Look at how much easier it is for many people to get carried away in a game involving killing virtual characters on a computer screen than by earnestly pitching in and helping their company become a market leader. Although it is illogical, many people nevertheless may sincerely believe that the success of a company is not their business, while the illusory win in a computer game is worth the investment of their time, energy, and passion. The same type of person may earnestly root for his favorite football or baseball team and be utterly indifferent to the success of the company he works for. The reason for this is simple: For many people, the company where they work is not the place in which they seek to achieve something of worth.
How do you think the average employee of a company will answer the question, “What do you consider to be the goal of our company?” My experience says that in small business, you will very often hear this response: “Profit”. This means that the employee considers increasing the owner’s wealth to be the meaning of the existence of the company in which he works. Naturally, in this case, there can be no talk of the attractiveness of the goal, of a desire to play the game to reach that goal, or of creativity. Why should he play the “let’s make the boss richer” game? Perhaps, of course, that employee receives some portion of the profit and is therefore interested in increasing it. But in that case, he is playing the “earn a bit more” game, and this is not team play. Managers are surprised that employees have little motivation to work productively when they are “playing the game” of work simply to enrich the owners and managers. But who wants to run around on the field after a ball for the sake of lining the boss’s pockets? If this is the case, it means the company’s goals do not inspire employees to share these goals, do not arouse passion, so essentially, these people are not players in the company’s game.
The most common reason for this is a company's lack of worthwhile goals that team members would find attractive, or a lack of understanding of such goals. If a person does not understand the goals of an activity, there will be no game. He may of his own choice aspire to achieve the company’s goals only if he is aware of them and, of course, if his manager capably promotes these goals. Simply imagine a person who has been told to dig a pit but has not been told why this is necessary. Only a robot will put its all into such an activity. But explain to the same person that this pit is needed in order to supply hot water to an orphanage, and you will see how his attitude toward the work changes, and how enthusiasm and energy appear.
Setting goals for a group has to do with administration, not the technology of a company’s activity. Thus in football, the technology is the methods that players use on the field, of which they must have perfect mastery, whereas setting the goal “let’s kick our opponent’s ass” is administration. Without such a goal, even the most sophisticated technological methods lose their meaning.
The next integral component of a game is rules that establish the boundaries of the game and describe the possible actions. Without rules, there can be no game, and if the rules fail, the game collapses. If there were no precise rules in football and every player acted as he saw fit, the game would turn into chaos. A company must also have quite specific rules, which precisely define the rights and obligations of team members. Of course, all rules create restrictions that are necessary for the game to continue. Quite often, when rules such as a fixed work schedule, a dress code, or reporting standards are introduced in a small business, it leads to employee resentment.
There are two reasons for this. The first is clear enough; the introduction of a new rule, reasonable and useful as it may be, is a change to a preexisting rule, albeit an unwritten one. If a dress code is instituted, this means a change to a previously existing tacit rule that allowed employees to dress for work however they liked.
At one of my companies, a new policy[1] was implemented that regulated the appearance of employees, the use of makeup by female employees, and the use of fragrance. Even after employees became familiar with this policy, considerable effort was required to achieve compliance with these requirements. These rules were reasonable and simple, and indeed no reasonable person would dispute that professional employee appearance inspires greater confidence in clients, whereas loud makeup or strong perfume undermine it. Nevertheless, managers had to apply considerable effort to get employees to comply with these rules. After repeated reprimands, the CEO was obliged for a time to implement a morning appearance check at the company’s entrance. Violators simply were not allowed into the office and were sent home to change. Only by means of this rather harsh measure we were able to get all employees to follow the rules. Setting and maintaining such rules is a key part of administration. If no reasonable rules are imposed on employee appearance, behavior, or interactions with customers, getting the company’s work done effectively is in jeopardy.
Therefore, when new rules are introduced that contradict previously established ones – even tacit ones – employees must be made aware of them, and it is necessary to reach a consensus about the changes. After all, in order for a game to take place, every team member must want to follow the rules. If the rules change, it is essential to clear this with the team members, or else they will either try to keep trying to play in the old way or they will even make a game of “let’s show the bosses that they are wrong.” In any case, no good game will come of it.
The second reason why introducing new rules causes employee dissent is more complicated, and it involves people's yearning for self-expression. Everyone yearns for self-expression. If someone senses an effort to restrict him in this, he perceives it as an attempt to undermine his individuality.
As a result, imposing rules may indeed seem to conflict with freedom of self-expression, but this is not the case. Everyone experiences the urge to become a member of a team, to collaborate with others. One of the greatest pleasures that a person experiences in life is cooperative activity and communication with others. If a person is cut off from communication with others for some reason, he or she suffers. This is why one of the most severe punishments inflicted on criminals is isolation from society, the extreme measure of which is solitary confinement. From childhood on, we are surrounded by friends and classmates; we become members of clubs and engage in group activities with like-minded people. This makes for a full life. Most people have the urge to belong to a group, and not only as observer’s, but also as participant’s who make a valuable contribution. This is also part of self-expression. If this role is missing from a person’s life, he most likely will feel.
So there is no contradiction between consciously accepting some restrictions as a member of a group and expressing one’s own individuality. These are two natural impulses, ones present in every person. If he does not obey the rules of a team game, he will be unable to achieve self-expression as a team member. Therefore, everyone tries to maintain some sort of balance between these aspects of life.
A problem arises only when some person does not want to be a member of a team, and then he perceives any rules of a game as a restriction of the manifestation of his individuality. Conscious acceptance of rules is the necessary cost of participation in such a game. A member of a football team wears the same uniform as all the other players, and he is assigned a number to make him readily recognizable. This is similar to a loss of individuality, but, in fact, it is simply a means of his self-expression as a member of the group. And participating in this game gives him genuine satisfaction. Therefore, following rules that are truly intended to make a person successful in a group activity facilitates his self-expression, rather than restricting it. A real problem arises only when a person does not understand how these vital restrictive aspects of rules contribute to the activity of his entire group.
Disagreement with the rules arises either when the rules really do not facilitate the success of the activity or when employees simply do not understand why they are necessary, important, or reasonable. In both of these situations, the administration is in error, since in people management it should be understood that no matter why a rule is imposed, it is important to know what people think about it.
In my archives I recently came across one of the policies written fifteen years ago. It was a policy about discounts for customers. To be honest, when I read this document, I felt ashamed. There was not a single word in it about why this policy was even needed, what problems it addressed, or how it facilitated the work of the company. It