Organization Survival Game — not just a game

 

One of the fascinating things in our business world is, for me, the process that runs through an organization to survive in a world full of expertise, broken markets, and the long-tail phenomenon.

In the old days, when commerce was mostly local, and professional craft ran through the family tree, Guilds kept the high quality of the profession, and at the same time, kept the trade itself and those who practiced it as a profession. Today the situation is much different, particularly in the western world. Note that I am not referring to organizations such as a Monopoly or Cartel that are, in a way, a new kind of Guilds.

A surviving organization must have quality and relevant products, a good understanding of the market, legal protection, updated technology for marketing, production, and distribution. Also, a fit and competent work-force to execute the missions. But, in my opinion, it is not enough. To survive and thrive in nowadays markets, there is a necessity to generate some additional energy inside the organization or company. We expect the management team to create this energy. Although it seems obvious, many companies do not know how to take the right measures to make it happen.

The excellence of a successful management team that can push the company to the future and makes a longstanding competitive edge is based, in my opinion, on three main pillars. Starting with a common term although, not many companies and management teams know how to use it properly. The other two are the subjects of the rest of my article.
1. Creating and writing the vision of the organization.
2. The ability to establish new business units from scratch in an undefined borderline. 
3. The ability to face professional dilemmas (including ethical) in real-time. Those dilemmas are directly connected to the business and have a potential influence on the organization in the long run.

The ability to establish new business units from scratch in an undefined borderline
Here reveal the entrepreneurial skills of the manager. Small businesses, for example, were built by entrepreneurs from scratch. They knew what they had intended to produce and sell but had no defined borderline, on the one hand, and on the other hand, they had plenty of time and flexibility to experience practice in the gray zone of their business.

In a classical organization, where we can find hierarchy and management teams, things are much more complicated and less free. At the same time, a company must thrive by entering new markets or expanding existing markets. 

I argue that not every manager can lead to the development of a new business unit even if that manager has vast managerial experience over the years. Even though I think that the chosen manager to develop a new business unit can get assistance to accomplish the mission in the best way he can.

It becomes complicated when we are an external party of the company that does not have any control over choosing managers for missions. Sometimes we enter a company as consultants, and we need to deal with a given situation and try to mend it as much as we can.

The CEO realized that there is a group of managers carrying the entrepreneur skills he is looking for, and maybe some of them had an early experience in their past. They follow his vision for the future of the company, and he relies on them and trusts them. But the fact is that he must choose one or two managers from the group to lead the development of the new units. Today, he does not have the tools to make an educated decision not based on personal issues and affiliations.

If we want him to decide objectively, we can create an artificial simulation of the mission as a decision support tool.

Dealing with professional dilemmas (including ethical) in real-time
Much like in the 'start from scratch' discussion, the basis for discussion here is the CEO's vision. By forming a solid and clear vision, the CEO might decide on expanding the company and develop new business units. He also might decide that it was time to insert more risk factors into the business and its operations. At that point, he must feel that his management team goes side by side with him on the same path. He needs to feel they all understand the risk and opportunities map, and they all make decisions in the spirit of his vision. These are the things that a professional CEO must deal with.

The CEO would like to know that once a manager deals with extreme situations and dilemmas and must make core decisions, those decisions would be balanced and based on the CEO’s standards. He would like to get as vivid illustrations as can be for these kinds of situations, helping him decide which manager can lead to internal changes and processes by his vision. Which manager needs professional enrichment and guidance, and which manager does not fit the company anymore.

Organization Survival Game — simulating vision to reality
My idea comes as an answer to the CEO’s information gaps and his needs. It completes the complicated process of formatting a new vision for the company or renew the existing one. The development and realization of the game include three main stages:

Mapping, Mapping, Mapping

 I am just stating the obvious. Anyone dealing with training design knows that this is the starting point of gathering knowledge and practice needs, mapping the knowledge gaps of the company, company SWOT, etc. At this stage, it is necessary to connect to a high-ranking manager (e.g. CEO) and maybe to 2–3 VPs going his path. We must try to understand the company’s DNA, get a deep understanding of the CEO’s vision and values, and all other things that we usually learn in MBA classes. Also, there is great importance in making long and methodical interviews with the CEO, to hear his definitions of the company’s issues. We must hear and understand what is beyond the words because we want to understand his intentions and wills. 

