Want to raise productivity? Then let's stop playing games
To be productive, we need authentic human conversations in meetings rather than game-playing
"Where your fear is, there is your task."
— Carl Jung
(C. G. Jung: Letters V2, 1951-1961)
Psychodynamics offers a soft-focus lens to look at a hard problem: The continued flatlining in UK productivity over the past decade or more is a real problem. Even in countries where productivity is higher, there is still a need to get the global economy back on its feet.
Rather than looking at orthodox approaches, such as technology absorption, organisational restructuring and hard skills, psychodynamics helps us understand why many of us play games in meetings. We all do it! And this impacts the productivity of the knowledge economy, through time-wasting, poor decision-making, and derailed strategies.
This might seem harsh, but one of the reasons why these unproductive patterns have gone on for so long is that they are largely unconscious and sit beneath the surface of everyday events. And because we don't notice the pattern, we don't account for the lost time, poor decision making, packed agendas, or burnout that ensues.
Gerrig & Zimbardo define psychodynamics in the following way: “human actions stem from inherited instincts, biological drives, and attempts to resolve conflicts between personal needs and societies demands. Deprivation states, psychological arousal, and conflicts provide the power for behaviour just as coal fuels a steam locomotive.”
As anyone who has seen a 60-minute focus session turn into a 2-hour slugfest knows or has been in a "blue horizon" meeting that turned into a Game of Thrones survival contest, unconscious patterns can significantly influence our attitudes and behaviours.
To use Jonathan Haidt's analogy (Haidt, J; 2012), we're like the rider on top of an elephant, trying to control this beast with a will of its own. Simply learning better riding techniques won't be sufficient. We need to build a relationship with the animal underneath us, to understand it, calm it, and find a way to harness its energy, rather than fight it or pretend it doesn't even exist.
So, what do I mean by games?
Games in Transactional Analysis
The study of unconscious relational games was pioneered by Eric Berne (Berne 2010) , who founded the psychoanalytical school of Transaction Analysis. In Berne's view, games emerge from our need to satisfy our unconscious drives in a situation where conscious or planned behaviour might bring shame or embarrassment. In simple terms, Berne's view is that we play games in order to give and receive "strokes", units of recognition that reduce anxiety and create subtle affiliations. Games, comprising procedures, rituals, ruses and rackets, are played beneath the surface as the conscious-level meeting takes place at the surface level.
Being able to sense and influence this gameplay is the art of Chairing. Noticing these subtle moves takes acute observation, contextual listening, and highly attuned social intelligence. Games may be sensed by others who then refuse to play, leading them to act in ways that can appear rude or disconnected to the "game-master". This leads to a loss of strokes on all sides, so not playing games has consequences. This generates moments of rupture and disconnection.
For example, while listening to a presentation from a colleague, which is going well at your expense, an unconscious competitive drive might kick in. This prompts you to ask an awkward detailed question designed to throw them off their stride. An outright challenge might appear too risky and appear aggressive to others. So, you formulate a question that seeks to put the presenter subtly on the defensive without losing strokes with them. You might even give a few strokes away, knowing you’ll more than make them up later, as in “really enjoying your presentation and agree with most of what you say (damning with faint praise), but (deliver outsmarting question)…” At the same time, you seek strokes from others in the room by upstaging your opponent.
Successful or otherwise, the question is not designed to advance the discussion in any way. In fact, such questions tend to lead us down a rabbit hole of conjecture and overly detailed arguments. It’s simply an unproductive game.
Too often, presenters "take the bait" and go off message as s result. A good chair should spot this game, assuming their listening skills are acute and deflect the question allowing the presenter to continue.
So let's look at games in more detail. It's important to stress that not all these games are played in every meeting. However, even just one of them can send an otherwise productive group of people into a snow storm. I should also point out that I'm writing this from a UK perspective. However, each culture will make up games that reflect their own culture. No culture is immune from the impact of unconscious forces.
Game 1: Who's in Charge
The game's purpose is to take control of the group by setting out a detailed agenda in advance or, as an alternative play, ensure there's no agenda at all. This all depends on how the power games play out. A tight agenda will generally emphasise the Chair's power. In contrast, open agendas might play to the interests of influential members within the group.
