Value Your Values?

How about one last post to cap off 2013?

Since many of us will be returning to our jobs to either write and/or deliver annual performance appraisals, I thought it a timely subject

Let's get the big idea out of the way first. Yearly performance evaluations are an indescribable waste of time and energy.  If you don't understand why, go read the book Abolishing Performance Appraisals.  I'll include a link in the future.

Regardless, organizations are still addicted to this form of documentation and your employees have been trained to desire report cards since grammar school.  Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the practice is perpetuated simply because it's what we've always done.

Since relatively few organizations have managed to dispose of them - and kudos to those who have - I thought I'd write a brief post encouraging that managers and leaders alike take the time to think about values

Individual values

Team values

Organization values

If you're lucky, these elects are in alignment.  Unfortunately, I feel that this is still relatively scarce.  

In my experience, most metrics that are applied in annual performance appraisals are standardized, generalized and not consistently relevant.  Here are some examples:

Quality of Work and Productivity are almost always separated metrics.  In reality, These things are intertwined.  So what does that mean when someone does good work but takes  months to do what another employee can do in days - is that acceptable? What if another employee's productivity is very high, creating hundreds of lines of code or dozens of assets, all of which have to be rebuilt by a more competent team member?  In its current form, each employee would receive high marks in one category, low marks in another and ultimately be a failing member of your team. Would he or she understand your values after reviewing their scores?

Here are some other fun ones.  Teamwork.  Professionalism.  Everyone understands what these words mean, but I've rarely encountered two leaders who interpret them consistently. Now couple that with a scoring range, and please tell me how a 3 meaningfully differs from a 4.

So, what should you use instead?  Well, if you can't do away with the practice, It will depend on your organization.  Do you value your values?  Are your teams values understood but you continue to use different metrics for paperwork?  Isn't that a warning sign that something is severely amiss?

If you can, craft a review that uses more meaningful concepts which promote more dialog.

Contribution/Impact - rather than a rote list of what was done, a sincere evaluation of how an individual's contributions impact (or don't) your organization or team as a whole.  Or would you rather discuss a list of widgets and a full tracking sheet?  Do you value "getting things done" or getting done "things?"

Risk - do you value people who are willing to explore, prototype and experiment?  Careful, you have to be the kind of leader who is willing to endure as well as encourage failure.  If you can't, then your team will never stray from the well-worn path of what is already known.  Do you value risk or regimen?

Learning - what would happen if you evaluated growth?  Which is worthy of greater attention, an individual's point in time or the trajectory of a career?  Wouldn't your team benefit from someone who learned how others did their job rather than just incrementally growing in the components of their own?  Do you value cogs or machines?

Teaching.  Holy fuck, now we're talking.  Beyond learning, does your employee take the time to improve others.  Most managers muddle this kind of serious impact by combining it with Teamwork.  Let's get specific.  Do you value shared knowledge or are you destined to fail the bus test?

I could probably go on, but this post is already growing a little long and I'd rather provide food for thought than ladle out the whole buffet.  Here are some starters:

Leadership - evaluate everyone on this, not just Leads and Directors

Culture - is it possible for someone to drive your values, rather than just reflecting them?

Think about this. Think about your values. Then give people feedback based on that. 

And to hell with annual reviews.

PAX Dev 2013: Art Leadership Forum (Part 2)

Thank you for continuing to read Part 2!

How do you avoid a culture of perceived micromanagement?

One attendee openly expressed their dissatisfaction at feeling micromanaged by their art lead.  Unsurprisingly, this is also a common topic.  A handful of key elements were called out as being instrumental in managing expectations and perceptions.

As mentioned before, it's important to set up scheduled review time.  Surprise inspections (or "seagull management") is a recipe for creating anxiety on the team.  By contrast, having dedicated critique time that is known well in advance is far preferable  Establishing known check-points provides the level of autonomy artists desire while also giving the AD a window for providing input.

Related to autonomy, we also discussed the topic of "task assignment."  If tasks are simply doled out without soliciting input or interest, then artists may feel micromanaged.  Multiple attendees responded with comments that establishing a set of goals and then allowing the team to self-organize their tasks around those goals was far preferable.  This is a form of agile development that encourages more individual responsibility for the tasks as well as the problems that need to be solved within a clear time frame.

