A Better Yahtzee Mousetrap

I am in awe of the game called Yahtzee Free for All (by Hasbro). It's a fresh take and successful line extension of a decades-old brand, and it's perhaps the best example of consumer packaging I have ever seen.

Yahtzee has always been a fun game...but let's face it, it was not interactive. All of the strategy and luck took place in your little scorecard. So you were doing something that you could do alone, but doing it in the presence of others...hmmmm.

BUT! Yahtzee Free For All has a great spin: you roll your dice (3 rolls as in the original) to earn cards based on the traditional combinations, but when you are successful you put the card in your "home" slot for one full round of turns. The other plays can steal your card by bettering your combination (e.g., if you had three 3's on a 3 card, they could roll four 3's; if you had a full house of three 1's and two fives (13 dice points) they could beat it with three 4's and two 3's (18 dice points).) When play makes it back to your turn, you get to "bank" the card, if it's not been stolen, and try for more.

There's more to it, of course....but the bottom-line is it's an interactive and slightly cutthroat way to enliven Yahtzee -- and it's faster pace than the traditional game. So, as an avid gamester, I like it!

As a MARKETER, I was blown away by how carefully the packaging was thought out. It's hard to explain how cleverly this game is designed.

First of all, the box bottom turns into the board (folding out in to a 6 player shape (sort of like a flower unfolding). Each players petal (if you will) has a place to display their final roll of dice and their home card. The chips (used to increase point value of cards if player has an unsuccessful turn) have a clever ripple design that makes them very easy to stack and less likely to scatter. The instruction booklet is shaped like a 2D die (which makes it 6 sided), and that also opens like a flower. The box cover is felted on the inside to use as a rolling surface...everything you touch is thoughtful and streamlined.

Even if you don't like games, check this out as an excellent example of taking even the simplest element to a clean, logic, and compelling execution. An inspirational idea for any marketing campaign or deliverable. : )

Is it them? Is it me? It's you.

A friend and colleague whom I respect recently said that he could had never had success in a situation where he delegated an outcome and let the delegatee determine how to achieve it.

Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.

Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.

Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.

But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?

I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.

I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"

This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.

I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.

1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.

2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.

3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.

4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?

5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.

None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it is simple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.

Hope Springs External

I have never really cared for the word "hope."

If you ask someone, "Can you pick me up at 7?" and they reply "I hope so," how confident do you feel about that ride? If someone tells you "I hope I don't have a cold," do you really want to share her latte?

The Obama campaign incorporated "hope" into much of its monologue....and I think it caught people's attention because it hit a nerve, a longing for something better, something different. Like the word "change," "hope" is a nebulous concept that for many people, sits out there somewhere. Hey, cool, I can "hope" for "change" ...and never step up to do what I need to do to get there.

Hope won't help you pass a test. Hope won't pay the rent. Hope won't build your muscles. Hope won't let you play a concerto. Hope won't cure cancer. Hope won't bring in the mail.

Work. Effort. Vision. Passion. Trust. Love. Action. Perseverence. Put these in your arsenal, and you will find your way to any goal.

Alexander Pope said "hope springs eternal"... I think for most of the world hope springs EXTERNAL. If you expect your hope to come from out there, then it is passive and weak.

Turn it around. Make it a verb not a noun.....we don't need to "have" hope, we need to "DO" hope --- with action and effort.

"If we continue to pursue hope then we had best become a producer of it, rather than a consumer of it. Let it be an offer rather than a demand. Let us offer hope to our leaders, since we create them, because they need all the support they can get."

- Peter Block, The Answer to How is Yes

Attempt an Iron Cross on the Curtains

Most of the time and for most skills, people seem pretty willing to accurately gauge their own skill level. I mean, very few people watch the Olympic gymnasts and say, "oh yeah, I could do that -- watch I'll show you!" and attempt an Iron Cross from the living room curtains. (right?)

We watch open-mouthed as these talented athletes in dozens of categories seem to defy gravity and control their bodies and minds in ways most of us can't even imagine.