Sometimes an agenda is an attempt to impose order on a chaotic and disrupted world and to create a sense of being in charge. To borrow a phrase from Douglas Griffin. "To be in charge, but not in control". (Griffin 2002)
An agenda, therefore, might well say much more than merely a list of items to discuss. It is a gambit that signals how power might play out in the team.
An overly packed agenda can also be a sign of anxiety. It can indicate the team is simply overwhelmed by problems or "sucking up" too many items for debate, rather than leaving people to get on with their jobs. On the other hand, too few items or recycling the same old items can indicate that the team itself might not have a reason to exist. It's a zombie team that can't be finished off.
Game 2: The Waiting Game
This game involves suppressing our anxieties and distractibility by starting late, usually because prior meetings overran, phone calls came inbound, or the Chair fiddles with the zoom controls.
Anxiety is a common feature of our inner life, and this disturbance often manifests in forgetfulness, fidgeting and disorganisation. We allow ourselves to be distracted at critical moments.
Moreover, anxiety is infectious, and a late start can send the unconscious message that all is not well, despite the excuses and throwaway lines about traffic.
Game 3: Toleration game
Another game ensues when the Chair announces, "well, I think we should allow a few more minutes for people to arrive".
In some cultures, the possibility of starting without people can appear rude and risk alienating them. At the same time, those on time might resent their meeting discipline not being respected. The Chair has to trade off losing strokes from those joining late versus losing strokes from those who showed up on time. This can create a moment of tension.
The Chair doesn't want to appear like an unfeeling bureaucrat. They want to show they're human. They have a need to be liked.
Either way, the delay likely has nothing to do with getting things done and running meetings effectively.
Game 4: The chit-chat Game
Social cues and personal rapport are emphasised in some cultures and by certain types of people. So often, chit-chat creates chemistry and mood, discussing the weather, sport, organisational politics, etc.
Sometimes chit-chat is used to mask the tension and potential divisions in the room. Other times, chit-chat is deployed as a form of game combat, flushing out those sullen and silent ones who aren't on-side. Allies make in-jokes across the table to show they alone are on the same level.
Chit-chat is used to recall legends and folklore. This technique reinforces team loyalty and norm behaviours, such as
-"oh, remember when Dave came to these meetings. He was always such a pain!". Or,
-"it's time we all go to the pub afterwards, just like we used to."
Game 5: Fill the void
What so many fear most is silence. Those awkward moments where everyone stares at their shoes, looks at the ceiling, or gazes vacantly into the distance. The void stretches like a chasm before us. A dark space that creates uncertainty, doubt and ambiguity.
Rather than seeing this as a space for creativity, an opportunity to raise significant questions, or simply taking time to think, we collectively suppress the void, take a break, move on, or fill the space with waffle. The object of the game is to collude in creating the impression that there's so much to talk about every second is filled. We all win if awkward silences are avoided.
In psychodynamic coaching, we learn to value these silences. Sitting in silence with another is one of the most powerful states we can experience. Two or more people think together, and only talk when we have had time to process a complex problem, honours the thoughts and expressions that follow. A Chair simply taking 2 minutes to think can stop the game in its tracks and allow authentic ideas the space to emerge.
Game 6: The guessing game
This game is played to conceal the fact that we don't know something, haven't done the research, and don't have the facts to hand. Nevertheless, we always need to appear competent, professional, and omniscient. To declare simply "I don't know" or "we don't have the data" is to fail in the game. This game is the favourite game of alpha males.
The fear of appearing unprepared, caught off guard, or losing agency and having a solution imposed by the group requires us to always be "in the driving seat".
So what do we do? We guess, make it up, conjecture, hypothesise and spin. We use phrases like, "My view is…", "The data suggests…", "based on past experience…", and "initial indications.."
The "Guessing Game" is closely associated with another game called "Throwing Forward", where our thoughts are thrown forward to a solution without critical thinking and reflection. Throwing forward is a form of guessing, where we fail to consider the aetiology of a problem or its origins and underlying causes. This leads us to blame, deflect, and seize hold of superficial answers.