 

At this stage, the CEO must choose the managers taking part in the game. They are managers that potentially can lead the development of new business units, lead changes in the company due to a new or revived vision, or a major change in the internal or external environment. 

 At this stage, we define the concept of the game, the game format, and game goals. It is especially important to do this with the CEO. the Game Team Leader must get an answer to some crucial questions, so he could lead the game and make house-rules for the game. 

 

Two significant events must occur in the company at this pre-game stage. These events give a methodical preparation to the managers-gamers without their knowledge:

 

About a month before the game, the CEO would invite all company managers to an internal conference where he would present and explain his vision and perceptions. Making time for Q&A at the end is of great importance.

 

About two weeks before the game, there would be another managerial event dedicated to risk, threats, and business opportunities regarding the company’s operations.

 

 Finally, the most important thing at this stage is to receive the blessings of the CEO for the whole process, get his permission to proceed, and make him involved because he has a 'guest star' performance during the game.

 (A disclaimer — when written “he” refers to “he” or “she”).

 

Managers course — part 1 - Building a new Business Unit

On the first day of the game, the small group of managers-gamers would get a mission and a deadline to finish it. I presume that 10 hours would be enough for the mission. The managers would be asked to plan a new business unit for the company until the end of the day. The rules in this part are simplified but not that simple; each manager gets a document describing the borderline of the unit. Such as legal constraints to consider, the maximum budget allocated to the unit, professional affiliation of the unit e.g. new financial tools unit as opposed to a new distribution method unit, etc. 

 

Along with the unit’s borderline, the manager would get another document written by the CEO presenting the company vision, in addition to the CEO’s elaborations on key elements of the vision. This is the COMPASS the manager should rely on, in planning the new unit. 

 

The game's mission is to create a detailed plan for the new unit, based on the COMPASS, manager’s experience, the manager’s understanding of the events that took place before the game, his subjective perceptions, and his ability to deal with a vague situation. Why vague? The whole plan is in the 'gray area'. The borderlines help the manager to recognize the arena but what happens inside the arena? What is to be done first and what comes next? What are the primary assumptions that must be put before he starts to plan? Does the manager have the courage to decide on the primary assumptions on an unknown ground? How much of his planning process been done based on his experience only, and would he ask to consult with another manager from a different department? as nobody told him he is not allowed to do so during the game. If he wants to consult the company`s HR manager, he can do so. A manager-gamer who would choose to do such a thing might enrich his knowledge and make a better unit plan. 

 

By the end of that day (in about 18:00), the manager-gamer should hand in a written detailed plan concerning four key elements: 

First, how does the new unit comply with the company’s challenges and vision? 

Second, what were the primary assumptions been taken during the planning process, and how does the unit operate accordingly over a period decided by the manager-gamer (q1, q2, …)? 

Third, what are the threats facing the operation of the new unit, and how it might hold back or entirely fail its success? 

Fourth, what are the environmental conditions inside and outside the company that can leverage the unit’s performance?

 

And, any other subjects the manager-gamer chooses to write on. Such as his perceptions, budget issues, interconnections with other departments in the company, etc.

Eventually, every action taken by the manager-gamer that day must be documented and written.

 

After the plans get handed in, start the intensive work of the game control team. Their mission is to read all the plans by a strict scale of attributes related to what we call 'the best plan'. We induced this 'best plan' (best practice) after the long stage of mapping the company and the long sessions with the CEO and other high-ranking managers. The game control team would work according to the game methodology and reveal gaps in the internal logic of the plan, areas of creativity and uniqueness by the manager-gamer, unique openness, and relevant judgment. They may also reveal areas of too-narrow thinking, pompous ego, and taking too many high risks, more than expected from a manager in the company.

 

The control team would form an evaluation report on each of the plans and present the reports to the CEO that evening or early the next morning. There is of great importance that the presentation to the CEO would take place as soon as possible to maintain continuity to the game. Part 2 is highly connected to part 1.

 

Managers course — part 2 - Dealing with dilemmas and extreme situations

part 2 of the course starts with a 'guest star' performance of the CEO. He would generally speak of the plans from part 1. He also would congratulate those who wrote the best works (no names attached) and mention the reports he thought could be improved. This is important - let all manager-gamer understand their opening position for part 2. Each manager would understand where his work stands by the CEO’s opinion. A manager-gamer could understand his work needs improvement, and he might start part 2 eager and motivated to prove himself.