One comment that was also given is that junior artists likely require more time and attention than senior developers.  As they are still developing confidence and experience, it is important that the AD spend time giving them individualized feedback on what is successful, what is not and, in both cases, why.  To be clear, it should not just be an endless stream of positive reinforcement and ego boosting.  Rather, a junior artist may simply be in need of more frequent feedback.

In order to provide opportunities for creative freedom, one artist encouraged ADs to have more people involved in the development of the "look & feel" of a project.  Obviously, this can't happen at every stage of a project, but there is merit to the idea that having a broad pool of contributors during the ideation/design stage of a project is worthwhile.  The counterpoint is that the AD still needs to make it clear how the decision will be made (up front) and who will be involved in those final decisions.

The last point shared on avoiding a culture of micromanagement was that the AD needs to ensure that communication is traveling in both directions.  The AD should not simply be issuing orders.  Rather, the AD needs to be open to critique and feedback from team members.  Once open to the feedback, it's even more important that there is a response.  This is yet another example of the leader providing transparency and context behind their decisions.  The ultimate goal is to provide the team with enough information that each person can act on their own with confidence that the choices they make are the correct ones.  This is the most critical component for delegation and for the AD to be able to manager their own time effectively.

Key Takeaway

In order for artists to have autonomy or creative authority, the AD must provide clarity.  After clarity, the artist then needs space in which to work, opportunities to fail and then learn and also an understanding of why something failed or why it succeeded.  Artists need (and expect) feedback, but it needs to happen at a pace that suits their comfort and their seniority, not at some erratic and undetermined pace.  Giving an artist ownership does not mean sacrificing your responsibility as a leader.  It means the opposite.  Your responsibility as a leader does not mean getting others to do what you want.  That's micromanagement.  Your responsibility as a leader is to get others to understand what you want, and giving them the professional freedom to achieve that goal.

How do you train artists to give and take constructive critique?

Professional growth is challenging in the absence of feedback.  However, many artists are not properly trained how to engage in critique.  Therefore, this was the day's final topic: how do artists learn how to take critique and how do you get them engaged in the activity of critiquing towards improvement.

One attendee brought up the concept of the "compliment sandwich" in that a critique is best delivered when framed by positive comments.  This, in turn, was countered by the point that artists deserve honest and direct feedback, not sugar-coated.  Regardless of the approach, there is a fair amount of research which indicates that the critical to positive feedback ratio should be between 1:3 and 1:5.  That is not to say that you need to find more positive things to say when you have critical feedback.  Critical feedback needs to be direct and honest and be delivered promptly.  What the research has shown is that building a long-term relationship with an employee where they understand their positive impact as well as critical development areas does require a higher ratio of meaningful positive feedback in order to prevent a feeling that they aren't valued by their leaders.

A critical component of every critique is context.  What is required?  Why is it required?  What aspect of that-which-is-being-reviewed should be the focus of the critique?  Artists require parameters for a critique, otherwise the critique may target aspects that aren't ready or which perhaps cannot be addressed (due to workflow or technical reasons).

As an aside, if your studio/project uses scrum or other agile update meetings, do NOT use these for critiques.   Scrum meetings should be kept short and focused.  Talk about blockers and provide updates.  If a critique is required, make that the focus of a separate discussion.

Related to the above point, artists need to know what success looks like.  Anyone (artist or not) can look at something and tell you whether they like it or not.  That's purely subjective and is not the point of a critique.  A critique should tell you whether or not something is successful.  Does it look like a concept?  Does it match the mood or the feeling we want the player to have?  Does it communicate the intended purpose?  Does it meet the technical / design requirements?  These are the types of questions to ask.  "Do I like it?" is not the right question to ask.  Feedback should always be actionable and focused on solving a particular problem.