Philosopher Leszek Kolakowski explained the nature of the problem:
"There's no help for it: thought cannot start from zero without any presuppositions. When we think, we are always starting from halfway down the road we want to travel, rather than from its beginning; the very use of our language makes this inevitable". (Kołakowski and Kołakowska 2017)
This game can have serious consequences. Think of the Iraq War (Adam McKay 2018). The global financial crash of 2008. We guessed, we assumed. If only someone had said, "we don't know", and "we need to collect the data" when they had the chance, history would be different. But then, so would human nature.
Game 7: Brainstorming
The "The Guessing Game" can often be played in conjunction with "Brainstorming".
The person whose day job is to solve problems and get things done disguises their lack of competence by diffusing accountability, by inviting the team to brainstorm solutions together.
This can create a very high number of stokes for everyone. The seeming collaborative intention of this gameplay is noted, and everyone enjoys a good brainstorm. The complete lack of direct knowledge by most people in the room is viewed as a positive advantage. The amount of flip chart paper generated is also a positive indicator of creative flow.
Brainstorming is perhaps the most popular game of all.
Using colour-coded post-it notes and a simple voting mechanism, the team can actually decide the best "best fit" option. The game results in accountability for outcomes being diffused, a win for the game master, with an organisation committed to the most popular outcome rather than the most effective or productive.
The game's object is to avoid presenting painful truths, taking accountability, leading on a risky strategy, and doing the hard research graft upon which most good solutions depend.
Game 8: Speed button
"Speed Button" is a game where we indicate that we rapidly and unhesitatingly agree with our deal partner. There's nothing like endorsing another's ideas to give strokes, and earn them in return. "Speed Button" is a trading game where support offered is expected to be reciprocated. When it's not, this can lead to relational rupture and feelings of betrayal.
These mutual patterns of affirmation sit beneath the conscious realm but can be discerned if we pay attention. Again, the Chair plays a vital role by observing and listening carefully.
I once observed the Board of a VC ensnare themselves in these "deals", reciprocal arrangements with strings attached. Decision-making became paralysed as no one was willing to kill off bad deals, as this risked alienating peers.
The "Speed Button" game prevents any real thought, questioning, challenging, "devil's advocacy", or dialogue that can probe for deeper meaning. The Chair, and others, can ask direct questions, "can you say more about this?" "What are the opposing views?", and "What evidence do you have for that statement?" Note that these productive challenge questions differ from the unproductive competitive play described above in the introduction. Challenge questions have productive purposes, are well thought out and elicit information shared across the whole group.
For example, exploring trans-disciplinary impacts or probing tacit assumptions is a good use of challenge questions. However, these questions can sound challenging, even rude. They don't involve giving strokes, and rarely would any be received. But the extent to which this scrutiny can be normed, the better decision-making will emerge from a team.
By playing "Speed Button" and quickly agreeing, we can set off a chain reaction when this game is played in connection with the next.
Game 9: Tailgating
Tailgating is closely associated with Speed Buttoning, as it involves the quick, impulsive agreement in the hope that you can also share in the mutual doling out of strokes. This is a "Jonny-come-lately" strategy. You're not actually part of the "Speed Button" deal, but you want to be. You can enjoy at least some strokes from the dealers by quickly following in. The later you affirm your agreement, the fewer strokes you get.
In the end, someone feebly says, "yeah, I'd just like to agree with what's been said before". This can sometimes earn no strokes but won't lose any either, and might put down a marker that you're ready to play next time.
Game 10: Masters of the Universe
Pretending to be "Masters of the Universe" is rather like a "dungeons and dragons" game. The team creates a complete fiction about what will happen in future, based on untested assumptions, faulty data, a lack of proper diagnoses, and too rapid agreement with bad ideas. However, all too readily, the team rushes ahead with the generation of GANNT charts, detailed business planning spreadsheets, detailed "Accountability Maps", and action plans, all designed to create a sense of being in control of the future.
Startup teams enjoy playing this game a lot.
Sometimes, so much effort goes into this game that the actual work or problem solved becomes entirely forgotten, and "The Plan" becomes an end itself. The players are so lost in elaborate planning software that work on the actual future stops altogether.