 

At this point in the game, new challenges and pressures enter the game arena. Let us go back for a minute to the work of the game control team after the end of part 1 and before part 2. After the phase of writing the evaluation report, there is a critical process of implementing what the team has learned in the mapping stage; risks and challenges of the company deduced from the CEO and VPs, threats from the internal and external environment, and conflicts and dilemmas inside the company. The task of the control team is to match each unit plan for the data gathered from the mapping stage. Each unit plan with its primary assumptions, gaps, and risk analysis must encounter scenarios representing the dilemmas and company’s risks regarding that unit.

 

It sounds complicated, and it is. The manager-gamer gets back his plan at the beginning of part 2. Now the work includes evaluation remarks from the control team. He also gets a new document with 2–3 scenarios (some are extreme). Now he is required to deal with them the best way he can. Some of the scenarios would require connecting with other departments of the company or with external parties to the company.

 

This role plays by the game control team from another room. At this point in the game, there could be many benefits from having the CEO in the same room with the control team, helping the team navigate through the virtual dialog with the manager-gamer, share his views about the manager’s dilemmas, and get a personal impression of the overall game.

 

At the end of part 2, the manager-gamer should hand in a new report with his strategy of dealing with the scenarios given to him earlier. The report should include an explanation about the manager’s way of thinking, methodology, an analysis of the situation based on what he learned and knew from the managerial events took place before the course, and his analysis of his new unit. We would expect to understand the manager’s tendency to change his thinking patterns, to new experiences, and to breaking existing paradigms. All of this would be evaluated concerning the CEO’s values, new missions, and goals that the CEO wants to implement in the company according to his vision.

 

course — conclusion

This is a two-level process. Each level has a specific declared goal: 

First, holding a conclusive event with all the managers — those who played, other high-ranking managers, and the CEO. Each one of the manager-gamer presents his plan to the others, managers and guests react and refer to the works. The output of this event is the generation of new organization knowledge, new intellectual property, and a direct connection to the CEO’s vision. It is expected from the CEO to indicate which plan he liked the best and why. 

Second, behind the scenes. The CEO and the managers who were involved with the game, along with the game leader, hold a meeting to discuss all the data gathered during the game about each of the manager-gamers. At this point, the CEO has some new objective tools helping him to evaluate who fits and who to choose. All that in addition to his tendencies, his connections with the managers, and his feelings.

 

Course debriefing - This would take place after the end of the whole learning-evaluation event. The CEO and other managers at his choice, together with the game control team would attend the debriefing which is a critical phase in the game. The goal here is to improve the process of the design and implementation of the game. Generating new organization knowledge and new organization evaluation tool for developing the managerial teams in the company.

 
Finally, I would like to say this; In this article, I tried to address a critical issue in the business world regarding the implementation of a company vision. CEO’s vision refers to the long run, but the CEO would like to see his company at its best by tomorrow morning. He would like to know that starting from tomorrow morning, all of his managers will identify with his vision and understand his vision as he does, and they will harness all the company’s work-force to implement this vision.
 
He would like to know that he chooses the most competent managers to lead the changes with him, and he would like to do so by taking the minimum risk for the resilience of the company in the short-run and mid-run, at least.
The reader of this article might ask two important questions:
First, what is the business model of the writer (me) since the whole idea is written here and is public to everyone?
Second, what differs this model from other models of management team development?
 
My answer to you is this; First, in this article, I simplified many of the things in need of a very methodological and accurate attitude. The mapping stage should be clear, and so are the questions to be asked in the interview’s sessions. The settings of the game, the flow of the game, choosing a game control team fit the challenge, and the final evaluation report to the manager-gamer, they all need careful planning and much intention. This is not only a game but also serious. 
 
Second, the business model here is not the idea of the game. this game can be played in the boy scouts (no offense), school, etc. The key to the success of the game is choosing the right managers and trainers to form the control team!!! there you can find the business model and the IP of the game. A control team is a group of experienced people. they planned and developed new business units in their lifetime, they have vast managerial experience, they understand the meaning of CEO’s vision and how to reach its implementation, they are people with training experience and have designed training for managers. There…you can find the secret of the game. 
 
An unsatisfied CEO would not invite you to design another course if he had a bad experience with you in the first one. He even might burn you in the whole market. Everyone can plan such a game, but it takes more in this game than a CEO can get from a gamification expert. 
 
(Always at your service, webintelligency.co.il)