Same thing is true in other categories --- If you don't know how to cook, you don't sign up to cater your (soon-to-be-former) best friends' daughter's wedding. If you can't balance your own checkbook, you don't offer to help your friend prepare for his tax audit. We know where are skills are, and we are pretty honest in reporting them to others.

Except....you knew there was an "except" coming, didn't you?

Except for driving - I think 100% of Americans think they have above-average driving skills. And at least 20% think they are extraordinarily talented. And it gets them into trouble. They take chances they shouldn't and are usually oblivious to the wake of dangerous maneuvers and annoyed responses their idiocy leaves behind. When they eventually cause an accident, I think they are genuinely surprised----they never understood all the hundreds of times they were almost in an accident and the statistical inevitability of this one.

Except for singing - this one's not as pervasive; there are a huge group of people who will refuse to sing (and with some we should be grateful for the choice...but with others, it's sad they've had the joy of singing taken away from them by some negative voice in the past). BUT, and one night of American Idol auditions will prove this observations: there are many many people who think they are world-class singers. Not only are the absolutely sure of their own skill, they think they are above all feedback and critique. Of course, the irony there is that truly skills performers (in any arena) relish feedback as the path to improvement, not matter how hard it is to hear. So the very act of defiantly refusing criticism is a marker for inflated self-value of a skill.

We know how to do something fairly well, and we do it.
We know we don't have skill, and wisely don't attempt it.
We THINK we have great skill, and we act like idiots.

So where do computer skills fall in this?

Many people seem to want to classify really learning and using a computer well as something they cannot do today and don't want to learn how to do -- like high diving or sky diving. In today's world, however, choice or circumstance forces them to use the computer frequently -- "I know just enough to be dangerous" is a common refrain...and they punch the keys and click the mouse, but don't seem to really understand...or make an effort to learn. It's a 4th category: actively rejecting increasing skill while working at the task. WHY?

I worked with a woman a long time ago who printed our beautiful spreadsheets for meetings. One day I got the electronic version and found that all the data was hard-coded. There was not one calculation in the spreadsheet--she had done it all on a calculator and typed it into Excel. Even after I showed her how to use Excel for this task (something would have saved hours every week), she refused to use it. She just "wasn't comfortable."

I don't know how to respond to the juxtaposition of acknowledge lack of skill, on-going use of the tool, and unwillingness to augment skill. The spreadsheet case was extreme, but by no means unique.

I think the key to maintaining this attitude is a rationalization that anyone who's good at computers has an unfair natural advantage... like some freakishly supple gymnast, chess savant, or a 7' tall basketball star. How can you be expected to compete with that? So, throw up your hands, roll your eyes, and keep banging on the keys and talking about how "it" does things to mess you up or "it" won't let you do something.

I know next to nothing about true computer skills: actually developing software or working with hardware. I would never attempt either, without a serious investment in training.

I do know a lot about using applications. And I've worked hard to increase my knowledge and skill as new tools become available. Yes, I've actually read the manual.

At the same time, I agree: Natural talent or tendency plays a role. Computers just make more sense to some of us than to others. But, and this is critical....90% of what I know about computers, I learned by playing around and seeing what happened---click the mouse and pushing the buttons just like those say they don't really understand...but the secret is, I then PAY ATTENTION to how things work or didn't work.

I learn and adjust...just like you do with any skill.

I guess my point is: if you are a person who routine throws up your hands at computers and rolls your eyes at the "nerd" who understand them....I challenge you to think about other parts of your life where you have strong skills:

How did you get them? How do you maintain them?

You built them over time. You practice them regularly. You use feedback (from others, from the universe) to identify where to focus your energy to improve.

Let's remove the rationalization that you're just not computer-oriented.
It's a skill. You've learned many before; this one is no different.

Be willing to work past the frustration point -- that's where learning occurs!
You have to go through it; stopping short will never get to the destination.

Take down the wall that you "can't."
I know you. You can.