The reason to get artists involved in the critique/feedback loop is to reinforce team cohesion and a sense of shared purpose.  Critique can be a form of positive reinforcement, even if the critique itself is critical.  As a result, a mature and well-managed process can enhance the culture of the team.  However, this still requires that both the art director and the senior staff serve as proper role models during the critique.  This does not mean that critiques must be overly formal or structured.  Rather, this means that the critique consistently focuses on the work and not the creator.

Critiques are good developmental tools for new artists.  They bring artists together and break artists away from their current work, giving them insight into the bigger picture.  Critiques help newer artists to develop a thick skin and encourages a culture of honesty.  It's easy to say something looks cool.  It's easy to give a pat on the back.  By contrast, you really have to think to give an effective critique.

As someone pointed out, there is an equal amount of responsibility on the receiver's end.  Beyond developing the "thick skin," the receiver has to be willing to ask questions.  If they don't understand the critique, the onus is on them to solicit more detailed feedback or to do so more frequently.

That last part of the roundtable focused on the responsibilities of the art director or art lead to ensure that critiques are effective.  For one, there needs to be clear reference points.  Mood boards, key imagery or successful examples are all critical in order for artists to effectively compare and contrast.  These help the artist to understand what success looks like.  Furthermore, clear technical specifications are also a requirement in order for artists to understand what won't function properly.  In addition, it was also noted that sometimes a paintover can communicate the requested change faster than a conversation.  When this is the case, it is the art directors responsibility to identify the need.

A few final comments.  Even with the most effective group critiques, these should not wholly replace dedicated 1-on-1 time with your staff.  Good leaders are always the ones who take the time to learn the team.  Critique time is simply one other avenue in which to familiarize yourself with each artist on your team and by which you can have a positive impact on the culture of your team.

Key Takeaway

Effective critiques can be one of the most influential factors on the culture of your team, so make sure you're doing them right.  Teach artists how to have "an eye for critique" and ensure that they are consistently commenting on the work -- not the artist.  The ultimate goal should be to teach artists to seek out critique from others and know how to filter appropriately.  Your senior staff must be role models for this behavior, or it simply won't become ingrained.


Thanks once more to those who attended the Art Leadership Forum.  Thanks also to those of you who took the time to read this post.  I know it was long, but I hope you found some information that is both worth consideration and can be applied to your team.

PAX Dev 2013: Art Leadership Forum (Part 1)

First of all, I want to say thanks to all of those who attended the forum.  The session was described in my original submission as the "Art Leadership Forum."  However, you can see by the picture from the banner outside the room (below) that it was printed as the "Art Lecture Forum."

This obviously triggered an unusual beginning to the session.  For one, having the word "lecture" in the title was cause for having the room arranged as pictured below:

A very nice room, to be sure.  However, not designed to motivate a roundtable discussion.  Great thanks are owed to the PAX Dev enforcers who were able to quickly rearrange the room by moving tables to the exterior walls and pulling chairs to the center.  Of course, I apologize for the delay this caused to the start of the discussion, but I did appreciate everyone's patience.

This was also a "teachable moment" insofar as leadership requires flexibility and the willingness to adapt the environment in a moment's notice.  Reaction time is critical.

Without further delay, let's move on to the discussion itself.  During the session, I took notes as best as I could.  What follows is my own recollections of what was discussed and the key takeaways that were relevant for attendees.  Also, due to the number of key points, I've also broken this event into two separate blog posts for easier readability (and so you can take a break and come back if you so choose).

I started the session with an open call for Art Directors to share what is one of the current frustrations or one that they have faced in recent months.  The first response centered on:

How does the Art Director manage their own time and limit distractions?  

We refined the question by focusing on specific distractions:

• Asset Management

While no specific solutions were voiced for this topic, after action reports were that asset management is one those components best delegated to others.  While the AD cannot completely disconnect from asset awareness and structure, the implementation of a dedicated art manager or art producer can greatly alleviate the core burden of this responsibility.

• Business Cards

In this specific instance, the AD was responsible for the design of the business cards as well as ensuring quality delivery.  Again, delegation of this responsibility was called out as the key solution.  At one studio, the design was managed by the AD, but the delivery and ordering was coordinated by producers.  A unique comment that was thrown out is that one studio turned their business cards into a CCG.  By turning a business component into a game component, they were able to get the whole team involved in the design and encourage interaction through collecting the business cards of others.  Although I'm sure it was a lot of work, this sounded like an effective "silo breaker."

