Imagine a framework or a way of working as a game. I know there are limits to this analogy, but stick with me. Imagine an environment where the "game" makes sense, is challenging, and feels winnable. Playing those games is fun and rewarding, even when we don't win.
💜 So it's on the record, as a technical program manager, I don't like chaos because it does not benefit my teams on the ground getting stuff done whatsoever.
Thank you for this very timely piece. I joined a losing game a couple of months ago where most people are playing #5. Thanks for helping me make sense of the context and feel less crazy and cynical. Thanks also for renewing my optimism that there are better games I will soon be playing elsewhere! Look forward to reading the next parts.
I am curious about connecting the 5 game options in low trust environments to action logics. Under/over sounds like opportunist/diplomat strategy; meet a promise as expert and achiever; fight the system as individualists; and pragmatic change agent as strategist. Not sure about the last but sounds low on the order.
Rules systems for humans only work if the humans can break the rules, but we still get the outcomes we designed the system to produce. E.g. speed limits being set to 60% of what we actually want, or drill sergeants being utterly pedantic about facial hair, so that the stuff that really matters (a camaraderie from having a common enemy - the drill sergeant) happens.
I love thinking about this, as it relates to this knowledge-work meta-game we are playing. We LOVE cutting corners, it really is human nature. What corners are we cutting? Did we succeed anyway? Why? Or did we set it up so that the cut corners actually hindered progress?
Computer game makers face this problem all the time. There are always some players are always looking for an edge. How do we make a game that's fun (i.e they succeed at the stated goal) for the folks who play as intended, without giving those game-breaking-edge-seekers an undue advantage?
Spot on. EXCEPT for the dig against program managers. Sure, bad ones will play the system for their own controlling ends. But so will bad product managers. Great program managers will act as the wind in the sails of product development teams, constantly optimizing for effective value delivery. Noone should still be promoting scrum in 2023 in all but the most dysfunctional environments
I found this extremely insightful. We have created a North star framework and people are loving it. I realise now as they start to understand the rules. Please continue the series, John. 🙏
Profound read, like others who have commented, did a great job of articulating things I recognise in my current org (first time playing a #5 game). Please share the rest, thank you for your insights John!
Please do write the rest... Pretty insightful stuff!
Can any % / number of "Number 4" (pragmatic change agent) get together to change the game?
I identified with this one, primarily. Still felt less than great, as it’s kind of passive.
💜 So it's on the record, as a technical program manager, I don't like chaos because it does not benefit my teams on the ground getting stuff done whatsoever.
Thank you for this very timely piece. I joined a losing game a couple of months ago where most people are playing #5. Thanks for helping me make sense of the context and feel less crazy and cynical. Thanks also for renewing my optimism that there are better games I will soon be playing elsewhere! Look forward to reading the next parts.
love this! look forward to the rest
I’m eagerly awaiting the following articles on this topic.
I am curious about connecting the 5 game options in low trust environments to action logics. Under/over sounds like opportunist/diplomat strategy; meet a promise as expert and achiever; fight the system as individualists; and pragmatic change agent as strategist. Not sure about the last but sounds low on the order.
I love it. Looking forward to more!
Rules systems for humans only work if the humans can break the rules, but we still get the outcomes we designed the system to produce. E.g. speed limits being set to 60% of what we actually want, or drill sergeants being utterly pedantic about facial hair, so that the stuff that really matters (a camaraderie from having a common enemy - the drill sergeant) happens.
I love thinking about this, as it relates to this knowledge-work meta-game we are playing. We LOVE cutting corners, it really is human nature. What corners are we cutting? Did we succeed anyway? Why? Or did we set it up so that the cut corners actually hindered progress?
Computer game makers face this problem all the time. There are always some players are always looking for an edge. How do we make a game that's fun (i.e they succeed at the stated goal) for the folks who play as intended, without giving those game-breaking-edge-seekers an undue advantage?
Love this. I hope you continue in this series.
Spot on. EXCEPT for the dig against program managers. Sure, bad ones will play the system for their own controlling ends. But so will bad product managers. Great program managers will act as the wind in the sails of product development teams, constantly optimizing for effective value delivery. Noone should still be promoting scrum in 2023 in all but the most dysfunctional environments
I found this extremely insightful. We have created a North star framework and people are loving it. I realise now as they start to understand the rules. Please continue the series, John. 🙏
please keep going with this subject!
I want more of this John
Looking forward to #2 and #3!
Profound read, like others who have commented, did a great job of articulating things I recognise in my current org (first time playing a #5 game). Please share the rest, thank you for your insights John!
Long term #3/#4 default. Honestly, it's left me wondering if there are places that are truly better out there.