a situation is perceived. “Yes…and” can be a weakness others exploit. It’s tough to maintain a proper balance between acceptance and skepticism, but it’s worth the effort to try.