Key Takeaway
The AD is responsible for managing his or her own schedule and implementing or advocating for a structure that allows them to do so.  Structure was called out as a specific tool, wherein the AD clearly carves out parts of their day or their week for each primary duty:
- art direction (critiques with artists and review of content)
- individual engagement (meeting one-on-one with individual artists or department leads depending on size of studio)
- meetings

By preserving time slots for each of these responsibilities, the AD can better find a balance and keep one responsibility from choking-out the others.  Related to the delegation point above, it was also strongly suggested that the ADs "clone themselves."  By that, it was meant that ADs need partners -- individuals they can trust to take on certain responsibilities and with whom they can build a genuine collaborative partnership.

How do you inspire artists?

This is a recurring topic at these types of roundtables.

One attendee expressed that artists need to be involved in the business decisions of their employer.  While, I'm sure they didn't mean that artists should (or would want to) be involved in finance discussions, it does raise the concern that some developers genuinely want insight into areas outside of their department or job description.  Within the realm of a project cycle, certainly artists (and designers and engineers) should be involved in functional game problems or creative challenges.  This boils down to encouraging participation at the project level and providing reasonable transparency at the level of business operations and strategy.

Another attendee suggested leadership training as an opportunity for engagement.  Certainly, there will be artists who are interested in developing their leadership skill, but you need to figure out who amongst your staff is interested.  For some artists, being sent to leadership development courses would be seen as punishment, not enrichment.

The topic of constructive critique also came up.  Constructive and functional critique is a prerequisite for an engaged and participatory art staff.  At the same time, delivering constructive critique is a learned skill.  Affecting change at this level is more than simply arranging a time and place, the AD will need to take responsibility for setting the tone of critiques, the context as well as teaching the staff how to effectively critique.  Critique was a popular topic and so I've dedicated a fair portion of the second blog post to this topic.

Another interesting idea for inspiration was to send non-artists to art classes.  While this may sound a little unintuitive, the idea here is that artists are provided an opportunity to teach others.  In a healthy art culture, artists should be regularly teaching -- sharing ideas, inspiration, tips 'n tricks or discussing new trends.  However, by teaching non-artists, artists create an opportunity for others to learn their vocabulary, understand their values and observe their problem-solving process.

Related to the previous comment, it was also noted that young artists, who are still evaluating the career paths that are open to them, should be constantly learning.  They should be encouraged to interact with as many artists in as many groups as possible to foster their creativity as well as their understanding of the breadth and depth of the art discipline.  While their immediate work (tasks) may focus on a single need, it's important for them to see that there are options available to them as they mature and develop greater skill.  If possible, help the artist to find a mentor -- someone within the team or company with more experience and who is willing to provide guidance and be a resource for others.

Ultimately, the most significant factor called out as having impact on the inspiration of artists was clarity.  ADs (and other leaders) need to be explicitly clear with vision, goals and deadlines.  That doesn't mean that some room shouldn't be left for individual creative freedom.  Rather, artists need to understand the outside parameters of that freedom.  Furthermore, it is equally important that when goals/vision/deadlines change, that the artists are made aware and understand why this change has occurred.


Key Takeaway

In order to engage artists, the AD must make every reasonable effort to provide transparency and clarity at an individual, project and studio level.  Moreover, the AD should encourage artists to find opportunities to engage and contribute (within reason) in areas outside of their immediate job responsibilities.  Artists must learn how to effectively critique, but also how to teach and how to communicate their ideas in a way which generates interest and response.  Also, help artists to find mentors or peers who can guide them and show them how to improve and how to think about the future of their careers.


The final two topics can be reviewed in Part 2

Embrace the Chaos

Last week, I posted the following to Facebook:

My post was motivated by having encountered process breakdowns at both my daughter's school and in my work life.  Nothing terrible, but honest situations where clearly a codified workflow had resulted in a lack of action.