As the philosopher Alfred Korysbyski wrote, "The map is not the territory". (Korzybski 1994)
In an increasingly VUCA-driven world, work will increasingly involve the agile response to unforeseen events, following a clear set of values, with accountability for decision-making. Being able to account for what we did and why we did it is vital in authentic leadership.
If we don't have the data to make a decision, we say so
If we do, we act
If we need more data, we do actual research
If we have to make a decision without data, we decide by reference to values and make it clear we're doing so
If we disagree with others making decisions, we say so and explain why
Suppose we don't know enough to comment or support a decision. In that case, we say so and recuse ourselves, avoiding a false consensus.
Any of these transactions might result in either no strokes, or lost strokes. Can our authentic selves handle this?
The Psychodynamics of Group-think
By looking at games, and the unconscious transactions beneath the surface, we can get a clearer view of why teams are so subject to group-think. This also explains why smart people can do dumb things when we get into teams. The concept of Group Think was originated by William Whyte in his book, The Organization Man (1956), which described the malaise that had taken over managerial middle America. Irving Janis (Janis 1982) developed the idea further by analysing the decision-making failures that led to the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion under the Kennedy administration.
Janis offered eight indicators of the group-think condition:
an illusion of invulnerability that encourages excessive risk-taking;
collective rationalisation of evidence;
a belief in the inherent morality of the group;
stereotyping of outsiders;
direct pressure on dissenters;
self-censorship;
a shared illusion of unanimity;
and self-appointed 'mind guards' who maintain the apparent consensus.
Janis defined Group-think in the following terms:
"The mode of thinking that persons engage in when "concurrence-seeking" becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action…(group-think) refers to a deterioration in the mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures."
Janis goes on to write:
'The more amiable and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by group-think, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanising actions against outgroups."
So we can see some overlap between the approaches of Berne and Janis.
Our Unconscious Drivers
The way to resolve games is not willpower or other conscious-level mindset techniques. The game can be understood only by understanding the primal drive, unmet needs or original anxiety that created the problem. Taibi Kahler (Kahler 1975), a psychologist working at NASA, usefully summarised the drives that often fuel our unconscious train:
Be Perfect
Be Strong
Please People
Try Hard
Hurry Up
Take it
These drives vary in importance person-to-person, and when they're put at risk, we can experience fear, anxiety and strong disruptive emotions. Using critical thinking and reflectivity, we can grow our social intelligence and be more self-aware and aware of others.
Conclusion
As our economy shifts even further towards a knowledge base and our unique contribution as humans in the intelligence landscape comes under question, we need to examine more deeply how we can be more productive. How we relate to each other, both at the conscious and unconscious levels, will be crucial.
These are the authentic conversations we really need to have, which don't need games, can't be automated by machines, and can build high-productivity teams in the real world.
Publication bibliography
Adam McKay (2018): Vice. Starring Christian Bale, Steve Carell. USA.
Berne, Eric (2010): Games people play [electronic resource]. The psychology of human relationships / Eric Berne. London: Penguin.
C. G. Jung: Letters Volume 2, 1951-1961 (1990). [Repr.]. [Erscheinungsort nicht ermittelbar]: [Verlag nicht ermittelbar] (Letters / C.G. Jung, 2).
Griffin, Douglas (2002): The emergence of leadership. Linking self-organization and ethics / Douglas Griffin. London: Routledge (Complexity and emergence in organizations).
Janis, Irving L. (1982): Groupthink. Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes / Irving L. Janis. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kahler, Taibi (1975): Drivers: The Key to the Process of Scripts. In Transactional Analysis Bulletin 5 (3), pp. 280–284. DOI: 10.1177/036215377500500318.
Kołakowski, Leszek; Kołakowska, Agnieszka (2017): Why is there something rather than nothing? Questions from great philosophers / Leszek Kołakowski ; translated by Agnieszka Kołakowska. London: Penguin Books.
Korzybski, Alfred (1994): Science and sanity. An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics / by Alfred Korzybski ; with new preface by Robert P. Pula. 5th ed. Englewood, N.J.: Institute of General Semantics (International non-Aristotelian library)
Haidt, J. (2012): The Righteous Mind; Penguin
.