Most people would probably just label my experiences as "bureaucracy" and then forget the encounter.  Certainly, I was frustrated, but I felt the need to succinctly explain the source of my frustration. My post prompted an interesting exchange as well as further contemplation on my part.  First of all, let me say that having friends who are MUCH smarter than I am is a real treasure.  Second, I know from my experiences as an art lead and art manager, that "process" comes in many forms.

Reading my post, you might assume that I consider myself an enemy of process or that I advocate against it.  Quite the opposite.  As multiple commentators pointed out, process works in cases where the situation is common, simple and you are in pursuit of repeatable, quality results.  Processes are also very useful in preventing physical injury and ensuring safety standards.

I forget in which book I initially read this idea.  Regardless, I do agree that Henry Ford's greatest accomplishment was not the automobile but his continued refinement of process.  Ford didn't figure out one way of achieving something and then keep doing that until someone smarter improved the process.  Instead, Ford was fascinated by engineering and material sciences.

Most people would not think of line-work assembly as creative problem solving.  And, for the most part, they're right.  In this case, Ford's creativity was focused on the macro level, whereas the day-to-day construction simply required a clearly defined process that could be modified as macro level problems were resolved.

We, in the creative industries, are not so lucky.  We are not trying to make 100 copies of 1 thing.  We're just trying to make that 1 thing -- and make it the best it can be.  Our creativity challenge spans both macro and micro level problem solving.  So, how do we change our mental patterns and escape the feeling of being "stuck" with a problem.

It is for this reason that I encourage leaders to "embrace the chaos."  Experimentation is good.  It is healthy.  Granted, it is not always practical -- especially when deadlines loom.  However, as we employ the knowledge worker, it is incumbent upon us in leadership roles to ensure that moments of chaos are permitted (and encouraged when it makes sense).  Chaos is the catalyst for the "happy accident."  As with Ford, just because you've found a good process, that doesn't excuse your resistance to seeking out a better one.

If you're not sure where to begin, here are some starter assignments for the leader at work:

• Mix up your teams.  Move people around and commit to "ride along" work.  You never know where one piece of institutional knowledge within one group could be of benefit to another.
• Pass the challenging assignments around.  Every team has its "rock stars" or "up-and-comers."  Don't always rely on the same set of people; you're more likely to always get the same solutions.
• Personal projects.  All projects experience points of drudgery.  Ensure that, during those times, individuals have side projects which require very little time but provide much-needed mental invigoration.
• Get out of the office.  Inspiration is a beautiful thing.

These are all incredibly difficult to accomplish or get approved.  They fly in the face of traditional management practices.  They "break" processes.  And that's kinda the point.  You can't rebuild something to be better unless you're willing to break it down.  Most leaders will resist the risk -- I know I have at times.  But, in a creative environment, this is a philosophy well worth considering.

Consider some Chaos... even if you're cautious to embrace it.

Focus on the Fulcrum

I needed to return from my too-long hiatus from writing before the end of July.  Historically, I tend to take an extended break after the post-GDC writing deluge.  Couple that with changes at my job, and my writing motivation took a hit this past month.

Anyway, I wanted to keep this post short and simply talk about the fulcrum.  I'm going to assume that readers are fully aware of this simple physics/engineering concept.  If not, all you need to know is that the "lever and fulcrum" is a means by which effort is used to lift proportionally greater loads than is possible through the direct application of effort/force on the load itself.  It is also an apt analogy.

 As a leader, you are constantly faced with seemingly binary decisions, or weighing factors.  Here to, the lever and fulcrum diagram shows how much effort (man-hours, headcount, overtime) is required to raise the load (scope, quality).  The fallacy lie in the fact that too many people focus only on the effort and load.

If you work in this industry, you are going to find yourself in a meeting where you are trying to find a load balance; look especially for those meetings where none of the solutions look appealing.  It could be any of these topics:

• Outsourcing to meet production targets
• Overtime to hit milestone deliverables
• Additional headcount to backfill against potential attrition.

Sometimes the load balancing does make sense.  Sometimes it's the only reasonable solution.  Regardless, I challenge each of you to focus on the fulcrum.  By moving the fulcrum, the load can be lifted higher or faster through the application of equal or lesser effort.

WARNING:  When moving the fulcrum, do NOT then also increase the load (scope, quality expectations, shorter milestone, etc.). That is what we, in the industry, call: "screwing the team."

So, how do you move the fulcrum?

First, accept that the electing to move the fulcrum is a long-term play.  When you don't have time, and most teams assume they don't even when they do,  moving the fulcrum seems unreasonable.  The pay out will take time, and the degree to which it pays out is not guaranteed.

Second, consistent advocacy requires you to understand that moving the fulcrum always pays off.  Yes, that is in direct opposition to the previous sentence.  Here is why.  Moving the fulcrum is a strategic play and may have little to no immediate tactical benefit.  The benefit may not be truly realized until some future project.  However, the effort invested in simply trying to move the fulcrum, will bring greater understanding to why the load balance problem exists in the first place.  Also, if you do not try to move the fulcrum, you will perpetually be stuck trying to balance the load -- and you won't know why.

Third, conscientiously select what type of fulcrum you're going to move.  There is more than one and it must be used to address the most significant load-balance issue.  I can't say I'd recommend trying lots of different fulcrums at once.  Regardless, here are some fulcrums to consider moving the next time you face difficult load-balance issues.

• Training / Job Enrichment - diversify staff talent, bring new insights to the problem, employee retention and engagement
• Internships - fresh talent, new development approaches
• Tool Improvements / Tech Art expansion - improve the development environment, allow for faster iteration
• Team mobility - shift staff between projects in the middle of development rather than only at the end
• GTFO of the office - stop staring at the problem.  get away from it so you can think about it again.  This isn't a fulcrum at all.  This is how you start to figure out whether you need one.

Focusing on the fulcrum is hard.  The faster a team is moving, the more difficult it is to focus.  You can't see the forest when you spend all day staring at trees. To mix metaphors and butcher them both at the same time: Don't stop chopping wood to sharpen your axe.  Stop chopping wood so you can invent the fucking chainsaw, instead.

 Fulcrum, baby!

Metronomes & Analogy

Check out this video.

For a full run-down of what's happening and another larger example, check out this article on NPR.

The Little Metronome That Wouldn't

Those who've known me for any length of time, know that I like analogies.  Particularly bad ones.  However, breaking down complex ideas or systems by comparing their relationships to other (usually simpler) observable  systems yields surprising results.  It forces the mind into a state where it questions relationships and promotes free-form thinking.

I had a similar experience when watching this video.  How does it relate to leadership?

• One viewer could interpret the metronomes eventually synchronicity as a strong analogy for leadership.  The leader could be represented in the flexibility of the surface, allowing each member of the team to find a rhythm that suits the goal/objective.
• Another viewer could interpret the exact opposite.  They could easily view this as micromanagement.  Has each metronomes individuality been crushed?  Have they been forced into synchronicity rather than being allowed to maintain their own rhythm?

For my part, I think both judgments are fair.  This is what we call a "sucker's choice."  A strong leader does not simply choose between A & B.  The strong leader recognizes the circumstances that are most effective for the individual, team or project and then weighs their choices.

Sometimes a consistent cadence is required.

Sometimes a more chaotic structure will yield the best results.

In light of the video above, it appears that timing is everything.

Creative Reading

Inspiration is a prime / consistent pursuit of every creative individual.  I normally reserve this space (this blog) for my own mental gymnastics.  However, there are also occasions where I simply want to point out what others have done -- especially when they communicate so much better than I.

While reading both of these books, I recognized that tthey represent a lot of key ideas and questions that all creatives face in their work.  Everyone.  Aspiring professionals and veterans alike.  I wanted to recommend these books, not only for the brilliant ideas they communicate, but also for the moments of mental clarity that they can provide.

We are frequently so deep in our work that we fail to pull back and appreciate the creative process itself.  Too frequently, the work itself becomes the process, the means by which to do more work.  As an alternative, these books offer a chance to look at your creativity, your process and then allow those elements to influence your work.

Then again, I realize that not every creative individual enjoys reading.  For those who fit this category, just check out this video.  It's old, but still just as brilliant.